Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Graham Nash song

sorry if i upset the ppls of wiki, (thanks to HiLo48 for directing me here) I am unsure why a song about the alleged file leaker of wiki leaks, Bradley Manning, would be seen as unneccessary. but to make my arguement, the song is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD0t4gNGx-8 and if you needed additional confirmation the song exists and is about Manning you can find it at Nash's site http://grahamnash.com/almost-gone hope this clears everything up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.70.190 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

linking to Nash's site is a be better source than linking to youtube. It's Nash statement/song, not youtubes. Belorn (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

i fail to see the noteriaty of a Graham Nash song at this point. If it was referenced in reliable media and perhaps if it was popular or on the Billboard charts, that might make a difference, otherwise its just a side show attraction. Not yet. Bevinbell 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Ellsberg

I think this article should talk pretty extensively about Daniel Ellsberg. The Bradley Manning case has many parallels to the Ellsberg case. Although Ellsberg worked for the RAND corporation and was not really in the military, both Manning and Ellsberg released secret information to the media(I believe wikileaks part of the "alternative" news media)which those in high position in the military establishment and/or government wanted secret. There is dispute about the level of classification or sensitivity of the information(see Glenn Greenwald)that Manning revealed. But both faced consequences as a result of their actions, although Ellsberg faced legal consequences as well as illegal activities by the Nixon administration, whereas Manning faces legal consequences. Further the mainstream meduia was more sympathetic to Ellsberg in 1971 than to Manning in 2012.And the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the New York Times to publish the documents in 1971. Anyway, I think there is relevance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonErber (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance in infobox

The topic of Manning's allegiance is certainly a provocative one. He's been charged with aiding the enemy. In war this charge is serious -- it carries the death penalty. So keeping the line "Allegiance" in the infobox is sure to invite vandalism. E.g., it can only service as a bone of contention for those who have said "traitor" in previous edits. I wish there was simply a line for 'country' so that we could say "United States"; but we do have "United States Army", his Iraq unit, his rank, and the fact that he is still enlisted in the Army and he's authorized to wear the National Defense Service Medal make it clear that he is an American soldier. We do not loose any encyclopedic quality by leaving "Allegiance" out of the box. (At least for now. If he's found innocent then re-inserting Allegiance would certainly be proper.) --S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The way to deal with vandalism is with protection/user bans, not removing verifiable content because it's controversial. There is also a direct guideline in how to deal with matters like this in WP:FUTURE (#4), but simply, let's focus on what is verifiable now and later edit if his allegiance or military status change. So, if other biographies of living persons that are in the military has an Allegiance field, we should have one here to be consistent. Belorn (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is not one of WP:V. Rather, it's one of WP:BURDEN. Comparing this bio to others, such as Omar Bradley, and saying 'look, they have the allegiance field' does not help. It is those bios of military people convicted of/charged with aiding the enemy (who are very few) that are the relevant comparisons. (See, for example, Glenn Michael Souther.) Indeed, are we able to verify if Manning has allegiance one way or the other? Some people might say "Look, we can verify that Manning has been nominated for the Peace Prize two times. His allegiance is to the Cause of Peace. Put that into the infobox!" See how including this field is problematic? Including it and putting down USA -- or anything else -- is POV. – S. Rich (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)14:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Srich is right. This is best left off just as it is in the Nidal Malik Hasan article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I swapped the military infobox for a generic one, so that we can control things like width and font size locally. [1] In the edit summary I wrote that there was no content change, but I forgot that I had removed the National Defense Service Medal. I assume this is something given to everyone who served in Iraq, but do we know for sure that it was awarded to Manning? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a photo of Manning wearing the NDSM. (As per regulations, it is presented to military personnel who serve during different time frames, not just in Iraq.) Since he is wearing it, it must have been awarded. Does that suffice?--S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you're certain about that I'll restore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain. See: [2]. Thanks (truly) for restoring.--S. Rich (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a photo of Manning, taken outdoors during a prisoner transfer before/after a judicial proceeding, in which he is wearing his service uniform here. In the picture, he is wearing an Army Service Ribbon, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, and the Army's Overseas Service Ribbon (which he is actually wearing out of order at top left; it should be positioned on the bottom row just to the right of the Army Service Ribbon). So Manning actually has several more ribbons than just the NDSM. However, I don't think it's really worthwhile to list out these items in the main infobox at the top of the article because none of them are actually personal "awards" (such as an achievement medal, a commendation medal, etc). They are all routine service ribbons and service medals, which one would expect a soldier to automatically receive were they to deploy to theater for a tour during wartime. I think it would be worthwhile to list these service medals and ribbons somewhere in the body of the text (perhaps in the "Enlistment in the U.S. Army and deployment to Iraq" section?), while omitting them in the infobox entirely to avoid clutter. What do others think? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice photo. (If available it should be used in the article.) I hope the medals & ribbons can be listed in the article. As for having them "awarded", the Purple Heart is presented automatically (rather than "earned") in the same sense as the others. Including them will give credit to Manning for enlisting and going down range (if only to the FOB), while adding a bit of subtle irony to the article.--S. Rich (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Manning's identity as female clearly stands as fact, not opinion, and it can be inferred by her comment "i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy" that, at the very least, she should not be referred to as male, i.e. with masculine pronouns. Neutral pronouns could still be acceptable but masculine pronouns are plainly incorrect and should be abandoned. The referencing of trans people by the gender they were assigned at birth in the media is cissexist and disrespectful; deciding not to change the article is picking a side, not remaining neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.245.137 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Where a source uses a specific gender, it is not up to us to alter it. Where an established manual of style, for example, uses a gender for a "non-op" transsexual, it is ot up to us to alter it. And where the newspapers etc. uniformly use a pronoun, it is improper for us to assert that we "know" better. Collect (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

NYT and other sources uniformly refer to "he" and it is not up to Wikipedia to "know" anything not in reliable sources, and most especially not to alter what the reliable sources say and how they say it. Collect (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And more to the point, the only source that seems to be cited here for Manning identifying as female seems to be ABC News [3]. Except that it doesn't. It states that Manning's defense attorneys have suggested that "confusion over his gender identity" may be of relevance to the allegations. Since when has being 'confused' (or having your lawyer say you are confused) an assertion of anything other than confusion? Or do we actually have a source which quotes Manning on the issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reliable source for determining someone's gender and pronouns is that person. I already quoted Manning making it extremely clear that she - at the very least - does not want to be referred to as male, and she apparently talked to a gender counselor before wikileaks came into the picture. News reporting on trans people tends to be disrespectful and inaccurate. That doesn't make wikipedia articles obligated to give inaccurate information. 71.255.245.137 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does Manning say this? the (partial) quote you cite says nothing of the sort - you are merely guessing as to its meaning. Wikipedia doesn't use guesswork for sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Numerous news sources have cited Manning talking to a gender counselor in the United States while on duty. Here's one that even has an interview with said counselor. There's even an excerpt of a chatlog between Adrian Lamo and Manning on Wired where Manning reveals having "questioned my gender for several years", was "waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged… and figure out how on earth im going to transition", and the famous quote that has so often been cited in the article pops up when Manning says that "i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…". These logs were also found on Manning's computer. Do with that what you will, but these quotes exist and these are things Manning has said and done. At this point it feels negligent and downright sloppy to persist in incorrectly addressing Manning as a male, given her above-stated express wishes to the contrary. Principalitica (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from the NYmag source: "He’d even begun to explore switching his gender, chatting with a counselor about the steps a person takes to transition from male to female", and the Chat logs (via Wired) seem to inidcate tha manning was contemplating transitioning. Neither can be read as as a wish by Manning to be at present identified as female. And the chat logs record a private conversation, not a public statement. Manning has made no public statement about wishing to be identified as female. Until he does, his private conversations about his sexuality are none of our business. We are in no position whatsoever to determine how seriously Manning was considering transitioning, and have no right to assume anything in regard to his sexuality that he has not publicly discussed. As it stands, the article currently has a small section (based on the ABC article), which suggests that 'gender identity disorder' may be a factor brought up in his defense. I think that this is quite sufficient to cover what we know, without engaging in second-guessing and tabloid speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The ""i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…" statement pretty heavily implies that Manning does not want to be publicly identified as male. DoRD, this isn't guesswork, it's extremely simple logic.71.255.245.137 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Extremely simple logic", based on you reading into it what you want to. This was in any case, a private conversation. We aren't going to use that as a source for an assertion that Manning wants to be identified as a woman, end of story. This is not a court of law. We do not 'determine' other people's sexuality by 'logic' based on a particular interpretation of a word used in private conversation by a person clearly under a great deal of stress: what does Manning say next? "i’ve totally lost my mind… i make no sense… the CPU is not made for this motherboard…". One could use 'simple logic' to argue that Manning wanted to be identified as a computer, based on that remark... ;-) And note that Manning is actually identifying himself 'as a boy' at this point. If and when Manning decides to transition, and if and when he makes this public, we can of course take it into consideration. For now Wikipedia policy (and common sense, and basic respect for the rights of individuals not to have every word of an intimate private conversation picked over in public by all-comers) says that since he is he until s/he publicly states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Extremely simple logic based on an understanding of gender identity and basic respect. There is no ambiguity that Manning wishes not to be referred to as male whether the statement was private or not, and she is the only reliable source for that information. There is no excuse for failing to respect that. Anything else, and especially discounting her own account of her identity (and referring to past pictures of oneself as a gender is not the same as identifying oneself as that gender), is essentially cissexist. You are arguing to have an anti-trans bias built into this article. This has nothing to do with sexuality, we are not determining her sexuality, we are not determining her gender identity, we are relying on her account of her own gender identity stated multiple times and her own account of how she wants to be referred to as, which are the only reliable sources of those pieces of information. 71.255.245.137 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. You are engaging in guesswork, soapboxing, and complete bullshit. You obviously don't give a damn about Manning, but are here to push your own agenda. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. We have explained our policy, repeatedly. You don't have to like it, but you aren't going to get it changed by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bias. Find somewhere else for your campaigning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Referring to a female-identified person by anything other than female pronouns is incorrect. Her identity is clearly not male. You are pushing to have this article be inaccurate and ignoring everyone else and insulting us for making our case. As an encyclopaedic source this article has an obligation to actually be accurate.71.255.245.137 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 71.255, you might want to read our policy about guesswork. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

71.255.245.137 -- Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RGW. Please follow WP:GUIDELINES.--S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The article as it stands is not correct, that's the thing that needs to be righted.71.255.245.137 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your perception of what Wikipedia is for is wrong, that's the thing that needs to be righted. Take your soapbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

71.255.245.13: Please take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. You want to say "Breanna" because you believe this is the truth. But WP is more concerned with WP:V. In Manning's case, we need WP:RS that say s/he is transgendered. (And when we find such material, we will put it in the article.) But we cannot take our own opinions and inject them into the article. Please note we have lots of articles about transgendering. So it is not an issue of whether WP or its editors are anti-homosexual, anti-transgender, or anti-whatever. We seek to edit without WP:POV. So please WP:COOL and let the article evolve -- which it will do as we learn more.--S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shall we really state, not what people actually are, but what they call themself? If Barack Obama suddenly asserts that he is in fact a Red Fox, shall we change his article to say he is not at human but a fox? If Vladimir Putin says he is an alien, shall his article define him as an alien? Shouln't we wait until the majority of the reliable sources states thet he really are a red fox/alien? SatenikTamar (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be enough that a single reliable source address the issue directly. majority rules for sources is only a issues if the subject is disputed, in which WP:due become important. as it stands now, we have only a primary source claim, and thus we need to be patient and careful before doing any major changes to the article. Belorn (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it will take more than one reliable source to cause a shift in pronoun usage. We would be looking for prevalence used in multiple sources. A single source would be undue weight.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The choice of pronoun usage is an indirect support as they do not talk directly about the matter of Mannings sex, so theoretical only a single reliable source addressing the issue directly should be enough and not conflicting with undue weight. The reason I dont support a change right now is that Mannings comment is a primary source, and do not pass the firm requirements of high quality sources needed to do extensive changes like the one suggested. The best choice right now is to wait and see if reliable sources pick this up and makes a direct statement about it. To reiterate, this is a BLP, high quality sources with direct support of claims is the foundation we build on. Majority changes in the shift of pronoun might not be strictly needed, but in practical sense we need at least one third-party independent source that is carefully judged to be reliable for the statement being made. We are not there yet, and thus should let this topic rest. Belorn (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have something here which cannot go into the article since it's original research. I've been in contact with Courage To Resist over their campaign to support Manning, and they told me "Early on we asked PFC Manning (via family and friends) what name he'd prefer the campaign to use and we were told Brad or Bradley Manning. The chat logs which discussed questions about gender weren’t intended to be made public, but if at any point PFC Manning wants to change how we refer to him, we’ll respect his wishes.". I believe, and have believed throughout this heated exchange, that referring to Manning by female pronouns would be inappropriate without solid evidence; I hope the above quotation goes some way to convince those arguing above that we can confidently state that Manning is female. I believe also we ought reduce the use of gendered language in the article, since this will do nothing to impair clarity or change any information; I can see no objections to that above.

I am, however, strongly dismayed at the Wikipedian attitude to reporting of gender displayed. The MSM across the world is uniformly unreliable when dealing with transgendered individuals and we mustn't give big-name publications undue weight. As an example of poor reporting regard Trans Media Watch's publication here http://www.transmediawatch.org/guidance_keira.html. 7daysahead (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your private communications go nowhere at all in convincing anyone that we should abandon the principle of using published reliable sources. Your WP:OR does not have any weight whatsoever in affecting Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"I hope the above quotation goes some way to convince those arguing above that we can confidently state that Manning is female." -- You must have miswritten that, right? If anything, it convinces that he prefers the male identity. As it is written, you have contradicted yourself.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are reading the wrong emphasis. With bracketing: "I hope the above quotation goes some way to convince (those arguing above that we can confidently state that Manning is female)." i.e. those such as 71.255.245.137 or RedChiron. I am further unimpressed that in trying to build consensus by addressing those who think the wiki ought refer to Manning as female, I was immediately rudely attacked by those who think he is male. Collect, be civil. This discussion is heated enough as it is. My point stands: The mainstream media is not a reliable source for people's gender. 7daysahead (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's useful to consider what we would do if Manning were of ambiguous status in other ways. Suppose there exists Bob. Bob is popularly thought of as an Athiest, but there are secondary sources quoting Bob saying that he felt he might be a Theist. However he hasn't made any public statements to that effect. It would clearly be wrong if the article said "Bob -- who is a Theist -- went to the shops", "Bob -- who is a Theist -- ate lunch", because Bob hasn't publically avowed that belief; he has effectively been overheard saying so but we have no reasonable way to measure how serious he was, how strong his belief was, or how his beliefs may have changed since. However, considering there's at least some doubt about the matter I don't think we should write "Bob -- who is an Atheist -- went to the shops" and similar either, because we've got weak secondary evidence that the public perception might be wrong, so the safest position is to say neither thing. Mentions should just say "Bob," without stating he's either an Atheist or a Theist, and the article should probably say somewhere "Bob is well known as an Atheist, though he has been overheard in private conversation suggesting otherwise (source) (source)". To extend this to deal with the mainstream media complaint, even if the Washington Post included the words "Bob, an Atheist," this wouldn't convince us that there is no doubt and so we should echo their statement; we would call that either a shorthand, an omission, or an editorial position (that they don't believe in his alleged Theism). In either case we wouldn't be right to repeat their claim as our own, but we might reasonably report that they claimed it.

The problem with gender is of course the pronouns, each use of which might as well be replaced by "Manning, who is a man," or "Manning, who is a woman," causing the same problems as our overzealous assertions about Bob's religion or lack thereof -- we're supporting one view or the other.

TLDR: don't use 'he' or 'she,' because both assert something we have evidence to believe might be false. Just use the person's name ("Manning" doesn't declare either way) or "they". A side note: we don't actually need any justification to de-pronoun any article, because doing so makes no claim. I could go edit Stephen Fry now and replace every "he" with "Stephen," "Fry," or "they," without claiming anything about Stephen; the only reasons not to would be churn and potential negative impact on clarity, both of which are pretty minor concerns compared to avoiding an unwarranted, potentially dubious claim.

TLDR TLDR: just remove gendered pronouns, which should be uncontroversial.

Oh and for full transparency: I should mention that my attention was drawn here by User:7daysahead (though I am not her :)) Chris Smowton (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, so I since read 7days' draft of a neutral article, and I agree with people below that noted it was a bit of an awkward formulation. So, here's a suggestion for a low-effort modification that makes the situation absolutely clear.

As I see it the problem is that 'he', 'him' and 'his' could be (and commonly are) read as an absolute assertion of the subject's gender, whereas what we mean here is what the Manual of Style says: the subject's last publically identified gender was male. So, let's just be totally clear about that:

I suggest adding a tag at the top of the page that reads as follows: "This article uses male pronouns (he, him, his) to refer to the subject according to their last publically asserted gender identity (link the MoS?). However Wikipedia explicitly does not assert a definitive gender identity for the subject; see Section-GID (link) for further information".

This could productively be made into a tag for other people living or dead whose identity is a matter of some debate and confusion, and who it might be useful to explicitly avoid labelling one way or the other whilst retaining the convenience of a ubiquitously understood pronoun. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

An unnecessary disclaimer, with unfortunate implications: Wikipedia "explicitly does not assert a definitive gender identity" for anyone. We aren't in the business of determining peoples gender identity, any more that we are in the business of asserting their ethnicity, their religious beliefs, or their favourite flavour of ice cream. The only thing we are asserting is (where such matters are relevant at all), the sources we cite make such assertions. Having a disclaimer like that on this page might very well be read as a statement that assertions on such matters on other article pages are definitive: that could be problematic, not least in that we frequently get such things wrong.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose we WP:CLOSE this discussion. (Consensus is to leave male pronouns as is.)--S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point on the unfortunate implications. Perhaps just a reminder of policy? "This article uses 'he' here according to Wikipedia's last-publically-declared policy (link)? Otherwise the risk remains that even though you shouldn't ever be asserting their identity you do so regardless by your choice of language; a mild disclaimer ensures the reader's understanding matches your intent. If you're unhappy with even that then yeah, I've said my piece, I don't oppose closing. Chris Smowton (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that adding an explicit note of Wikipedia's policy to the top of the article would assuage all of my objections to the article as it currently stands. It would also inhibit this discussion from breaking out again at a later date. 7daysahead (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note about references

There are a lot of repetitive tertiary sources in this article -- instead of using the first source, or the most detailed, the article uses sources that have copied material from other secondary sources. I'm intending over the next few days and weeks to go through these, and replace them with the key sources (either the first to report something, or the most thorough, depending on context). I'm leaving this note here in case people see me swapping refs and wonder why I'm doing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I Wish you luck, and will try to help by watching changes and see if I can contribute to the overall change. Belorn (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of Lamo and Poulsen

Collect, can you say here why you want to remove this, rather than continuing to do it over objections? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See the clear edit summaries -- only one of the people in the image is Lamo, and Manning is not in the image. Best image is one of Lamo separately, as the others in the image are not specifically relevant to the section. Simple - using an irrelevant image is worse than no image at all. Can anyone find an image of Lamo to illustrate a section about Lamos? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Mitnick is not relevant here. Poulsen is marginal at best here. Collect (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is about Lamo and Poulsen; indeed that relationship is key to at least some of what transpired, according to the sources. Please don't remove this again without consensus, Collect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And why insist on Mitnick being in it? Section title only mentions "Lamo" so I fail to see why you are so insistent on having an unrelated person depicted in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Because we can't show Lamo and Poulsen together otherwise, and Mitnick is a famous hacker too. The caption can be rewritten to make clear he is not involved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Informal request for other opinions:

Is an image of Lamo, Mitnick and Poulsen the proper image for the section entitled Chats with Adrian Lamo? Is an image of Lamo alone a proper image for that section? Collect's and SlimVirgin's positions are stated above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The image is important because it shows Lamo and Poulsen together in 2001. Several reliable sources (including the story's key sources such as Glenn Greenwald) have pointed to the Lamo-Poulsen relationship as central to what occurred. One member of the American hacker community (Manning) confided about leaked material to a second (Lamo), who told a third (Poulsen, by then a reporter), who published the story after the FBI had been informed by Lamo and had made an arrest.

  Also, it was on the day that Poulsen profiled Lamo in Wired, describing how Lamo had been hospitalized, that Manning made contact with Lamo.

  Finally, there was a further concern that only part of the chat log was initially published, a decision Poulsen did not make alone, but which he was part of. So he is definitely part of the story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I had thunk you had already opined on this? And Mitnick is where in the tale? Guess not. Collect (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for effectively removing Mitnick from an article in which he had no place - photos which associate people together may well be misinterpreted by readers. Collect (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Just noting here for others that I've uploaded a version with the third person's face pixellated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I definitely think we should use the unblurred version, with a clear description. Wikipedia would look terrible if we started to blur images like this. SatenikTamar (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The third person was not involved in this situation, so Collect was right to point out that there was a problem. Pixellating his face solves that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gender neutral version of this article - request for help

The discussion above is going nowhere - fast. I think that consensus can be built around a page which avoids gendering Manning except where necessary; I think further that it will be easier to build this consensus if it can be demonstrated that such a page would be just as informative and readable as the page we currently have.

However, I am currently writing my PhD thesis and do not have the time or energy to do this myself; this page is huge. Anyone who agrees that having a gender-neutral example page would be constructive to the discussion above please feel free to edit my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:7daysahead/sandbox); I've made a start on the first few sections. If you do help, please aim for as lucid a style as you are able to produce, and avoid complex grammatical constructions.

If you think that this page will be useless, you need do nothing; it will affect the discussion above and you may respond to it there. Please do not infect this conversation with the conversation above. 7daysahead (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Useless? Nope - just contrary to WP:V, WP:BLP, and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Get a strong RS souce and then try again on the talk page for any such massive edit project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it would be useless too. Any convoluted grammar to avoid 'gendering' would soon get reverted by those who prefer articles to be written for clarity, rather than for reasons based on a questionable premise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi 7daysahead, I agree with you that the gender status is problematic. It seems clear that Manning wanted to transition. The problem is that we don't have a public statement from him to that effect; the statements we do have from him were leaked. He thought those discussions were private, as was the email to his sergeant (not private from the army, but not public either). If he were to make a statement that he was living as a woman, or that he wanted to but was being prevented, that would change things. But as it stands, we don't know what his current wishes are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that is precisely my point. Give me a good source saying that Manning is male (or female) and I will spin on a dime to agree with you. We do not know Manning's wishes and we have no good sources, given the track record of the media in mishandling stories about transgendered people. I'll say that again: There are no good sources for this situation. Read the Trans Media Watch link I posted above. Reducing the number of pronouns used is the only sensible way forward. 7daysahead (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We can't write an article without pronouns (Manning this and Manning that); I've looked at your page, and bravo for trying, but it won't work -- it will look contrived and it'll be hard to read. There are gender-neutral pronouns, but they're also contrived, and pointless because we call him Bradley and have a photograph of him as a man. So we have to choose between he or she, and as things stand we're forced to go with "he". We know that Manning did identify publicly as a man, because he joined the army as one, but we have no evidence that he ever publicly identified as a woman. That's the thing we need.

Also, I saw that his lawyers recently called Breanna a "female alter-ego," which leaves the situation ambiguous, almost as though they were trying to make it less central to his identity than it would be if he were transitioning. That's just my guess, but the point is the lawyers had the opportunity during the hearing, as did he, to say he wants to be regarded as a woman, and they didn't take it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Chat Logs also have Manning saying "i already got myself into minor trouble, revealing my uncertainty over my gender identity…", I think it is stretching things a little to assume that he/she had actually reached any sort of decision anyway. But this is rather beside the point, as we can't take a single private conversation (which Manning presumably assumed would remain private) as a public statement. As SlimVirgin says, Manning joined the army as a man, and from his account, only began even considering transitioning relatively recently. It would seem totally undue to take a single source, a private conversation where he also talks of "uncertainty", as any sort of indication that, at present, Manning wishes to be identified as a woman. I have doubts about the ethics of even quoting Manning's private conversations in this biography - Manning isn't notable as for his/her gender identity, but for his actions in regards to Wikileaks. Without a very good justification, we shouldn't be reporting private conversations about such personal issues at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Manning is held at the JRCF and has access to the general population. I see no indication that they have a female section, much less female prisoners. See: [4]. (The article has been written with PC gender-neutral language.) As female inmates would not be mixed into any confinement facility population, it is reasonable to assume that he remains officially classified as male. (Some of the staff, indeed, the facility commander, are female.) The military is not going to fund or provide any gender transformation (sex-change) treatment (to any service member) as such treatment is not service-connected. As Manning is likely to remain in custody for a loooong time, such treatment will have to be deferred until release. And as aiding the enemy can draw life imprisonment as the penalty, Manning may never get to have a sex-change operation (if that is the ultimate goal). I would not hold my breath -- the issue was brought up as a possible defense or mitigating factor for trial. Something like "I was so mixed up with my gender identity issues I was suffering from gender-identity disorder which means I had diminished capacity to understand the criminal culpability of the acts I did, so please let me go." In trial he'd have to present expert witness testimony to substantiate such a defense. So if he does present such a defense we can then address the pronoun. What would the prosecution do with such a defense? Interesting question. First they'd say he does not have GID, and then they'd say any GID he suffered from did not diminish his capacity to distinguish right from wrong. So if the court-martial were to acquit Manning because of GID, that would be quite astonishing, and more than sufficient justification to change the pronoun usage.--S. Rich (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The reason we can't find reliable sources, is that there has not been a public statement from Manning. If one is made, sources will exist and we can do this change without any controversy. Belorn (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is one taken up in a new section and is a continuation of one first started in December (and renewed in March). I've proposed that we WP:CLOSE the discussion in the other section. I think the consensus (for both sections) is to keep the male pronouns. With that in mind, propose we WP:CLOSE this discussion as well.--S. Rich (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

United States v. Bradley Manning

Just noting here that I've moved the above to United States v. Bradley Manning (charges), because it's just a list of the charges. I've started a stub instead at United States v. Bradley Manning that we can use to document the legal proceedings, which will stop Bradley Manning becoming bogged down by the details once the trial starts. We can focus here on summarizing the key points.

If anyone would like to expand United States v. Bradley Manning with details of the legal procedures he has faced, or will face, that would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ive moved United States v. Bradley Manning (charges) to List of charges against Bradley Manning. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Final paragraph in the lede

I propose the last paragraph in the lede be moved into the body of the article. It is impossible to adequately summarise the range of reactions is such as short paragraph, It's useless saying "some people are for and other people are against". Let's just stick to the facts in the lede and move that stuff to the body. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be rewriting that paragraph over the next few days, but we do need a final paragraph in the lead about the reaction and impact. I'm currently trying to prepare the article for GA status and thereafter for FAC, so that kind of paragraph in the lead would definitely be required, for the latter in particular. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the article and it obviously needs improvements so I fully support your attempts to continue improving the article. However, I doubt the article will meet good article status. It is very difficult to do so for biographies of living people, and basically impossible for such a controversial figure. I think the very existence of the article is dangerous, and almost the whole article assumes Bradley's guilt, because major media organisations have also been assuming his guilt. I'm am not challenging the factual accuracy of that, but given this is an ongoing court case, the very existence of the article is potentially a huge violation of the WP:BLP policy, including WP:BLP1E, but more significantly, WP:CRIME.

We don't assume his guilt, but we do assume that he did what he said he did. The issue is whether he is guilty of the particular charges, and to what extent he was legally responsible for his actions. Those are matters of law, but the basic facts are not in dispute. In addition to the chats, some excellent journalists in the United States and Europe have written extensively about him. There are several books out about him already, as well as book chapters, and a major one due out shortly. So it would be impossible for us to write an article that ignored that coverage. Thanks for your comments, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(As I said, I know these facts are not in dispute, but WP:CRIME says such detail is dangerous even when not in dispute, for many reasons, including legal ones, one of which is that any slight misreporting, either in the media or on our part, could effect the verdict of the case. The article also goes into absurd levels of detail into public speculation about personal matters like his sexual identity, and completely trivial details like his height and weight at certain point. This is because there is a lack of notable events in his life, which is one of the main reasons that WP:BLP1E exists. There should be an article for the event rather than the person to avoid such trivia and speculative psychoanalysis. Having said that, I appreciate that you have done good work on the article and, anyway, we have gotten off my original topic.)

In response to your points about "impact/reaction" paragraphs in relation to GA and FAC, you will find that most feature biographies do NOT include such a paragraph. They sometimes include a notoriety paragraph that establishes, say that William Shakespeare is considered to be one of the world's greatest writers, or that Michael Jordan is considered one of the greatest basketball players, but this is not the same as an "impact/reaction" paragraph to a single event in which the person was involved, which is never included in featured biographies. Gregcaletta (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I do take BLP issues very seriously, so your point is well taken. The issue I object to with BLPs is when someone is borderline notable, and we gather together published facts about them that no one else has gathered. But in this case, these facts have been collected already, in long articles and in books, by multiple journalists. So that issue doesn't apply. (And I can't see any way in which we could affect the verdict.) Also, the particular details are not trivial. When you read them, you can see why he acted as he did.

The bottom line is that Manning is an extremely important figure. When the history of this is written, and after everyone else has been long forgotten, the names of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning will be remembered, because they changed the world.

As for FAs and analysis, the ones I've worked on and reviewed do have analysis sections, and one is needed here more than in most. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well argued, but I think it is dangerous that the article attempts to show "why he acted as he did" because that is actually impossible to know. Some articles (including from sources that are reliable according t o Wikipedia's criteria) have tried to present the view that Manning was just bitter, lonely and desperate for friends. Others have present the view that he is just a libertarian that believes in government transparency. Either explanation "fits", if you are using a pseudo-scientific psychoanalytic approach.

I started going the the biographies of military personnel alphabetically A. E. J. Collins, Adrian Cole (RAAF officer), Alister Murdoch. I got as far as Frank McNamara (VC) with no "impact/reaction" action in the lede. It just doesn't make sense in a biography. Such paragraphs belong only in the articles for the events of the leaks themselves, since the reaction is to the leak and publication of the documents, not the the man himself. Gregcaletta (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the stuff in there at the moment is a reaction to the leaks and the publication of the leaks. This is an article about Manning so it needs to be a reaction to his arrest and imprisonment. The best way to do it is simply list notable individuals who support him and a list of notable individuals who have called for his conviction. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Manning, what he did, and what has happened to him since then. The response to his actions is obviously relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, whereas reactions to the actions of others are not relevant i.e. the publication of the leaks. Most of the reaction here are reactions to the publication, rather than reactions to his actions, arrest and subsequent treatment. Gregcaletta (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He leaked them to be published, and they were published, and he discussed their publication during the chats, and the effects of the publication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradley Manning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The following review became inactive, and a new review was started at Talk:Bradley Manning/GA2.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Criteria Good Article Status - Review Criteria Further information: WP:WIAGA A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Review Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Done The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Done There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Done The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Done The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Done Well-written: Criteria Notes Result (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Verifiable with no original research: Criteria Notes Result (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Broad in its coverage: Criteria Notes Result (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Criteria Notes Result (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Result Result Notes Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here. Discussion Please add any related discussion here. Additional Notes Before we begin the review There are some image issues to address. The portrait in the infobox and the image of Manning as a child need to have a fair use rationale and proper iformation, but i am not sure the portrait is public domain, and i dispute the use of manning as a child being needed for the fair use rational of an image the actual copyright holder is the owner of the image and OTRS permissions would be needed and some other information added to make this meet criteria for GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If this article have to be "good" it must include reference to Daniel Ellsberg case

Hi I just read and see the film about Daniel Ellsberg case(Vietnam war related). I really don't known why it is not added(for e.g. on terrorist attacks You have related Wikipedia articles too) there. Especially because american law have first-justice-all in the same way usually laws. There is not even word compared to "ellsberg" in this wikipedia article, but his situation is identifical(almost, of course we can discuss about some little or more differences) - especially - the Ellsberg used a new technology, but now used by masses - identically did Manning but in other times. And generally the so called war diary with some exceptions is just a paper on used weapons, spotted enemy like the so called 70s pentagon papers. But please don't treat me as again army only - I think You must defend Yourself, but there is a difference(a so called lawful war) - if a gangster attack You with a weapon You can defend attack, but not to attack whole neighborhood and if someone show "your version only" in newspapers You shouldn't call him a spy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradley Manning/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adjwilley (talk · contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC) I am excited to be reviewing this article, and I'll try to make it my first priority for the duration of the review. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

"Quick-fail" test

The article seems to pass the "quick-fail" test, in that it:

1. Has plenty of reliable sources, although I was surprised and a little concerned about this video being used as a source. It's not that I think PBS is unreliable, it's just I've not seen anything sourced to a video before. I'll have to check WP guidelines, but my gut is that a print source would certainly be preferable. I'm also a bit concerned with the sourcing directly to Manning's chats, Facebook posts, etc.
2. Doesn't have any glaring NPOV problems,
3. Doesn't have any cleanup banners or citation needed tags, though I may place a few myself,
4. Seems to be relatively stable,
5. Though it does concern an unfolding current event, I think things have slowed down to a point where we can continue the review.

~Adjwilley (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know whether I'm allowed to comment here; if not please feel free to remove. Just wanted to note that I've fixed the PBS video ref by adding transcripts to the two key interviews -- with the father and with a friend of Mannings (diff). Regarding sourcing material to his chats and Facebook, both have been published by secondary sources. So they are primary sources, but are widely referenced by secondary sources, and we're not using them in a way that provides an unusual analysis. It's all just descriptive, per WP:PSTS. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm happy to have you or anyone comment here. Thank you for your edits, and if I screw something up, feel free to revert and let me know what I did wrong. I agree that Primary sources can be used per WP:PSTS which you cited, however we need to be extra careful since this is a living person (WP:BLPPRIMARY). I expect we'll be talking about this more later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

I accept the fair use rationale for File:Bradley Manning in elementary school.JPG, however, I'm not quite convinced that File:Manning Billboard.jpg is tagged properly. It's a photograph of a billboard, which I believe could be considered a work of art, however the photo is licensed under the Creative Commons 2 license without any mention of the copyright status of the billboard. I'm no copyright expert, but is there someone here who has experience with this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying, but in this case both the billboard and the photograph of it were created and released by the Bradley Manning Support Campaign. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's good to know. Is there a link somewhere that could be included on the image page as proof that the billboard has been released? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a link to Flickr on the image page saying the network released the image and that they erected the billboard (article here). I could write to them to ask them for an explicit release in Wikipedia's terms of the billboard itself, but I'd very much prefer not to do that because it would sound odd. The image is on Commons and was reviewed there (I only copied it so we had a local copy) so I'm sure it's fine. The people who created it and photographed it want publicity for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied the image issue has been resolved. Thanks for your work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

Adjwilley, just noting that the article doesn't use templates, uses bundled refs (see WP:CITEBUNDLE), and tends to use short refs (Smith 2012) when the reference is used several times. There are full citations in the References section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask about the citations. I've bundled citations before, but I've never seen them bundled the way they are in this article (all citations at the end of the paragraph). It certainly makes for a pleasant read, but it makes it hard to know what is cited and what isn't. For instance, there could be a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that isn't cited to anything, and it would be very difficult to discover.

Is there any particular reason why you don't want to use citation templates in this article? They make citation maintenance so much easier, in my opinion. I've a huge fan of the short forms of Harvard citation templates (Harvtxt, etc). Anyway, I'm not saying you have to change everything, but as it is, I'm having a hard time telling the difference between what's a blog, book, newspaper, video, etc. without following the links to the actual sources (some of which are blocked by my University's firewall because of redirects or something). ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I never use templates, Adjwilley. They slow load time (considerably where there are lots of them), add clutter in edit mode, and produce an unpleasant citation style in read mode. And they cause cancer. :)

As for bundling, I make clear which ref is for which point (For A, see X). If there's anything you think isn't referenced, let me know and I'll make the footnote more explicit.

It should be easy to tell what's a book, and if there's a link even easier. If there's no link, it's a book, though some of the book pages are on Google, so in those cases I do link in the footnote, though with a page number it's almost always going to be a book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, to each his (or her) own. I haven't noticed a huge difference in loading times, even in articles with hundreds of citation templates, but I'm not going to try to force my citation style on you :-) It would be nice though to have the long citations in the References section in templates so they can be maintained by bots, etc, but again, it's not that big of a deal to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not convicted yet (BLP issue)

There are a few problems that are worrying me, and I don't know whether to label them as "neutrality" problems or what. Here's an example: The article reads,

Manning was also the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak, originally obtained by WikiLeaks, and published by The New York Times over a year later on April 24, 2011.

This bugged me at first because Manning hasn't been tried yet, and the statement seems to imply that he is absolutely guilty (which would be a serious BLP issue). When I checked the source on that, I found the following:

The Guantánamo files are among hundreds of thousands of documents US soldier Bradley Manning is accused of having turned over to the WikiLeaks website more than a year ago.

The source is much more neutral, and I think we should follow its example of not declaring guilt before the trial's over.

This, of course, is only one example, but I fear there are many others in the article. A quick search turned up these:

• "Twelve days later, he began the series of chats with Adrian Lamo in which he confessed to leaking material to WikiLeaks." (a search of the source listed only turns up the word "confess" once: "He confessed his sense of rejection to his mother.")
• "In a series of chats from May 21 until May 25/26, Manning – using the handle "bradass87" – told Lamo that he had leaked classified material."

Anyway, I think there are other problems, especially surrounding the chats, (which I think may have a WP:DUE issue as well). The problems can probably be solved by a healthy dose of WP:SAID with perhaps a couple allegeds or accuseds. More on this later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adjwilley, there is no reasonable doubt that Manning took part in those chats and that the leaks were as he described them. Even his lawyer has acknowledged this (indirectly) by addressing the issue of what harm the leaks actually did. The legal issue now is whether Manning is guilty of the particular charges -- plus the separate issue as to what the sentence should be if he is found guilty -- but the basic facts are not in dispute. It would be obtuse of us to go around writing "allegedy," "accused," "said," etc, when our readers can see clearly from our article and from others that the basic allegations are correct.

Denver Nicks (an excellent journalist who is sympathetic to Manning) has addressed precisely this issue in his Private (2012), Manning's biography, writing "Inserting the journalist's rote 'allegedly' throughout the text would, I believe, fail in its purpose to keep the question open in the mind of the reader" (p. x). So I am following that advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course he's guilty. But that's not the point. The point is that for Wikipedia's purposes, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court." (WP:BLPCRIME) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's important not to confuse the charges with the facts. The facts are not in dispute. The question is what he should be charged with and convicted of, if anything. If someone knocks a person down with a car, and this is seen by witnesses, recorded on camera, and acknowledged by the driver, it is still the case that the driver is innocent of any particular charge (driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, etc) until convicted. But the legal issue does not change the fact that he knocked a person down with a car. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this true in a verifiable sense? Are the facts not disputed? It is common for defense lawyers to say "If the court find the defendant guilty to the accusations, in the remote chance that happens, the low harm factor should mitigate the sentence". That is not a acknowledged of guilt, but rather sound legal argument in defense of his client. Its the job of a defense lawyer to argue in the defense of his client. Belorn (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The basic facts are not in dispute, but whether they will lead to a conviction is a separate question. His lawyer's position is that the government overcharged in order to pressurize Manning into giving up other people (presumably Assange, though the lawyer implied that rather than stating it). How the lawyer will handle the factual issues in court is anyone's guess (acknowledge and explain them, or leave them unacknowledged, though it would be hard to see how the latter would work). But in terms of writing this article, I've been following the lead of the best and most comprehensive of the reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When searching around, basically all large news sources use the word "accused" and "charged". The ones I checked was The guardian, bbc and abc. Is there reliable sources that makes claim of facts about Mannings acts in the events around Wikileak? Belorn (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is written quite carefully; I've been using phrases like "Manning told Lamo he was responsible for X," and "the material is thought to have included Y." If you're looking for a good source to read up about this, I recommend Denver Nicks's Private, the first major biography of Manning. It has only just been published so I don't know whether it's in libraries yet, but if you get a chance to read it, it's the best source so far. It will give you an idea of the way the journalists who have studied this case are approaching it.

A good online source is this Washington Post article. Note the way she writes – "an e-mail from Manning popped up in Sacramento on the laptop screen of Adrian Lamo," and "... Manning referred extensively to what he said he found in the networks, including the quarter-million State Department cables ..." No use of "allegedly." She also writes: "[t]he logs ... have been authenticated by Army investigators ... the investigators matched the logs on Lamo’s hard drives with logs found on Manning’s hard drive."

There comes a point in stories like this where it's clear the horse has bolted, and the aim thereafter is to write about the issues in as fair a way as possible, while acknowledging the basic facts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We should at least follow the same style that the Washington Post article does, where who makes what claims is included. If a statement is derived from the chat logs of Adrian Lamo, it should say so. The army investigator's - that is, the prosecuting side - claim that the logs are authentic should naturally also be in the article. The Washington Post article does not try to make any direct authoritative claims of what exactly happened, but rather reports what others have said. Belorn (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article does the same (more so than the Washington Post -- note how the Post writes: "an e-mail from Manning popped up in Sacramento on the laptop screen of Adrian Lamo." Not "according to Lamo, or according to army investigators, an e-mail popped up"). Our article contains a lot of in-text attribution -- Manning told Lamo, Lamo said, according to the logs, according to Greenwald, Nicks argues, the Washington Post writes, etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a Washington Post writer slipped a couple times isn't important here. The choice of a biographer to insert an explanatory note that he's not going to use "allegedly" throughout the text doesn't change or circumvent Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Even if there is no reasonable doubt that Manning leaked the information, BLP unambiguously states that, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court." For the purposes of Wikipedia, Manning is still "not guilty". Obtuse or not, we still need to follow Wikipedia's policy by using alleged, said, and accused, where appropriate. The three statements I listed above, and others like them, need to be fixed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're asking me to write this article as though we have the knowledge we did in 2010 when he was arrested. But things have moved on considerably, and I am following the most informed sources (as I have to, per V and NOR).

The full chats have been published, the army has confirmed their authenticity, Manning's computer has been checked and the things he confessed to did indeed happen, Manning's lawyer has begun his defence strategy of arguing that the leaks were not as harmful as the government is claiming, and that Manning has been overcharged because the government wants him to testify against Assange. No one -- not the up-to-date sources (including his sympathizers), not the army, and not his own lawyer - is still wondering whether the chats and the confession were real. So Wikipedia can't put itself out on a limb by pretending this might not have happened (that would be original research), or make itself sound as though it's not familiar with the source material.

That factual issue is an entirely separate matter from whether he is guilty of that particular set of charges (e.g. "aiding the enemy," the most serious of the charges, which could attract a life sentence). The court will decide that, and there is nothing in this article that prejudges that decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Some edits

Just noting here that I've changed the "confessed" sentence that Belorn didn't like to: "Twelve days later, he began the series of chats in which he told Adrian Lamo he had leaked material to WikiLeaks." I've clarified in the lead that the 295 Americans included prominent American legal scholars, and added another source explaining the significance.

I've also added some more in-text attribution, e.g. "Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – one of them said it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army ..." (new words in bold). And instead of "Manning was also thought to have been the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak ...," it's now "[David] Leigh writes that Manning is also thought to have been ..."

If there are other sentences that need in-text attribution or tweaking, please list them here so I can address them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I didn't have a problem with the statement "Manning is thought to have been the soruce of the Guantanamo..." so you can take off the "Leigh writes" bit if you want. I had a problem with how the sentence originally read, which was "Manning was also the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak..." It looks like you fixed that one three days ago in this edit. I'll let you know if I see any other BLP issues, but I think you already got the worst of them.

As a completely unrelated note, I noticed that the CPU motherboard quote shows up twice in different sections. Was that intentional? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the gender confusion section, and repeated in the chat logs to show the sequence and context of the acknowledgements.

As for "Leigh writes," I've removed it (thank you). I'm trying to accommodate suggestions, but some of them (from Belorn and Meowy) for extra in-text attribution are not helping the writing or accuracy. I can add "according to X," but often it's according to multiple people, and singling out X is misleading, and makes it seem less solid than it is – rather like saying "X argues that human beings evolved through natural selection," as though X is alone in that regard.

Similarly with "liberal commentators" comparing Manning to Ellsberg, I was asked to be more precise, so now it's one named journalist, but in fact lots of people made the comparison (it's an obvious comparison to make). The truth – whether people think it's weasely or not – is that liberal commentators made the comparison. Anyway, my point is that in-text attribution doesn't always increase accuracy, as WP:INTEXT warns, and adding too much will date the article very quickly (and is already dating it) - in the sense that when the rest of the world has widely accepted that A, B, and C are demonstrably true, this article will still be saying "according to X." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your problem. I had the same issue with the ACTA article on the Swedish WP where the list of organizations who had voiced criticism spanned several lines, and became mostly a huge blob of text. We couldn't use labels like "Large portion of European countries" or "most human right organizations" for mostly the same reason I suggest we can not use the "liberal commentators" here. Terms like that lack the specification needed for a good article. I had to remove a sentenced that said "most commercial companies supported acta", for being way too unspecific and overreaching.

My hope here is that we can find a solution to the problem without loosing specificity. Maybe we can use something like this: "[the most prominent example] are among other commentators[x][y][z] saying that manning is the most important whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg...". In that way we keep the list short, retain some specificity, while at the same time not excluding other who has voiced similar.

Or maybe you can figure out a better one SlimVirgin. You have done very good with the article so far with keeping the article precise, so this shouldn't be an impossible task :). Belorn (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Belorn. I think the examples so far are okay for now. I've removed liberal commentators entirely from the lead, and replaced it with another juxtaposition courtesy of Denver Nicks. And in the last section, I've said Glenn Greenwald compared Manning to Ellsberg, so that should do. I just wanted to sound a general note of caution about producing an article that attributes everything, because it can make for awkward reading and ends up being outdated quickly. I've tried to write this article so that it's not into too much recentism -- so that, in a year's time, lots of the sections will still be fine. But the more attribution I add, the harder that becomes, because it makes things sound doubtful that aren't in doubt, if you see what I mean -- and the more the case develops, the odder that starts to look. But perhaps I'm just complaining about the extra work, so I'll shut up now. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to Breanna Manning

The move of this article to Breanna Manning throws a spanner into the works of this review as it has made the article a little unstable. If the nominator and reviewer agree wsith the move then the GA review page should be moved as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As the page mover, I would argue for the suspension of any GA listing until the issue is settled. I personally would not list it as a GA were the article at Bradley Manning (and would immediately send it to GAR were it listed), as gendering Manning as male is a severe BLP violation. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles are meant not to be subject to edit wars to obtain GA status, but the opposing positions have to be at least possible to adopt. Your position has no hope of being adopted as things stand (though I am personally very sympathetic toward it). All we know is that Manning wanted to transition as of 2009–2010. We have no idea whether that's his position as of 2012, and his lawyer has made no mention of it – except perhaps to undermine it by calling Breanna a "female alter-ego," which suggests a degree of distancing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to collapse this section, as I see it as having little bearing on the GA review. I note that the discussion has hopped from forum to forum (Manning talk page, BLP noticeboard, Village pump (policy), AndyTheGrump's talk page, and currently AN/I) and is not closed yet, but I see the move as having little chance of success, so I'm collapsing this section so we can better focus on the other issues. If the move discussion comes back here again I'll put the GA review on hold until the dust settles again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead (question)

The Lead seems to do a good job of following the guidelines of WP:LEAD. It borders on the long side, but is reasonable for an article of this length, I believe. There is one part I have a question about. It is,

In April 2011, 295 academics signed a letter arguing that the detention conditions violated the United States Constitution. Later that month the Pentagon transferred him to a medium-security jail at Fort Leavenworth, allowing him to interact with other detainees.

The statement seems oddly specific. I know there were a number of petitions/protests about Manning's incarceration. Is there any indication that this particular letter was more notable than the others? Also, the juxtaposition here seems to imply a cause and effect. Is there support for that in the sources? Based on what I know, I think that the various petitions should be mentioned in general, and the 295 letter could possibly be mentioned in the footnote as a specific example. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That letter was extremely important, especially as one of the people organizing it taught law to Obama; most of the academics were American legal professors. For them to come straight out and call the detention conditions unconstitutional was obviously a major embarrassment, so it's clear there was cause and effect, though I've kept the two issues as separate sentences because the government didn't confirm (and obviously would never have confirmed) that the letter was a causal factor. As for other petitions, I'm not aware of any that might have made a difference. Do you have examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Something more should then be said about who those 295 academics were, so that the notability of the letter becomes clearer and the statement no longer appears "oddly specific". Meowy 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, Thank you for clarifying that. I'm satisfied now that the letter was the most notable petition and that it deserves its spot in the Lead. (The other examples of petitions/protests, etc. that I had in mind are in the second to last paragraph of the article.) @Meowy, I wouldn't mind a little revision, especially in the footnote, but don't have any specific suggestions there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of a petition in the second-to-last paragraph, Adjwilley -- can you clarify? There have been multiple demonstrations, but I'm not aware of any petitions, at least not notable ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. The letter seems to be the only petition in the article. I guess in my mind I had lumped the petitions/protests/cyberattacks into one. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chat logs

If you look at the checklist above, you'll see that I have passed everything except: No original research, Focused, and Neutral (Fair representation without bias). The reason for this is because there's been a problem nagging at me that I'm not quite sure how to categorize. This comment by User:Baseball Bugs is part of what I've been feeling: that parts of the article read like it's prosecution evidence being submitted to a jury. The section I'm most concerned with is the Chats with Adrian Lamo section where there are several excerpts taken from the Manning-Lamo chat logs. While it is interesting to read the chats, the section doesn't read like an encyclopedia.

No original research

All the chats are sourced directly to the wired.com website that originally published the logs. Although wired published the transcripts, the page cited doesn't provide a secondary analysis of these transcripts, which makes the chats a primary source (creating a problem with WP:BLPPRIMARY). As far as I can tell, the portions of the chats that are reproduced here are based on editor discretion, and perhaps interpretation, as I couldn't find a secondary source that published the logs the way we are doing.

Note, however, that Nakashima quotes a couple of short excerpts, but they are much more integrated into the narrative. Nymag published a few short excerpts as part of the narrative, but not the same ones, and not as long. Caesar probably quotes the excerpts the most, however, he is doing it to analyze Manning, whereas the Wikipedia reads a little like it's presenting evidence. For instance, Caesar quotes the same "sold to Russia or China" quote that we do, but does it to further his argument that Manning was dealing with weighty ethical issues and felt like he was doing the right thing.

Focus

Again, it is an interesting read, but it is a lengthy deviation from Manning the person. If I'm writing an article about Thomas Jefferson, I don't include a lengthy synopsis of the Declaration of Independence, even though it's his best-known work. The section is also very long.

Neutrality

This seems like an undue amount of emphasis on the chat material, which admittedly is the most damning evidence against Manning, but at the same time, it seems to go against the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, which goes so far as to suggest that editors should consider leaving out material suggesting the person has committed a crime, until after a conviction is secured.

Anyway, I hope editors will not take this as an attack on my part, as it is certainly not meant that way. I understand that this is a controversial article that many are invested in. As a solution, I would recommend trimming back the section, particularly the portions that are only sourced to Wired, and getting rid of most–if not all–of the quote boxes. I do think the information is valuable, and it could probably find a home in a new article like Manning-Lamo chat logs or something of the sort. If there is consensus for this change but nobody wants to do the grunt work, I'd be happy to do it myself, but I'll hold back for the moment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR because it's WP:PSTS-compliant (that is the policy), and because these have been widely published. I could add Nicks as a secondary source throughout -- he does publish them in detail -- but it would be pointless. It's certainly not UNDUE, because it's the heart of the case. Were it not for these chat logs, it's doubtful we would have heard of him, unless he had been found out in some other way. And it's has nothing to do with prosecuting the case either (please note the distinction, which is vital, between fact and law). On the contrary, the logs offer some mitigation. Now that they have triggered his arrest, they are also his best defence.

Explanation of each selection written up:

1. Box 1, May 21: Shows that he almost immediately moved into the admission (bear in mind that he had already tried confessing to at least two other people, and had even tried to direct the army to what he was doing). He did this even though he had never had any contact with Lamo, and Lamo wasn't even responding. Highly significant.
2. Box 2, May 22: This is where the basic facts are covered.
3. Box 3, May 22: This shows his distress and begins to discuss his motivation, as does the paragraph below it which is not in a box. The paragraph below the box also shows Lamo continuing to offer him confidentiality after the FBI had been informed.
4. Box 4, May 25: This goes to the heart of the motivation, that information wants to be free (I am going to add a sentence to that effect, though he expresses it as "information should be free." He is even referenced in the article about that slogan as one of its notable proponents.

The logs show clearly that he was not doing this for profit, or out of malice, or to cause harm, but out of a conviction, which was causing him deep distress, that secrecy is harmful. Given that the facts are not in dispute, the motivation becomes the central issue.

As for the complaint that no one has published this exact sequence, no one his published this exact article. Please read WP:SYN. A synthesis is only a violation of policy if it seeks to advance a position not advanced by any sources. But the only position being advanced is that he admitted X, and here are his stated motivations. Those facts and those motives are so widely discussed by secondary sources we could produce a library full of the stuff.

As for creating a new article with the chat logs, I can't see how that would work or why you would want it. We can't reproduce them all. So in any new article you could again reproduce only some. You would have to add background and analysis (you couldn't just publish logs), but the background and analysis are already in this article. So I would strongly oppose that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added Nicks 2012 as a secondary source for the chat logs, though it isn't needed per PSTS, but it's there now anyway. He quotes them in a little more detail, but it's basically the same sequence. I've also added "information should be free" (as Manning put it), and added a paragraph on its significance, per Nicks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

While reading up on who the army investigators was, I notice that a large portion of this article (the logs, technical methods used, who has confirmed what, ...) is based on information from the December 2011 pre-trial hearing. Doing so I noticed that Bradley Manning has made no statements in regards to the accusations. The information we have come from either the prosecution side (The army and hired contractors) or the defense lawyer. This fact do sound to be very important to highlight, maybe even add it to the lead. I suspect that WP:BLP (get the article right) encourage this, but it might also be in conflict with WP:OR since few third party reporters has made note of it. Belorn (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The technical information about what was found on Manning's or the army's computers/storage devices comes from the army's Computer Crime Investigative Unit (CCIU). The chat logs don't come from there; they come from Adrian Lamo, though the logs were also found on Manning's personal computer, according to the CCIU.

Some of the other acknowledgments Manning made came from people journalists have interviewed (e.g. his ex-partner, and the novelist he contacted). It's all attributed so far as I can see (according to the army, according to journalist X, according to the chats with Lamo, etc). If you have any particular sentence in mind, could you post it here?

Not sure what you mean about adding sources to the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was, Manning himself has not made any statements in regards to the accusations. Other people have argued in favor or against the accusation but he himself has said nothing. Why this is so would be pure speculations and not suited here, but the fact that "Bradley Manning made no statement" during the pre-trial hearing (or for the matter, any other time) sounds important for the article, maybe even the lead. The reason I hesitate to add it myself is that few sources has mentioned this fact. Belorn (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate for the lead, because it's not surprising. Most defendants don't make statements before the trial, and sometimes not during it either. I could add to the section about the pre-trial hearing that Manning's lawyer made no statement one way or the other regarding Manning's position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A concern

Adjwilley, I feel you're going way beyond the GA criteria with this review, and seeking to impose your own style and editorial preferences, starting with your addition of citation templates. Can I ask whether you've read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I had not read that essay, though I have now. I assure you that my primary concern is ensuring that the article meets the GA criteria. I apologize for any misunderstandings or offenses I've caused about the citation templates. Just to be clear, I was content to let the citation issue drop after you reverted my addition of citation templates. After you started the discussion, about citation style I became intrigued by your comment about templates slowing page loading times and posted further comments to your talk page instead of here at the GA review. For me, the issue of citation templates has been closed for a few days, and I'm making no further efforts to change the style there. As for my other concerns, I really am trying to be as objective as possible and making sure that the article conforms to WP policy as I understand it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that's fine. I have no problem with a rigorous review (better that than the opposite).

It's just that I feel this is getting closer to an FA review. And it's compounded by the fact that you're not completely familiar with the sources or the case. This is always the case with reviews on WP, and I have been in your shoes many times as a reviewer. The writer has immersed herself in the topic, then a reviewer starts asking questions that the writer feels have been addressed and/or are well known. I know it can lead to frustration on both sides.

Perhaps you are right, in that any lack of clarity means I have not written the issues up properly. Or perhaps I have, but you've missed some of the key issues the sources raise. I do want to write the article clearly, but I don't want to over-egg points that I feel are clear enough. (For example, the letter from the American legal scholars was a bombshell, which is why it's in the lead. I wouldn't have put it in the lead otherwise. But I also don't want to labour the bombshell-like nature of it.)

It all goes to the heart of how thorough any Wikipedia review is meant to be. So I don't mean to be critical, but I want to signal to you in good time that I feel you are making suggestions about how you might have approached this article, rather than focusing on what the GA criteria actually require. So I hope you don't mind me making that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to list the key sources here (key in the sense that these are the writers who have really researched this case):

Online (in order of publication)

• Nicks, Denver. "Private Manning and the Making of Wikileaks", This Land, September 23, 2010.
• Caesar, Ed. "Bradley Manning: Wikileaker", The Sunday Times, December 19, 2010.
• Nakashima, Ellen. "Bradley Manning is at the center of the WikiLeaks controversy. But who is he?", The Washington Post, May 4, 2011.
• Smith, Teresa et al. "The madness of Bradley Manning?", The Guardian, May 27, 2011 (video).
• Fishman, Steve. "Bradley Manning’s Army of One", New York Magazine, July 3, 2011.
• Hansen, Evan. "Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed", Wired magazine, July 13, 2011.

Books (in order of importance)

• Nicks, Denver. Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History. Chicago Review Press, 2012 (reading this would be sufficient)
• Leigh, David and Harding, Luke. WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. Guardian Books, 2011.
• Brooke, Heather. The Revolution Will Be Digitised. William Heinemann, 2011.
• Domscheit-Berg, Daniel. Inside WikiLeaks. Doubleday, 2011.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is actually very helpful, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts

There are still a couple things that I'm not completely comfortable with in the article, but none of them put this article out of the GA range, in my opinion; I expect that the article will continue to improve. I'm sure there will be several major changes in the future, especially as Manning goes to trial, along with more crazy days full of edit warring. I think the article has a good community surrounding it, though, and lots of watchers to take care of it. I've enjoyed working with you all, and have appreciated the interaction here on the review page. I also thank you (SlimVirgin in particular) for your patience with me on my first GA Review. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the hard work you put into this, Adjwilley. It's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Censoring Mitnick

Why isn't this image with Kevin Mitnick, a world famous hacker, used?

Above picture (added by User:Esemono)

This image has a caption which is not visible. It reads "Why isn't this image with Kevin Mitnick, a world famous hacker, used?" I did not post the image, but clarification is needed. Also, the picture should be downsized or removed. (How it helps in the discussion to improve the article escapes me.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Add strikeout as image size and caption has been resolved, and reference to earlier discussion is cited. My concern was the bare posting of the huge image, without supporting discussion. Rather than refactoring the edit, I added the comment and asked Esemono to clarify.18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference the previous discussion of that picture is found here: Talk:Bradley_Manning/Archive_3#Image_of_Lamo_and_Poulsen.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So what I get from that discussion is there is a worry that while Lamo and Poulsen are involved in the Bradley Manning story Mitnick was not thus Wikipedia should censor his image. When did it become official policy to censor and rewrite history? Couldn't a decent descriptive caption be enough? -- Esemono (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sich, I'm not sure what your point is regarding the image needing to be downsized or removed. The point here is that two of the people in the image are fairly central to what transpired, as is the fact that they had a prior, long-term relationship. So the image is important, and has been published by other reliable sources for the same reason. But there was an objection from an editor (Collect) that the person in the middle is not related to this story, so I pixellated his face. That means we can use the image without implicating an uninvolved living person (per BLP). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why can't the image comment be used? Something like, "Pictured Adrian Lamo (left) and Wired's Kevin Poulsen (right). Kevin Mitnick (center) was uninvolved." Boom! BLP problem solved and you don't have to use the drastic and ominous pixelation which actually draws more attention to the mysterious censored individual. Not to mention the waste of bandwidth involved with creating and hosting a second image. -- Esemono (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind which option you choose, Esemono, whether it's pixellating or making clear in the caption that Mitnick has no involvement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that pixelating a face in an image freely available without pixelation elsewhere on wikipedia detracts from the quality of the image and does not really serve to clarify the issue or protect the man in the center. Explanation by caption is a far more sensible option. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.111.39 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I've been seeing this sort of thing a number of times on America-related articles that tend to attract vested-interest lobbying. The route seems to be that such and such a person is the devil incarnate (or God incarnate, depending on which vested interest is active) so we will include photographs of anyone even remotely connected with that person since they too must be the devil incarnate because of that connection. There is no justification for including this picture - it does not depict the subject of the article, it does not depict the subject of the subsection of the article in which it appears, and it was taken 9 years before the content in which ONE of the individuals are mentioend happened. Images must be directly related to article content - they are not there to make weasily pov connections. There is a foul stench throughout this article. Meowy 23:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Two of the people in the photograph are directly related to what happened, and this particular image has been discussed by journalists (e.g. Glen Greenwald) as evidence of their long-time relationship. That's why it's included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

new photo

this may be useful

Add caption here

Entr0p (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent photograph, thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I asume it was not taken 20:32, 27 April 2012, so when was it taken? Is from the time of enlistning (2007)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs)

It was not taken at the time of enlisting because he is already a Private First Class. Also, he has a 10th Mountain Division Badge pinned to his right breast pocket. So it was done sometime after he joined 10th Mtn and before he deployed. --S. Rich (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on whether this should be the main image? It does look good on the page, and I can see the arguments for keeping it as the lead image (he is currently a soldier, he got into trouble as a soldier, and he is facing a court martial). On the other hand, he joined in October 2007 and was arrested in May 2010 -- two and a half years of service. Using it as the main image feels as though we're saying this was his whole identity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've swapped their positions (regular clothes as lead image, uniform in one of the sections about his time in the army), and I'll add the uniformed image to the article about the trial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradley Manning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The following review became inactive, and a new review was started at Talk:Bradley Manning/GA2.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Criteria Good Article Status - Review Criteria Further information: WP:WIAGA A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Review Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Done The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Done There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Done The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Done The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Done Well-written: Criteria Notes Result (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Verifiable with no original research: Criteria Notes Result (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Broad in its coverage: Criteria Notes Result (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Notes Result The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Criteria Notes Result (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Undetermined Result Result Notes Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here. Discussion Please add any related discussion here. Additional Notes Before we begin the review There are some image issues to address. The portrait in the infobox and the image of Manning as a child need to have a fair use rationale and proper iformation, but i am not sure the portrait is public domain, and i dispute the use of manning as a child being needed for the fair use rational of an image the actual copyright holder is the owner of the image and OTRS permissions would be needed and some other information added to make this meet criteria for GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Weasel-wording and edit warring

After I had removed it, SlimVirgin (without ANY edit summary or talk page explanation) reinserted the word "liberal" as a characterisation of commentators who had wrote that Manning "was the most significant whistleblower since ex-Marine Daniel Ellsberg". "Liberal" is a pov term and cannot remain in the article. Even if there were some source that claimed commentators were "liberal", them the most that could be said was "such commentators have been called 'liberal' by such and such a source". SlimVirgin also inserted back the nationality (i.e. "he is not American") and the "background in computer hacking" (i.e. "he is a criminal") text about Assange - text which is clearly off-topic and which is there only for weasel purposes. He also reinserted the various clandestine (i.e. "used by criminals") methods of submitting material to Wikileaks (while carefully ommitting to mention the most obvious route - an ordinary email). All such material is again off-topic for this article and can be there only for weasel purposes. He also removed my edit connected to the "Collateral Murder" video, turning it into a weasily-worded text in which the event is described as a "gun attack in Baghdad" rather than a "helecopter attack over Baghdad" and in which the two separate attacks are made out to be just the one in which some children were "caught in the fire" rather than inside a van that was specifically targeted. He also removed the quotes from a quotation, an indication of the blind revert nature of his edits. I have reinstated my edits. Meowy 20:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm following the sources, not to mention common knowledge, and I can't see what's problematic about "liberal." Conserative commentators have focused on the breach of law and confidentiality; liberal/left commentators on the conscientious whistleblowing aspect and the comparison to Ellsberg. What do you see as contentious about that?

As for the Assange paragraph, please don't remove that material again. He isn't an American, and he is a former (very well-known) computer hacker, and it's neither POV nor irrelevant to say so (how could it be "weasely" to say he's Australian?). Also, you removed that WikiLeaks used Tor etc, which is well-known, well-sourced, interesting, and explains how people were able to file untraceable submissions. (I'm a she, by the way.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh ... "Common Knowlege" the slightly less ugly little brother of "Common Sense" - both are regularly brought out to justify things which cannot be easily justified by using sources or arguments. "Liberal" is a pov-term and a personal opinion about who are "conservative commentators" and who are "liberal commentators" is pov. If someone is being called a "liberal" or a "conservative", neutral sources are required to support such labels, and use of the label has to be justifiable as on-topic for inclusion in this article. To date there are no sources, and there is no justification. The meaning of such labels are also entirely US-centric and a product of current American society, and should be avoided for that reason alone. Everything that I removed about Assange I removed because it was off topic. What purpose is there to mention his nationality (other than the reason I suspected)? What purpose is there to stress the "hacking" (while avoiding mentioning his more recent and more relevant internet technologies background)? How can esoteric technical terms about how one might theoretically submit material anonymously to Wikileaks have any relevance to this article? If it is well-known, well-sourced, and interesting, then it should be in the article about Wikileaks, not here. You have not mentioned the "Collateral Murder" edits - are you accepting them? Meowy 02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I will try to find a way to reword your liberal commentators concerns, but I am going to restore the WikiLeaks material, because of course it is directly relevant (please explain how saying Assange is Australian could be "weasel wording"). The material Manning said he gave WikiLeaks constitutes the bulk of its output, or at least the bulk of the material that made its name. So giving a summary-style rundown of who and what it is, per WP:SUMMARY, is of course relevant (not to mention that Manning's lawyer feels Manning has been overcharged because it's Assange that the govt wants).

As for the Collateral Murder edits, I'll take a look, but so long as they haven't changed the meaning, removed a key point, or caused problems with the writing, they should be fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should have "taken a look" before reverting the first time. It is difficult to assume good faith when an editor deletes material without explanation and without, it seems, even a "look" at what she has deleted. Meowy 02:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did look at it before, and I couldn't see much difference (except that, as I recall, your description was less neutral). So I will look at it again.

Please adjust the aggression and accusations, Meowy (and the hostile headers). I know a lot about this issue, because I've immersed myself in the sources. I'm trying hard to reflect the majority and significant-minority POVs in a way that's fair and accurate. And I'm also trying to keep the quality of the writing in order. It's not an easy balancing act, so by all means question what I'm doing, but there's no need to imply that I'm up to something dastardly. (And, please, I do want to know how saying Assange is Australian could be considered a weasely edit.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We should not used terms like liberal commentators for the same reason that we should not use the word confess. The words carries implied statements and values not supported in the sources. It is also US centric as Meowy mentioned above, and carries a political weight that is also not supported in the sources. Had this been Europe, same statement could have called them socialists/communists commentators. Additionally, the article ref notes claims a distinction between general political reaction, and activists/liberal commentators. This distinction can not be describe in any other words than plain POV and non-neutral.

Assange's background should be kept at a minimum as that information is better placed at the Julian Assange article. For undue weight reasons, I would also not include the hacking background. The lead at the Julian Assange article describe his hacker-activistism as something of the past, not in the present. It also a description he is not well known for. Thus, presenting hacking as a prominent description of Assange is undue. Political/internet activist and journalist looks, given that article, to be the prominent description we should use. If someone disagree with this description, I advice trying to make a change at Julian Assange first. Summaries and Main articles need to be kept in sync.

Last as a minor disclaimer. I will apply some BOLD methods here and do one time edits. Please see the changes I do as practical suggestions. I have no intention of edit warring, but I do pref to write suggestions first and then discuss the suggested solution if they are disliked. Belorn (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Many of Manning's biggest supporters are far-right-wing and militia types. See for example [5], so I'm not sure I buy the "common knowledge" argument. That said, I haven't examined the issue in depth and it may be that the preponderance of sources are convincing. It would be good though to see some actual sources on this. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That article is about how a supporter of Terry Lakin (who seems to be a birther) tried to compare Lakin to Manning, along the lines of "liberals/the left support Manning, so why not Lakin?" (because they are both soldiers being held for disobeying orders). [6] But it doesn't mean the Right supports Manning. You could be right, but I haven't noticed anything like that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Article moved

Hi.

I've moved the article Bradley Manning to Breanna Manning due to major BLP concerns about how we identify Manning; from a reading of the sources in question, and of MOS:IDENTITY, I believe there are major BLP issues with how we refer to Manning as "he", despite sources also saying that her identity is female.

Please direct the discussion to the thread on BLP/N; this is a cross-posted notification. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I've commented there that this article should not have been moved without discussion. Far too controversial a move, and you reverted another editor's attempt to restore the article to before the move. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether it should be moved, only that you follow proper procedure. As I said at BLPN, MOS:IDENTITY doesn't give you license to move the article, nor does your assertion that this is a BLP issue and trumps anyone else's views on the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This move is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. I shall be asking for appropriate action to be taken to prevent Sceptre from engaging in such ridiculous POV-pushing stunts again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "gross violation of BLP policy"? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How is an entirely unsourced change of name and identified gender in a BLP a gross violation of policy? If you don't know that by now, I have to question your competence as a Wikipedia contributor. At no point has Manning either made a public statement to the effect that "she" is the appropriate pronoun, or that he/she wishes to be known as 'Breanna' - this entire hypothesis is based on selective quotations from a private conversation which Manning clearly didn't expect to become public, and in which he demonstrates his unstable and confused mental state. It is a gross insult to Manning to use a few words from a private conversation to unilaterally rename him and reassign his gender identity. Still, some people seem to find him a convenient platform for such ridiculous agenda-driven stunts... AndyTheGrump (talk)

(edit conflict) First, we have Sceptre claiming that to call Manning a he is a BLP violation, and now Andy says to call Manning a she is a BLP violation. This issue was discussed just last month, and I think Sceptre, who did not participate in that discussion, needs to come up with "new" evidence that the consensus to keep the article male was wrong. My perfunctory research on Google News turns up virtually nothing new.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, calling Manning a "he" is a BLP violation; it is clear from the Lamo chat logs that she categorically did not identify as male. The discussions in the past have been talking about how she needed to "publicly come out" or how the sources referred to her as Bradley, hence it should stay at Bradley; all that is needed to change is a verifiable source about her gender identity. From the sources given, it's more of a jump to assume she doesn't identify as female. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Utter bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, do you really want to rely on those chat logs from 2010? I'm not as blunt as Andy, but that's hardly a reasonable basis for saying that Manning self-identifies as a woman.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, Manning does not identify as male. The chat logs are verified, after all. And from Fishman:

“Bradley felt he was female,” the counselor told me. “He was very solid on that.” Quickly, their conversation shifted to the practicalities: How does someone transition from male to female? “He really wanted to do surgery,” the counselor recalled. “He was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird.”

If you're trying to suggest he's male, despite all that, then you're either dense or bigoted. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, considering your conduct, editors have been nicer to you than you deserve. I suggest you retract your comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you just made the lowest level argument on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Silverseren^C 23:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The only bigotry evident here is Sceptre's - who takes the slimmest of evidence to force Manning into a neat little gender-identity box. Much more concerned with pushing an agenda than with any considerations for the feelings of an individual the article cited clearly shows as troubled, and unsure over identity - and only discussing these issues in private. Still, sacrifices have to be made, and Manning makes a useful victim, given his inability to respond, and the more pressing issues concerning him at present. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A proper discussion should be made in order to determine consensus for such a move, before the move is taken. Shame on Sceptre for not doing that. Silverseren^C 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Complaints about a user's conduct are better suited for their talkpage or an appropriate noticeboard. Here at the talkpage, better to discuss content, please? --Elonka 04:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I'm failing to see how the chatlogs being from 2010 makes it irrelevant. Andy, do you just not know anything about gender dysphoria? Manning herself has stated she is essentially traumatized by the media portraying her as being a man. When somebody has a gender identity issue, this kind of thing will push them into shame and they often will not discuss it or release any new information. Which I think is only fair, if the media generally denied my right to identify how I wanted and continued to continually paint me as another gender, I think I'd also just...not talk about it. The logs are verified and she has sought hormone replacement - which requires a psychiatrist to diagnose a gender identity issue. So. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.143.231 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So there are still no sources which back the move. The advocates here are trying to grasp at straws because their position is so weak. Based on what has been brought forward, this issue has been concluded for now. When & if something receives coverage in reliables sources we can revisit this topic.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that, according to the latest evidence we have, Manning is currently not identifying as female: [7]

"If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun. The decision to transition – especially when it entails life-changing hormones or even surgery – isn’t something undergone lightly or quickly. Like many who are unsure about their gender identification, Manning used the Internet as a sandbox to begin experimenting with these complex issues. Unfortunately, he was arrested and forced to undergo many torturous months in solitary confinement, without proper medical, social, and emotional support during this time of questioning. We don’t know whether he reached a final decision".

Manning evidently currently wishes to be identified as male, and named 'Bradley', or 'Brad'. Any suggestions to the contrary are not only being made to push an agenda, but exploiting a vulnerable individual in no position to respond in order to do so. Wikipedia can play no part in such offensive behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a source showing that Manning publicly identifies as female, there is no reason to move the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where the requirement for public identification comes from; all MOS:IDENTITY says is that self-identification, in a reliable source, is needed. Say a notable person who is privately transgender commits suicide (it's not unheard of), and in a press release or interview, their significant other or friends says "[Name] was really unhappy, because he felt that he was a woman inside, and desperately wanted to make his body look outside like he saw himself inside, but he couldn't find a way to actually make that happen". Would we refer to said person as a man, or a woman? It's pretty clear that that person identified as female, but didn't publicly announce it. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• You can't go round moving such high-profile articles on the basis of such scanty and conflicting sources. It really smacks of agenda-pushing. BLP does not trump talkpage consensus in such corner-case scenarios. <facepalm>. Moreschi (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Arab Spring map

That Arab Spring map in the Impact section dates from early 2011 and is severely out of date. [[File:Arab Spring map reframed.svg]] is a much better option if the article is seeking to illustrate the extent of the Arab Spring. If there is a good reason for using the old map, it should be explained in the caption.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the map in the article has a legend on the image itself, rather than just on the image page, so that's more useful, and it's about the period in question, so it's closer to the issues the sources were referring to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Official photo date

The Coombs website says it obtained this "most recent" photo of Manning. If it was in fact taken 26 April, the office would certainly have been there when the photo was taken. While the metadata says it was taken in April, such data can be modified. Indeed, part of the data gives a date it was digitalized. I am skeptical about the purported date -- it is just too nicely posed for someone who had 'suffered from the months and months of brutal imprisonment'. Manning's demeanor just doesn't jive. Also, his eyeglasses are different. In his recent court appearances, he's been wearing black plastic framed glasses, not these chic rimless glasses. Perhaps Coombs' office could tell us more. For now I think leaving off a date is best. --S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

While I have no real idea -- the date is interesting. It's possible to modify the date in the EXIF info, but it would be odd. Unless the camera data was faked too, it was taken with a digital camera and presumably the date was added by the camera. The date was also in the filename from Google Docs. It was posted by Coombs on his site the very next day. Is it standard Army practice to make photographs during the court-martial process? Or is it something the defense could have arranged? Not sure how often dress uniforms tend to change either -- but the one in the photo seems pretty identical to the one seen in this picture from March 2012 (though, as noted, the glasses are different). Feels like a current photo, but that would mean it was taken in the middle of the legal process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

April 26 is probably the date Coombs received it, which is why it's the file name. Is it not more likely that it was taken just before his deployment to Iraq, hence Private First Class? We could ask Coombs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That picture could not have been taken before his deployment to Iraq. In the photo, he is wearing the 10th Mountain Division CSIB as well as the Iraq Campaign Medal and the Overseas Service Ribbon. Soldiers are not authorized to put badges and ribbons on their uniforms unless they've been earned and/or awarded, nor do they take their formal service uniforms with them (such as the dark blue ASU) to combat zones, hence the photo can't be any older than the time he returned stateside. As a result, the photo must have been taken between July 29, 2010 and April 26, 2012. Normally, soldiers below the rank of Sergeant/E-5 don't even get DA Official Photos; it's highly likely instead this photo was taken because of the pending proceedings. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be weird to fake the EXIF date, though not impossible, which is also 26 April. Also, isn't his current rank Private First Class? He got demoted at some point. Lastly, is the uniform different in any detail from the photo I linked above, which was taken in March 2012? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that this would have been taken when he was first a Private First Class, either before deployment to Iraq or during a vacation. For it to have been taken after his demotion (which means after the decision to discharge him or after his arrest) would have been weird. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it would be weird for the EXIF date to have been deliberately modified. With regard to whether or not the uniform is different in any detail in the photos (between the March 15th Photo and the Official Photo), there is a subtle difference. In the Official Photo, he is wearing his ribbons in the correct order of precedence; from upper left to lower right, they sequence NDSM-ICM-GWTSM-ASR-OSR. In the March 15th Photo, he is wearing them out of order OSR-ICM-NDSM-GWTSM-ASR, which is the same way he wore them on March 12th when photographed in the older Class-A (green) uniform. The Army is currently in the process of issuing every soldier the blue uniform (the ASU) to replace the green one. My guess would be that he was wearing the Class-A uniform until they issued him ASUs, and he simply moved the same (incorrectly ordered) ribbon mount bar over from one uniform to the other. Meanwhile, in the Official Photo, they are ordered exactly as they should be and if they had been out of order at the time he was having his picture taken, military personnel in the room with an official photographer would have noticed it and insisted it be corrected. So... this leads me to believe that it's entirely possible Manning didn't even have a properly tailored ASU uniform until sometime between March 12th and March 15th, 2012, and by the time he is wearing it in the Official Photo, the order of precedence of his ribbons had been corrected. Thus, I'd wager that the Official Photo was probably taken between March 15th and April 26th, and the EXIF data leads me to believe it was indeed April 26th, 2012. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That's very convincing, AC. You obviously know what you're talking about, so please edit the dates as you see fit. I think in the meantime I'll email the lawyer and see if he can shed light on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if you hear something back from his counsel first. If he doesn't respond, how do folks feel about using the EXIF metadata? I did notice three more discrepancies that I thought I'd share. The first is that in both the March 12th and March 15th photos, his Iraq Campaign Medal doesn't have its campaign star (a small bronze 3/16" service star). When wearing the ICM, he would have been authorized one for being there during the Iraqi Sovereignty campaign (January 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010). Sure enough, in the Official Photo taken later, that's been corrected and he is wearing a service star affixed to the center of the ICM ribbon. Secondly, in both the March photos, he is wearing his United States and Military Intelligence branch insignia (the golden disks on his lapels) incorrectly - he has the US disk on his left lapel, and MI branch insignia on the right lapel, which is the reverse of how they should be. Again, in the later Official Photo, that's been corrected and he is wearing the US disk on his right lapel and the MI branch insignia on the left lapel. Third and lastly, and a bit stranger as I'm hard pressed to explain it, he is wearing two service stripes (cuff of bottom left-arm sleeve) in the March 15th photo. Enlisted soldiers wear one stripe for every three years of enlisted service. However, Manning didn't enlist in the Army until October 2007. That means that as of this month, May 2012, he has 4 years and 7 months or so of service - almost a year and a half short of being authorized to wear two service stripes. Does anyone have any thoughts as to how that could be? As an aside, you can also barely make out a single overseas service bar (cuff of bottom right-arm sleeve) in the March 15th photo. That makes sense, as he would have one for every six months of service in a combat zone (since he was over there more than six months but less than twelve). AzureCitizen (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be really surprised if the EXIF information was wrong. Simply given that it is the ASU uniform, that rules out a pre-promotion photo (as does the elements on the uniform, as you have described). Given what else you found above, this photo basically has to be from either March or April this year, and I can't think of a reason to fake an EXIF date at that point. Main question for me is if it is really done normally by the Army (something they do as a matter of course during a court martial perhaps) or if it was something arranged by the defense team in order to get a more positive-looking photo in circulation. Perhaps it's a soldier's right to get such a photo done, so maybe it was both. But given everything you've posted above, I'd be willing to bet the EXIF date is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a military background coupled with a JD in civilian life, but I'm not a JAG and have never participated in a court-martial. That being said, I think that after a panel is convened (the "jury" that will decide guilt or innocence, made up of military officers and up to one-third senior enlisted personnel if the accused is an enlisted member), they are probably given a copy of the accused service records (like his DA Form 2-1, etc.), and in the files they probably include an official photo. Alternatively, perhaps the defense did request through the appropriate channels that an official photograph be prepared. At most Department of the Army official photography facilities, they have backgrounds where they can shoot a standard 3/4 length photo for promotion board purposes, as well as other backdrops which include having the US flag or other flags (unit flags, star flags, etc). The photo in which Manning is posed is not the normal 3/4 promotion board type, instead it's the 1/2 variety you typically see unit commanders and command sergeant majors posing for. Someone who has experience in court-martial proceedings could probably shed more light on this. For comparison purposes, take a look at the 16 July 2010 photo of MAJ Nidal Hasan, who was in custody and paralyzed at the time that picture was taken. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I posted an anonymous comment on Mr. Coombs' website on May 25th specifically asking about the date the photo was taken, and he responded on May 26th that it was taken on April 26th, 2012. You can see those postings here. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A good bit of detective work by all involved! With the metadata and Coombs' response, I have no qualms about dating the photo caption as taken April 26. (And Manning certainly looks good after his "ordeal" with the Marines! A bit pale though -- perhaps he's not getting enough Vitamin D.) --S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just adding that Manning's lawyer confirmed the date by email, and drew attention to his public comment too. Well done to those of you who worked out the time frame from the uniform alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to Greenwald article

Hi Srich, regarding the tag you added here, when I click on the article link, it takes me directly to the first paragraph of the article called "The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks," after which there's a "continue reading" link for the rest. Are you only seeing the author's page when you click on it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we can bypass "continue reading" with this link to the whole article, if that'll make it clearer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Alleged" Disclosure of Classified Material

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.

---

A recent edit removed the qualifier "alleged" from a section heading. I don't see anything in the article from RS that shows he actually did it (even though he probably did). The government has made the accusation that Manning did it, but an allegation is an assertion only -- it does not prove anything. That determination is for the court-martial. With that in mind, removing "alleged" from the section heading smacks of POV. WP:BLPREMOVE applies. --S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hello I believe my edit is correct because it doesn't say Bradley Manning leaked the info it just states that there was a leak which is not in question and User:Srich32977 thinks that his belong I have no malice towards him I just don't want to create edit war. I suggest that we let another editor decide. Or maybe we can find a way to rewrite it better. Lets work together not against each other. I have even removed my edit to show good faith.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the article is about Manning, the clear implication about the disclosure is that Manning did it. (E.g., the fact that classified documents were disclosed is not a side issue in Manning's saga.) Adding "alleged" makes it clear that WP is not endorsing the accusation that he did it. --S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now and see your point now and agree with you. I will not revert your edit on this point again I will leave the "Alleged" edit in place. I'm considering our issue resolved. Sorry for any misunderstanding.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:11, 12 August 2012 (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.

Copy edit

In case anyone wonders what I'm doing, I've started a copy edit to reduce some wordiness, and get the length down a little for the trial starting in (perhaps) September. Although most of the new material will go in the article about the trial, we'll need some space here too. I'm also streamlining the sources by removing any unused or repetitive ones, and making sure the citation styles are consistent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is he in jail, like literally now, right at this very moment? wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender identity

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 wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as [a] boy…”

As is obvious, Breanna Manning identifies as female, yet the entire article misgenders her as male.

Is it possible to change this, or let somebody change this? Because misgendering is a seriously not okay thing to do on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.111.78 (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"misgendering is a seriously not okay thing to do on purpose". That's right. It isn't. Which is why we don't do it. As has been pointed out multiple times (see the archives for this talk page and elsewhere), contrary to the claims of some campaigners, Bradley Manning has made it quite clear that he wishes to be identified as a male, known as 'Bradley' or 'Brad'. If you want to propose that the article be changed, please (a) read the archived discussions, and then (b) provide a new reliable source that indicates that Manning's position on the matter has changed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Where does it sat he identifies as male? As the only source I have ever seen where they (for the sake of simplicity) have discussed their gender identity clearly states they do NOT identify as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.111.78 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

can you provide the source and any other reliable sources that refer to Manning in the feminine? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See the Washington Blade. [8]: "Feminist, trans advocates should support Bradley Manning ...If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun.... Since then, we’ve sent Bradley packages in the mail showing him the fliers, stickers, postcards, T-shirts and photos of rallies all emblazoned with the name 'Bradley Manning.'... Notably, he didn’t ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise.". As of February this year, the evidence is that Manning wishes to be identified as male. Unless you have more recent evidence from a reliable source, the subject is closed. We do not involuntarily 'regender' individuals based on a selective interpretation of cherry-picked sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Silence does not equal acceptance. In which case it has been stated before that they did not wish to identify as male, which would mean the best pronoun to use would be a gender neutral pronoun, such as "they". But not "he" (and, granted, not necessarily she). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.111.78 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As described above (and see also the FAQ) we need more than your assertations. We need positive affirmation from the subject as reported in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you know, no response either way (if assuming from a gender binary) weighs heavier than a remark made by the subject about not wanting to be identified as male? Because no response does not equal a positive affirmation for either a male or female gender identity. No cookies for decent human behaviour for you, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.111.78 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to change the policies, you will need to go elsewhere. This page is for discussing how to accurately represent the content we have from reliable sources according to current policies. If you do not have current reliable sources that show a positive affirmation from Manning, the discussion here is over. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and "decent human behaviour" doesn't include 'regendering' individuals based on questionable interpretations of a cherry-picked 'remark' from a private conversation, particularly when they later make entirely clear that such 'regendering' is not wanted. We go on what reliable sources say - and the source given (the Washington Blade) makes entirely clear what Manning's latest known position is. I suggest you take your soapbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is some sort of joke right? The notion that Manning should be referred to as a she because he made a remark about being pictured as a boy is the most ridiculous case of political correctness run amok I have ever seen on this site. Such nonsense is akin to referring to a white person as black because he considers himself a black man. He isn't, no matter how he "feels" on the issue. Misgendering? Such an asinine term demonstrates how absurd this entire non-issue has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"So, you know, no response either way (if assuming from a gender binary) weighs heavier than a remark made by the subject about not wanting to be identified as male? Because no response does not equal a positive affirmation for either a male or female gender identity. No cookies for decent human behaviour for you, Wikipedia". Assuming from a gender binary? This has to be some sort of parody; it has to be. Are there more than two "genders" that the editors should be considering before assuming he should be referred to as a he? But I do agree the editors are being a bit presumptuous. I mean, how dare they assume a person with a penis between his legs should be referred to as a he?

Please keep WP:NPOV in mind. Regardless of whether Manning is or is not transgender, your remarks show a clear opposition to trans issues which reflects your personal beliefs. You are entitled to hold such beliefs, but I must remind you that they should have no bearing on discussions of policy and editing decisions made on Wikipedia. Transgender people exist and are provided in many countries with legal recognition and protections, and there are many transgender people who are subjects of Wikipedia articles (and I believe there are policies regarding how they should be covered). Your analogy seeks to create a dispute about this, but this should not be a point of discussion - the discussion is about whether the subject of this article is transgender, not whether transgender people should be acknowledged. (Unrelatedly, I have corrected the formatting of your post to add indenting to the second paragraph so that I can reply with appropriate formatting, I hope this does not offend.) --Poppy Appletree (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My comments are not about so-called "trans issues", ridiculous as that whole issue has become. Gender binary? Please. Such bullshit pseudo-academic nonsense deserves to be mocked. My comment is about how silly it is to call Manning a "she" becaue he may or may not have referred to himself as such in the past. It would seem at least one editor thinks the DEFAULT position should be to label him as a she, despite the fact he has a penis between his legs. When the question is up in the air, maybe, just maybe, one should look at what he actually is, rather than trying to turn him into some sort of martyr for the transgendered cause, based upon flimsy(at best) evidence. As for my supposed opposition, being "trans" is more than just waking up one day and saying "hey, I want people to call me Breanna". It seems to me Manning's defenders want to bring the whole gender issue to the fore in order to paint him as some sort of oppressed minority(and these editors clearly want this entry to read as such), as if he is being treated harshly because he has a penis but thinks he is a woman, rather than the fact he leaked reams of classified data. One only needs to read the comment section archives to see that multiple editors want to make the entry read like a case of "man shockingly mistreated because he is gay and/or transgendered vs. the US Army" rather than "leaker of classifed data vs. the US Army". This entry shouldn't be hijacked so someone can stand on a soapbox and lecture on "trans issues".74.141.152.194 (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. If you can't edit a page with a cool head, it's best if you pick a different topic to edit on. As for the discussion, which I haven't yet engaged with:

I'm really not sure why that quote about not wanting to be "plastered all over the world press… as [a] boy" is being used as the main point in this discussion. It's certainly a statement from the subject on the matter, but there are much more prominent factors:

• Manning has a diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID), which is the medical diagnosis for someone who is transgender/transsexual used in the DSM.
• In the full version of Manning's conversations with Lamo, Manning frequently states an intent to transition and their discomfort living as a male. The contents of these conversations were verified by Manning's defence, and a copy of the log was retrieved from Manning's computer.
• Manning had details on hormone therapy in their living quarters.
• Manning spoke with a counsellor, who has disclosed that Manning expressed a desire to undergo sexual reassignment surgery.

This is all described in reliable sources and is included in the article. From that, I'd say it is practically certain that Manning is transgender, and intends to transition. Furthermore, that isn't an unpublished synthesis, as such a synthesis has been published here. That is all clear, and should be uncontentious. As for pronouns and name usage, which is what is being discussed here, that isn't so clear, and I doubt it will become clear in the course of this trial.

(As an aside, the presence/absence of a penis is not how a person's gender is assessed according to Wikipedia policy, and nor is it how gender is routinely assessed in day-to-day life, unless you happen to be familiar with the genitals of everyone you interact with.) --Poppy Appletree (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2012 (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.

Note

Just noting that I used rollback on this edit without intending to. (I meant to use the Twinkle undo feature, with an explanation in the edit summary, but it seems to have disappeared.) Anyway, the reason for the revert is that the IP's edit added something that, as I recall, is not reflected in the source material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Arab Spring

OK, explain to me how Bradley Manning caused the Arab Spring. Come on now, I want primary sources, respected scholars, protesters and opposition leaders saying "Wikileaks and Manning made us riot." Come on now, don't be shy. I mean, the idea is such nonsense it's a wonder anyone would seriously consider it but go ahead. I'm waiting. I want respected scholars and primary sources, independent analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.5.207 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You do need a citation for this statement, as it isn't cited at the moment (from what I can tell). Prodego ^talk 02:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Supporters see Manning as a whistle-blower who helped expose U.S. military misdeeds and energize protests against corrupt regimes" LA Times
• "Amnesty International, for example, credits the WikiLeaks disclosures with bringing about the Arab Spring by revealing corruption on the part of the Tunisian government and thus provoking revolts that spread throughout the region." as reported in slate
• "Besides playing a role in writing finis to the awful Iraq war, the Wikileaks disclosures helped to spark the Arab Spring, beginning in Tunisia." William Blum in The Foreign Policy Journal
• "Notably, State Department dispatches reporting on the dissolute lifestyles of Mideast autocrats provided a little extra kindling for the bonfires of the Arab Spring." noted conspiracy theorist and former executive editor of the NYT Bill Keller. oh wait, that conspiracy theorist tag may be wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There are plenty of sources in the final section, and in-text attribution in the sentence in question, as well as a citation in the footnote. This is not in any way a contentious point (that the leaks were a catalyst). Also, as this article has GA status and is well-sourced and stable, I'd appreciate if people would not repeatedly add or remove material over objections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Paum89, could you please not remove this from the lead again? [9] It is well-sourced and summarizes a key point regarding the reception to Manning in the final section; the lead is supposed to summarize the article's key points, per WP:LEAD, and this is beyond doubt a key point.

As for the recent motion, it's unlikely to go anywhere, so it's RECENTISM, and adding it to the lead is inappropriate. I've added it to United States v. Bradley Manning, [10] which is the article for the trial and pre-trial hearings. I left it in here too (but removed it from the lead), but I think it should probably be removed entirely, unless of course something comes of it. We can wait for the hearing to see what happens. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Manning

There's an attempt to delete the image of Manning as a child, in case anyone wants to comment. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_3#File:Bradley_Manning_in_elementary_school.JPG. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like the discussion has been closed already with the decision to delete on one !vote for keeping, and one !vote against. I would have !voted to keep, as I was in agreement with your reasoning. Any way of reopening that discussion? Jusdafax 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a "vote". There are specific requirements for non-free images in Wikipedia articles. Unless you have new arguments that show the image meets the requirements, you cannot just keep going back for another !vote until you "win". Do you have a legitimate basis to claim an "iconic" status? Do you have third party commentary about the image? Do you have proof it has been released under an appropriate license? Without something game changingly different about the content of the article in relation to the image, no, you cannot try again and again.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware it is not a vote. You may be aware that the exclamation point in front of the word indicates that I know that, which is why I put it there. The deletion raises several interesting points, including the apparent lack of consensus and the speed at which it took place. Additionally, Slim Virgin is a highly experienced editor, and I assumed they had a good case for retaining the photo of this high-profile person. However photos in Commons are an area I am not extremely knowledgeable in, so you may well be right, but I would be interested in other views. One other thing... As a Wikipedia vet, allow me to say that your tone seems to me, rightly or wrongly, to verge on hostility; were I a new user, it could have a chilling effect. Take care. Jusdafax 04:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try to find a release for it, so hopefully we can restore it in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nicks

Throughout the article, the author of the book about Manning, Nicks, is mentioned vigorously. While this is not a bad thing in itself, his full name is only mentioned once near the top of the article, leaving the reader (such as myself) a bit confused as to who "Nicks" is every time he's mentioned once every few sentences. Maybe this is incorrect, but I feel that at the least his full name should be used now and then, possible in conjunction with the book this information is coming from for clairity sake.

66.61.81.150 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've added his first name a few more times; the article does already say that he's the author of the book: "Those who knew Manning told Denver Nicks, author of Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History (2012), that he always had a mind of his own ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Largest Leak?

I can't tell if this statement is misleading.

"It was the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. Much of it was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010."

In particular, it is the 'to the public' part I am unsure about. I don't see that part in the cited source. I googled around and had trouble finding a correct an current tally of documents actually leaked to the public. (as opposed to documents they may only be in possession of wikileaks or another journalist that remain currently unpublished.) Have all the claimed leaked reports been published at this point? (..even in a partially redacted form..) Perhaps the sheer number of documents may make this consideration unimportant it determining if this was the largest leak 'to the public'? Looking at [United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak] they talk a little bit about this discrepancy so far the cited article on both pages seem to not have the 'to the public' language which to me seems to imply the actual information in those cables and the cables themselves has been disseminated when it may not have been. Perhaps there is a better citation for this? 2607:F470:2:1:BAAC:6FFF:FE7E:A0A7 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for this around. I'm not sure I understand your point about it. Even if some has not been published, what was published was still the largest leak. And Wikileaks consists of members of the public, so even if some remains unpublished, the material was still leaked to the public. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

transgender

It has been public information for about a year now that Manning is transgender and identifies as female. Her preferred name (Breanna) and pronouns really should be used in this article. She has even said that “I wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…” Wikipedia is currently contributing to her suffering by not using the proper name and pronouns. http://thepeoplesrecord.com/post/26011953073/referring-to-bradley-as-breanna-manning-june-27 --24.1.103.39

Has she asked that the female pronoun be used? Is there a reliable source which says so? The above is not a reliable source. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. See Talk:Bradley Manning/Archive 4#Gender identity. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

See also the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial

Manning has filed a lengthy Motion to dismiss on grounds that he has not been able to obtain a speedy trial.[11] This motion is appealable to civil court in limine on several constitutional grounds and there have been very few successful government motions to continue prosecution without trial after the 120 day statutory mandate. If successful, Manning would be entitled to immediate release and reinstatement of duty on the presumption of innocence. In unsuccessful and appealed to civil court, but unsuccessful Manning will probably plead not guilty for lack of scienter. That plea is not available in military court. If unsuccessful at that stage, Manning will probably claim that because his plea is unavailable, he can not obtain a fair trial, again on multiple constitutional grounds. Then the Marines would try to counter that motion, and I doubt that will work.

"The 845 days PFC Manning has already spent in pretrial confinement dwarfs other periods of pretrial confinement that the Court of Appeals found to be facially unreasonable." (from the Motion)

(bradleymaning.org source) Is there anything else that should be in the article but isn't? Paum89 (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

We'd need this to be reported in third-party reliable sources to include this in the article - the legal issues are complex, we can't interpret the law ourselves, and nor can we take the word of Manning's supporters regarding the law here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A known attorney is a reliable source for the pleadings of their represented parties. Which particular facts among those which you deleted do you think are insufficiently sourced? I have asked for a second opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing Bradley Manning's Motion to Dismiss. Paum89 (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy is correct. Meanwhile, I gave the date of the motion, as "seeral hundred days" is pretty useless in the BLP. I also think the amount of quoted correspondence with Manning verges on UNDUE - the article is supposed to be a biography, not a court case argument on Wikipedia. Stick to simple facts, IMO. Collect (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this deleted again? I see it has been moved to the article on the legal case, but it is the latest news there. Instead of removing the most current information, please consider removing less current information about the case. Paum89 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Recentism?

To what extent is a summary of the motion WP:RECENTISM, at what date will it cease to be recentism, and in what other way(s) is a summary of the motion inappropriate for the introduction? Paum89 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper article, Paum, and isn't about the trial. The lead summarizes the most pertinent points of his biography, the points most written about by other sources. The motion to dismiss isn't anywhere near one of the most pertinent points; it's extremely unlikely to go anywhere and shouldn't even be in the article, as it belongs on the legal page. It's also not the latest news, as you said above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should try to get a neutral lawyer to weigh in on the chances of success for the motion. I think it's very likely to succeed. Paum89 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly is we and what does that possibly have to do with this BLP?--98.209.42.117 (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Paum, stop with this. A pending motion is irrelevant, worth a sentence maybe under the trial section not a BLP. The chances it goes anywhere is zero. Even if granted it will most likely be reversed United States v. Cossio 64 M.J. at 256 (speedy trial motion granted then reversed). A short search of granted speedy trial motions from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces lends me to believe it has a snowball's chance in heck of being granted. The Government has a lot of leeway. You want to cite this because you feel that he is personally not guilty and want to "ring the bell" that he may walk. Thus your request for "a neutral lawyer" is not relevant, the motion has little significance unless it is granted.Cossio (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, FYI Paum the 120 day clock is not absolute in the Military or Civilian world. The Military does not require trial trial within 120, that is the Constitution in any jurisdiction. This requirement is easily met by "stopping the clock" which happens when the Defense files a motion or asks for new witnesses. These are known as "exclusions" in computing time. Point of fact there are thousands every year held over a year without trial in the USA.Cossio (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

reskinning a model now equals modifying code? As in source code? You've gotta be kidding me.

Does no other person see a problem with this? I don't remember ever having to change source code to reskin a character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.41.141.178 (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The source cited actually says "altering lines of code", but I've changed our article to read "modifying a video-game", which is less specific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Manning template -- deletion discussion

The {{Bradley Manning}} template at the bottom of the article page has been nominated for deletion. To comment, please look at the deletion hatnote above the template. --S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

NOT A “Whistleblower”

He is NOT a “whistleblower” not is wikileaks; He’s a traitor and they are spies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.199.107 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Advertising alert

Currently (accessed in 16:12, 2nd, March, 2013 Easter time) two hyperlinks which connected to jump-out advertising windows are found in the first and second section, this is the first time I saw this in Wikipedia, will anyone be able to address the problem? Might be a work done by robot? Changwei3037 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS

Why does this entire article never mention PRIVATE FIRST CLASS? Regardless of the opinion of Manning toward the military or vice versa, the designation is not merely a sign of respect for an earned position but a matter of fact.

169.231.35.176 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article text twice, as well as in the infobox. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It also mentions he was promoted to Specialist, but got reduced in rank. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Off The Rails

Is this an objective article, or a PR campaign in favor of the person? Good grief... I know WP in general leans a certain way (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, don't twist my words beyond what they are...) but this seems to be rather blatant. Jersey John (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The best way to remedy any instances of a pro-Manning "PR campaign" is to offer revisions, one by one, to make this more objective. The article is too useful to delete in its entirety or to attack with a meat cleaver, such as by removing entire sections. I favor surgery, not slaughter. JohnValeron (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I never once advocated deleting the article. Where did you get that from? Jersey John (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I surmised that was your approach, since you criticized the article as a whole without specifying any of its parts. JohnValeron (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You falsely assumed. Probably to create some strawman where I am the secret nationalistic shill who wants to do a hatchet job while you are naturally the defender of truth. Anyway I never advocated for the deletion of the article. You read too much into what I said simply to suit your own agendas whatever they may be. But I maintain the article seems more like a pro-Manning press release than an objective article. And I have no vested interest beyond neutrality. Jersey John (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: After reviewing your contributions, your overreaction has become clearer. I'll refrain from further discourse with you concerning the topic, since your contributions show you are personally vested in the issue. Jersey John (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my contributions. I welcome anyone's feedback on my individual edits. JohnValeron (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

ribbons

I was interested to see what all Manning's ribbons were for: the overseas ribbon shown on his uniform is not listed in the info box, and the Army Meritorious Unit Citation is not listed. (The MUC can be worn even if you did not participate in the action, soldiers in the unit can wear that unit's decorations). I think these should be noted in the info box. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the overseas ribbon. The MUC was not awarded to him -- he gets to wear it while assigned to the unit. (And he won't have it for much longer.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrase

"no security measures were in place to prevent unauthorized downloads." From a technological point of view, if he was given physical or remote access under his own credentials then the downloads were indeed authorized or permitted, regardless of the standing policy or command decisions. I think this needs to be re-phrased to specify exactly what authority had been exceeded. 107.219.49.183 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence. He did, indeed, have access as he was authorized. His downloading for personal use and distribution was not authorized. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearer now. Thank you. 107.219.49.183 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect date under picture

The date under his military picture is 2012, however that is when the picture was published, not taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.201.26 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The image metadata states that it was generated in April 2012 - see [12]. Having said that it seems questionable that the photograph was actually taken in 2012, and it seems more likely that this is the date the image was released: "The Defense has obtained the most recent Department of Army Photo of PFC Manning". [13]. I'll alter the caption for now, omitting the date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the "Summary" section here, where it says "April 26, 2012 <link>", it links to a webpage run by Manning's attorney which contains a post by his lawyer answering the question of when the photo was taken. He states "Yes, the photo was taken on 26 April 2012". AzureCitizen (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - I'll revert my change to the caption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

He was certainly nominated, but I am not sure this is notable. Anyone can be nominated by a very large number of nominators, with no real criteria for nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, per http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nomination/nomination_faq.html nominations are kept confidential for 50 years, so at most we should be saying that group X claims to have nominated him. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

However according to this article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning-malala-among-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/ the votes have come from all over the world. Also many other wiki-pages mention that the person was a Nobel prize nominee as being a nominee itself is notable. For examples: Moisés A. Vieites,Eloise Giblett, Norman Simmons,Joseph Stalin, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.31.229 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 June 2013‎

The source you cite does not state that nominations for Manning have come from all over the world. It does however state that a record 259 nominations have been received, making his nomination of less significance. Neither source cited by you devotes significant coverage to the Manning nomination specifically, I note. I see no reason to include this unless credible sources suggest that Manning actually has a significant chance of winning the prize. In any case, the nomination certainly doesn't merit being mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Prize committee [14] a huge number of people and organizations can submit nominations (perhaps tens of thousands). The Prize committee will not confirm a nomination, so it is easy for any qualified nominator to leak info saying "I/we nominated so-and-so for the Peace Prize." – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But that is exactly what is being said in these pages. For examples: Moisés A. Vieites,Eloise Giblett, Norman Simmons,Joseph Stalin, etc. Also you are assuming the information in the articles are wrong. Why? Regardless of how the nomination came to be the fact should still be included despite who it was for. ~Eye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.8.191 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a question of whether it is right or wrong - it is a question of significance. So far, no evidence has been presented that Manning's nomination is seen as noteworthy. If it were, there would have been greater media coverage than seems to be the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's significant because it is a fact(you haven't said it's not a fact). Also I don't know what you mean with not enough media coverage as if you type in,"Why did Bradley Manning get nominated for the nobel prize" a lot of people have quite a lot to say.

Also according to http://www.wisegeek.com/who-decides-who-gets-the-nobel-prizes.htm "Nobel Prizes for peace go through a nomination and selection process administered by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is a group of five members selected by the Norweigian government. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the prize for peace is always issued in Oslo, Norway, not Stockholm Sweden." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaLin9 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all facts are significant. As for where the Nobel Peace Prize is issued, so what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is the fact that Bradley Manning was nominated for the Nobel Prize not significant? Spell it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaLin9 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case this is what I propose to include, "On February 1st 2013 the entire parliamentary group of The Movement in the Icelandic Parliament, the Pirates of the EU; representatives from the Swedish Pirate Party, the former Secretary of State in Tunisia for Sport & Youth nominated Private Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize." along with the link http://joyb.blogspot.in/2013/03/bradley-manning-nobel-peace-prize.html. Again I repeat, "if you find the fact that Bradley Manning was nominated for the Nobel Prize not significant, spell out why." Have a nice day. AnnaLin9 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use blogs as sources. Furthermore, copy-pasting content from other websites is a breach of copyright. You have failed to demonstrate than Manning's nomination has attracted significant comment to merit mention in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump has misstated Wikipedia standard for Verifiability - blogs can be cited (see Wikipedia:Verifiability 2.2 Newspaper and magazine blogs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Darling (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have alternative links http://www.huntingtonnews.net/58551 and http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120207/bradley-manning-nominated-nobel-peace-prize-2012 and http://rt.com/news/manning-nobel-peace-prize-631/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/08/wikileaks-bradley-manning-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-by-icelandic-parliamentarian/ Also I don't know what you mean by "demonstrate than Manning's nomination has attracted significant comment to merit mention"? There must be some Wikipedia article for that but I can't find it. Please help.AnnaLin9 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

200+ people are nominated, with no criteria for nomination. As nominees are not officially announced for 50+ years, there is no actual proof that he was nominated, other than a group saying they nominated him. Other peace prize nominees have been neville chamberlin, hitler, and stalin (twice!), mussolini, Stanely Williams (a convicted murderer and the co-founder of the crips) so clearly the standards for nomination are very stringent! from the latimes "According to Nobel Prize nominating rules, any "professor of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology" and any judge or national legislator in any country, among others, can nominate anyone for a Nobel Peace Prize. " Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the Tunisian Secretary of State for Sports & Youth, who well may be Slim Amamou, demonstrates why these announcements of nominations are ersatz. The Jebali Cabinet level official in Tunisia for Youth and Sports is a Minister. (I mentioned earlier that perhaps tens of thousands of individuals are officially eligible to nominate. The number of unofficial nominators is probably in the hundreds of thousands.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Petition to Pardon Manning and/or commute sentence

Greetings,

I am proposing that we add a reference to the Bradley Manning article "Reactions" section regarding a Bradley Manning petition on the Whitehouse web site.

Given the overwhelming amount of media attention public discussion concerning Bradley E. Manning’s pending court martial and the whitehouse petition calling for his pardon I believe that inclusion is justified. Moreover, the “Pardon Edward Snowden” petition White House website was included in the Snowden article. Also, I've included several inline media references as suggested by SlimVirgin.

Proposed text below:

"A We the People petition has been posted on the White House website, asking for "for a pardon of his pending court martial, or in the alternative, commute Bradley E. Manning’s sentence in the event that the court finds in the governments favor and Bradley E. Manning is sentenced beyond time already served."

Harold Darling— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Darling (talk • contribs) 19:58, June 24, 2013‎ (UTC)

Working links from above (do not use <ref>...</ref> on talk pages - it doesn't work): [15][16][17]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:ELNO #4 restricts external links to on-line petitions. [Added comment]: No actual links to petitions are included in the Snowden article, only news stories re the petitions. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct - I will remove the petition linkHarold Darling (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - a couple of mentions of the Manning petition in passing aren't enough to justify inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Manning petition movement is newsworthy and notable - given that media references were included in the Snowden article it seems that inclusion is justified for Manning as well.Harold Darling (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrected text below:

A We the People ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/10/white-house-petition-to-pardon-edward-snowden-gathers-steam/</ref> has been posted on the White House website, asking for "for a pardon of his pending court martial, or in the alternative, commute Bradley E. Manning’s sentence in the event that the court finds in the governments favor and Bradley E. Manning is sentenced beyond time already served."

Harold Darling (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If it were 'newsworthy' it would be in the news. A couple of mentions in passing are clearly insufficient to demonstrate this. As for the Snowdon article, it is completely irrelevant. We don't base article content on what goes into other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true -the Manning petition has been cited in the Washington Post, Wikileaks, dailycaller.com and the Whitehouse itself has responded to earlier iterations of petitions to free Manning. 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Harold Darling (talk)

Either cite mainstream media sources that discuss this in depth, or forget it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media sources have been cited several times - see below -

www.dailykos.com/.../-White-House-web-site-Bradley-Manning-petition.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/10/white-house-petition-to-pardon-edward-snowden-gathers-steam

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18886451-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-seeks-white-house-response?lite

Harold Darling (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there more than one petition? The W/Post says there are over 6,000 signatures, but the one you linked to [18] says there are 24, and that it was created by H.D. on June 22. SlimVirgin

I've removed the petition link [19] There has been many iterations of petitions to Pardon Manning on the white house web site in addition to umpteen petitions sponsored by various advocacy organizationsHarold Darling (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

^(talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has a whole section about a petition. Was it more noteworthy by the media or just Wikipedians? They mention a similar one here and the first one here again. I think that the readers would like to know about them and if the media does report them then there should be no reason we can't reflect that. If ELNO says we shouldn't include them then they should be removed from all articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't base decisions regarding article content on what is included in other articles. What matters for this article is whether the media considers the Manning petition significant - and so far we've seen no that it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_30#Are_online_petitions_a_form_of_social_networking.3F Seems the policy was changed boldly without much consensus nor an RfC. Did those government petitions online start after of before someone changed the policy incorrectly?--Canoe1967 (talk) 4:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

(ec)But we are discussing inclusion in regards to a policy that was changed incorrectly. Should I just go edit that out of the policy pending a wider consensus? Then we can include it until consensus is reached on the policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Of course not - you don't just edit policy on the fly because you think it was revised wrongly three years ago. If you think it needs revising, raise the matter properly on the relevant talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, the discussion you cite is over 2 years old. The guideline page is watched by 717 editors. That means a lotta people have seen it evolve -- and we've gotta live with the guideline. We cannot change it so that it will allow addition of a petition website link that we support. Get consensus to change the "no petitions" guideline on the EL project page -- then you can make the edit to include the petition link. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon Manning petitions has been discussed and written about in mainstream media sources many times and the Whitehouse has issued a statement regarding an earlier Manning petition - I've referenced multiple sources - As for what constitutes "real evidence" that is a subjective concept not a Wikipedia standard - what do you mean by "real evidence" ?Harold Darling (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right to some extent - this does come down to subjective judgement, as do many editorial decisions on Wikipedia. The mere existence of a source is never in itself sufficient grounds for automatic inclusion of material, and contributors are expected to consider matters such as due and undue weight, in order to conform with WP:NPOV policy. So far, I have seen little evidence from mainstream media sources to suggest that inclusion is due. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that Bradley Manning's plight has been and will continue to be a matter of intense public interest and that the existence of multiple petitions on the whitehouse web site is notable - it is also worth noting that the White house itself has chosen to commented on these petitions does demonstrate the significance of petitions calling for a pardon 108.233.85.165 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems the policy change I mentioned above was in 2010 before We the People (petitioning system) was launched in 2011. We may have to review the policy in light of this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't going to review the policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" , "plight", "intense public interest", "umpteen petitions" — is there a certain POV behind this editing effort? (Consider, per a "recent" unofficial trial transcript (available in the article as a link), counsel mentioned that the extra media space and theater view space had been unused in recent days.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Manning's case has been front page news for over two years - doesn't that qualify as intense public interest? And umpteen petitions is accurate - more than can be counted Harold Darling (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't discussing whether Manning's case is notable. We are discussing whether there has been sufficient coverage of the petition(s) to merit inclusion in the article. This can only be determined by demonstrating that such petitions have attracted interest from uninvolved sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mass Media citations concerning petitions calling for Manning's pardon have already been abundantly referenced in the threads above - I believe that the wikipedia standard for significance has been met - Harold Darling (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to cite a single mainstream media source that discusses the Manning petition as its primary topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've Already have provided a primary sources www.dailykos.com/.../-White-House-web-site-Bradley-Manning-petition.

Harold Darling (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You have provided a (non-working) link to a political blog. The Daily Kos is not a mainstream mass media source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep raising the bar - Wikipedia guidelines don't exclude journalistic blogs from being referenced, nor does Wikipedia dictate that media references must be the primary subject of a given article to warrant inclusion on a wikipedia page - and your insistence upon mass media citations is misplaced given that Wikipedia does NOT require mass media citations to establish credibility

At least three Pardon Manning petitions posted on the Whitehouse web site and the Obama administration has publicly responded to one of those petitions -

petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning

Doesn't it follow that if a petition warrants a response from the Obama administration that petition would merit inclusion on wikipedia? Harold Darling (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"the White House declines to comment on the specific case raised in this petition" - and you think that constitutes a 'response'? Ridiculous.

You've misstated the whitehouse response - the White House said it declines to comment upon a matters pending before a court under the terms of participation - Nevertheless why would the white house respond to an insignificant matter? Harold Darling (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It seem to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Regardless of personal sympathies, this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform from the promotion of Manning's cause - and unless and until it can be shown that petitions have received significant attention from uninvolved sources, it would be entirely undue to use the article as a means to draw attention to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"that petitions have received significant attention from uninvolved sources" is far beyond what Wikipedia requires for inclusion - you're being unreasonably strict shall we request a third party? Harold Darling (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are proposing an RfC, I can't stop you - though I think you are wasting your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable minds may differ - but the reason why I suggested a third party editor is because you've been misstating Wikipoedia's standards and guidelines concerning verifiability - for example you've claimed that blogs can't be cited and that credibility must be established by mainstream media sources - I am willing to hammer out a compromise but I vigorously disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia's standards.Harold Darling (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If the petition picks up speed and some significant news coverage, then it may be worthy of inclusion. But please keep in mind that WP is WP:NOTNEWS. In any event, the Prez is not going to touch this, as military folk would be rather disappointed (e.g., outraged) if he did. Moreover, the US is very upset at present because Snowden is traveling around the world untouched despite the outstanding arrest warrant. Manning has already confessed to certain crimes, so he's guilty and the judge will pass sentence after determination as to guilt on the remaining counts. He will become private E-1, receive a dishonorable discharge, and take up new semi-permanent residence at Ft. Leavenworth. This process will take a few more months and Manning's presence in the news will continue to fade. This temporary petition-tempest-in-a-teapot does not belong in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect I can see from your COI that you're a retired military judge - do you feel that you can be objective about Manning? I will accept your word Harold Darling (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and I are the two most frequent contributors to the article. SV has 524 edits and I have 278. Take a look at our edits to determine our/my objectivity. (BTW, I'm a retired judge advocate -- who has worked, at different times, for the defense and for the government. There is a distinction between my status and that of a judge.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

——— You didn't answer my question if you thought you could be objective editor concerning Manning but more importantly what in blazes constitutes "significant news coverage"? Manning is in the news - that is beyond dispute - and I've cited numerous media sources that have discussed Manning petitions on the Whitehouse web site but that ain't good enough - why not? Harold Darling (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. You have failed to demonstrate that this petition has attracted sufficient media attention. And I suggest that before you accuse people of "misstating Wikipoedia's [sic] standards and guidelines" you actually read them, and learn the difference between verifiability, weight and neutrality. As I've already said, if you want to start an RfC on this, you can - but merely repeating the same points over and over here while taking no notice whatsoever of the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you is becoming tedious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

—— I stand by I what said: you incorrectly claimed on multiple occasions that journalistic blogs can't be cited and that one must use mainstream media sources —— As for sufficiency, I found an abundance of mass media citations concerning Manning petitions but I at this point the best we can do is agree to disagree 108.233.85.165 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I weakly oppose. Petitions such as these are a dime a dozen. anyone can create one, anyone can talk about one. If the petition can be directly linked to some action being taken "The president says that because of the outpouring of opinion on the survey he will..." its important. If its getting discussed outside the echo-chamber (read reliable sources) that created it, its notable. Blogs (particularly kos) have no editorial oversight, anyone may post anything they want, and that someone chose to talk about it is evidence for nothing more than their own interest. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Petitions calling for Manning's pardon have been been cited and discussed - especially comparison to the Pardon Snowden Petition [which by the way is referenced on Snowden's wikidpoedia page] I agree that references to petitions should be carefully considered HOWEVER given the extent of the public interest's in Manning fate, I think it ought to be referenced.

Also, the Whitehouse has responded to a Pardon Manning petition which substantiates the credibility of the petitioning effort.

Here are the links I've located. I did reference two blogs but those inclusions comply with wikipedia standards concerning blog citations.

petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/10/white-house-petition-to-pardon-edward-snowden-gathers-steam usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18886451-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-seeks-white-house-response?lite lfpress.com/2013/06/23/wikileaks-helps-edward-snowden-leave-hong-kong-for-russia</ref> dailykos.com/.../-White-House-web-site-Bradley-Manning-petition.

Harold Darling (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated posting of exactly the same material while failing to address the concerns of others is not only unnecessary, but arguably disruptive to the purposes of this talk page. I suggest that you read WP:REHASH, and then ask yourself whether you might do better to proceed in another manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you're mistaken for my post was responsive to a question by Gaijin42 that has not been previously raised on this talk page, which is: Should a petition reference be made in the absence of action being undertaken in response to that petition? And I argued that a whitehouse response and mass media mention sufficed, and that pother biographies on Wikipedia do contain Wikipedia references. My response was a good faith and unique response to Gaijin42, not a mere recitation

I look forward to discussing the issues raised by this discussion and I'm happy to answer your questions Harold Darling (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump/Srich32977/SlimVirgin

I am going back to he drawing board regarding a reference to Manning's petition - will probably rewrite the petition reference as part of a more comprehensive passage about the public response to Manning's disclosure of classified information - what is the protocol? Start a new discussion? or post here? I am new to wikipedia editing and your assistance is appreciated Harold Darling (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to give up and walk away as I did. Manning is a hero to some and a gay traitor to others. If editors on one side outnumber the others there will never be a consensus to balance the article for both sides. No hero mention, no petition mention, no website. Since it is a BLP article the arguments to remove material can always use that as an excuse. Until a movie, 2 books, and 5 songs are written about a petition then others will never consider it notable enough for inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 - One should be able present a divergence in viewpoints without compromising neutrality - consensus can be elusive Harold Darling (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967, you are making assumptions there that are entirely unjustified. Actually, they are just plain wrong, but I see no point in trying to convince you, if you chose to see things that way. Just don't expect others to respect your judgement if you make a habit of leaping to conclusions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Support network EL

Seems the question of the BM support network external link is related to the petition question. Per WP:ELNO #4, the petition link is a specific no-no. Well, the support network is there in the Further reading too, and it does not comply with ELNO #4 and #11. (Discussion of this was held in Archive #3.) Ah-ha! If the support network (camel's nose) is there, then shouldn't the petition be linked too? (Even if it is specifically frowned upon?) Both should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see that a myriad of problems would arise from permitting external link to petitions - but including a link to a support network is appropriate given that users frequently make use Wikipedia to locate extrinsic resources about subjects that strike their fancy

For example, I learned of the Pardon Snowden petitions from Wikipedia, which in turn prompted me to visit the Whitehouse web site and sign the petition - and arguably isn't that what Wikipedia is for? Harold Darling (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, WP is an Encyclopedia. Linking the support network and petition does not convey information on human knowledge. The fact that you find the links indicates it is being used for promotion, social networking, & webhosting. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich32977, Point of clarity I agree that online petition links should not included, and as for my example on Snowden - I did not follow a link and I had to go find the petition on my own - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Darling (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that per WP:ELNO we shouldn't be linking the Manning support network - I can't think of legitimate grounds to ignore the guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump,I disagree but with caveats - Manning support network could be interpreted as Official link under criteria #2 "linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable."Furthermore, it appears that the web site is under Manning's control given that the web address is his complete name.

HOWEVER, I must admit that I have not conducted enough research to determine that www.bradleymanning.org is Manning's "official" site but given that www.bradleymanning.org may very well be Manning's official site we should refrain from removing the link until that question is answered - Harold Darling (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Manning, not the support network. Manning isn't an 'organization'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Directed to AndyTheGrump — still fits under the language of Official link criteria #2 "linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable" Manning is known for the leaking of classified documents and subsequent court martial proceedings and the Manning support network is the official site for Manning's defense Harold Darling (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume that Mannings official defense is coming from his legal representatives, not from a website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Directed to AndyTheGrump - I just read the previous discussion posted by Belorn concerning bradleymanning.org site and it appears that this issue has been resolved - please read previous discussion posted below Harold Darling (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Just passing by, but I thought it would be worth linking to the previous discussion about the bradleymanning.org site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Bradley_Manning.23Bradley_Manning_Support_Network and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning/Archive_3#Manning.org_link . Belorn (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception vs. Reaction

Manning's actions have caused "reactions" (both in- and out-of-favor) by others (movement in the direction/reverse movement) Published works, creative ideas, etc. have a "reception" ("a manner of being received: The book met with a favorable reception."). "Reactions" is a more appropriate section title for this article and the content contained within that section. 68.55.123.86 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But let's let some others chime in. Then we'll decide. (And thanks for taking the time to justify your proposed edit.) – S. Rich (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - but I'd suggest "Reception to Disclosure" for the additional clarity Harold Darling (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception is the normal term we often use at the end of articles to describe reactions, consequences, opinions, etc. I can't see what's wrong with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been explained above what's wrong with it. The word is incorrectly used here. "Reaction" seems to be a much better fit. --Conti|✉ 19:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind -recpoetipon is a genteel term - suggests a book signing or museum fundraiser How about "Response to to Disclosure"? Harold Darling (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Response to disclosure", "Response to actions", or "Reactions" are all fine. 68.55.123.86 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I've updated the infobox to reflect the convictions but some of the non-standard formatting used in the other infobox aren't carried through. We should preserve the info about his awards and stuff. Please help update the new (now more appropriate) infobox. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Todd, I've restored the previous custom-built box (instead of using infobox criminal), because it means we can add whatever parameters we want. I've retained the old parameters and included the new ones you added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great - thanks! It looks good. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reaction section in the lead seems to take a POV

That section emphasizes the pro-manning view point pretty strongly. I think it should be rewritten in a much more neutral way. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it is pro or anti, Todd. It says he was "viewed as both a 21st-century Tiananmen Square Tank Man and an embittered traitor," and that he was an apparently very unhappy Army private with access to classified material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that you point it out, both portrayals are highly POV, both positive and negative. Calling him a tank man is every bit as POV as calling him a traitor. He was convicted of theft, espionage and other criminal issues, not of being a traitor. I think it would be better to say that reaction has been highly polarized with those examples. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We do start the paragraph by saying that reaction was mixed, and the examples from Nicks illustrate just how polarized it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I agree. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The POV is still off as per what Nicks write - the way it reads currently is that Nicks is comparing him to the Tiananmen Square man, where as in the book he just uses it to contrast the opposing views on what Manning has done. http://books.google.com/books?id=GE_yDipSkYQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.62.98 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The reaction section graph starting "Manning and WikiLeaks were credited as catalysts for the Arab Spring" is duplicative of the introduction. One or the other should be removed. IMO, it should be the second, which is so POV it adopts a fawning tone. The references there are extensive, but there is no balance.Leslynjd (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead summarizes the reaction, so it's okay to say it twice. As for balance, it's a fact that they were credited as catalysts, so I'm not sure what it could be balanced with, or why would we would need to try to balance it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

unless these views as a "catalyst" etc are widely held (something along the lines of WP:RS/AC at a minimum we would need to say "credited by X as a catalyst" since the nature of the claim is somewhat dubious and POV. Peopel such as Manning are easy targets for people to use both positively and negatively for propaganda/rehtorical purposes - people using such rhetorical devices should be viewed with a critical eye unless the viewpoint is widely held. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The viewpoint is widely held. Some sources used for this in the article:

• Nicks, Denver. Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History. Chicago Review Press, 2012, pp. 212–216.
• Walker, Peter. "Amnesty International hails WikiLeaks and Guardian as Arab spring 'catalysts'", The Guardian, 13 May 2011.
• Horne, Nigel. "Tunisia: WikiLeaks had a part in Ben Ali's downfall", The Week, 15 January 2011.
• "In the year of the protester, Bradley Manning is the great dissenter", The Irish Times, 24 December 2011.
• Rosenbach, Marcel and Schmitz, Gregor Peter. "US Determined to Punish Bradley Manning", Der Spiegel, 15 December 2011.
• Malinowski, Tom. "Whispering at Autocrats", Foreign Policy, 25 January 2011.
• "A Selection From the Cache of Diplomatic Dispatches", The New York Times.
• Black, Ian. "WikiLeaks cables: Tunisia blocks site reporting 'hatred' of first lady", The Guardian, 7 December 2010.
• "Time's Person of the Year: the Protester", Time magazine, 14 December 2011.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of Nicks source

I have no issue with the source per se, other than I wouldn't necessarily put it in the same category as a more traditional RS> However, we seem to rely on this one source a lot. This is a widely covered story, and regardless of the quality of the Nicks source, relying on one source for some much of the content/references seems less than ideal. Even if the Nicks source is absolutely fantastic, it's one perspective. Just as undue weight to perspectives in the article in general is a concern, undue weight to any one given source is concerning as well. I'm not suggesting we go on a Nicks pogram, but we should be looking to replace some of the content with other RS, even if it's supporting the same thing.

Some of the Nicks stuff, especially the unnecessarily hyperbolic bit about Tank man and traitor in the lede, is unencyclopedic. I would recommend removing that bit. You don't need to use his terms to reference him. It would be much more encyclopedic to summarize reaction in general in the lede...the majority of that section is given over just to Nicks in the lede, including far greater detail on that one assertion than is necessary. The fact that he is showing a balance of inflammatory rections doesn't mean we have the use his same inflammatory language. I would suggest simplifying it to something like, "reaction varied widely, etc." The language used may be great for an autobiography; I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicks's book is the most informed journalistic source on Manning, so it would be odd to replace it with a less informed one. As for the lead, the Tank man/traitor juxtaposition sums up well the wide range of opinion, and how it has veered from one extreme to another. I couldn't think of a more succinct way to do that. The problem with expressing it in general terms without in-text attribution is that someone else will come along and ask whose opinion it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning

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.

---

She's made a statement that her name is Chelsea Manning, so the pronouns should be changed to she and the article renamed Chelsea. The FAQ about Brenna no longer applies. 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik has publicly stated multiple times that he prefers to be referred as "Commander Breivik", should Wikipedia change his page to reflect his self-identity? 85.65.68.209 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, [20] appears to be pretty unambiguous. What do we think? Morwen (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree based on the evidence. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, we need an immediate redirect. A search on Chelsea Manning doesn't yield this article, it yield an article about football club Chelsea FC. 68.81.192.33 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried a move. Disappointingly, User:Cls14 has reverted immediately back, using a highly gendered term in their edit summary! I'm assuming this is some kind of misunderstanding over not having read the reference, so will not put it back just yet. Morwen (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty confusing to see Manning described with female pronouns for the time in which they served as a male soldier. I recommend to use the male pronoun for the time prior to their recent declaration concerning their identity. As to the article title, that should follow the predominant usage in reliable sources, as everything else.  Sandstein  12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That would go against long-established practice, and MOS:IDENTITY

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent Morwen a message about this stating I was unaware of any potential change and as such I thought it was a scam. In the article itself it didn't mention any gender change so I assumed it was spam, which it clearly isn't Cls14 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did cite the article in my edit summary! Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:Morwen has moved the page to Chelsea Manning for a second time. The move is hasty and without proper consultation with editors. I think this article should be moved back to Bradley Manning until it is confirmed the subject has legally changed his/her name and a majority of reliable sources start referring to this subject as "Chelsea Manning". --Tocino 12:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but AFAIK Bradley wants to be a woman but isn't yet. Also, I don't believe his name has been officially changed to Chelsea. I find this move extremely premature, not to say ridiculous. This is not a Wendy Carlos situation. Yet. Yintan  12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just happy he didn't decide to self-identify as Jesus Christ could you imagine the redirects. SMH. This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname. †TE†Talk 13:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. " from MOS:IDENTITY. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Many sources are still reporting the name as Bradley Manning. For instance: The Telegraph: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman called Chelsea, Washington Post: Bradley Manning says he is now a woman named Chelsea, BBC: Bradley Manning: 'I want to be a woman', The Independent: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, Channel 14: Bradley Manning: I want to be a woman (called Chelsea), RT: #FreeChelsea: Bradley Manning states he's 'female', wants to live as ‘Chelsea’, ABC News: Bradley Manning Says He Wants to Live as a Woman and Today: Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman. Sources even referrer to the person as "he". I think article move was hasted. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Self-identification". What other sources refer to her as is irrelevant. She has self identified as female, and by MOS:IDENTITY that means the article should use female pronouns. Casiotone^talk 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading MOS:IDENTITY, I think we should use female gender nouns, pronouns and possessive adjectives, because that's her latest expressed gender self-identification. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we have to follow whatever a person decides to call his/herself this week? No. MOS:IDENTITY says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to (etc)". There is, as yet, no question about Manning's gender at all. Yintan  13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was no question about her gender. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course - there is no longer a question about Manning's gender. She is female without doubt. I'm glad you agree. Casiotone^talk 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun."--Brian Dell (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He can request all he likes, Bdel555, that doesn't make it true. Or factual. Yintan  13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He signed his...I mean (no kidding intended) ... she signed her name "Chelsea E. Manning" on the Today Show statement, but indicated that his name in official mail to the detention facility is still Bradley Manning. Here is the statement:

Subject: The Next Stage of My Life

I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.

Thank you,

Chelsea E. Manning

Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea's statement is very clear and seems almost designed to invoke MOS:IDENTITY, which is also very clear. I regard this matter as a WP:BLP area. Morwen (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And the sources are equally clear that it's still "he".[21] Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advocate, it's supposed to report valid sources. You need to revert this article back to where it was, until such time as the sources starting calling him "her". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for renaming the article. But the pronouns used for her throughout the article are still inconsistent. What does the E in Chelsea E. Manning stand for? --88.73.34.231 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is a source for "Chelsea E. Manning"? It could be that Manning has decided to drop the middle name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy. "Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, be called Chelsea". Fox News (AP). 22 August 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2013. The statement was signed "Chelsea E. Manning.". LFaraone 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then? Self-identification is not the same as legal identity

• Shouldn't we be relying on this individual's legal name? Does going on the Today show and saying "actually this is my name now" have any validity? This of course brushing aside any issue around the timing one day after his/her sentencing that is clearly to garner public sympathy (after all, why all the hooplah and public announcements? 15 seconds of fame?)... The way this is going we'll have to move the article with every new adjustment to his name. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, going on the Today show and publically announcing your change of name to the world is legally effective in many common law jursdictions, including most US states. See legal name and name change. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What a joke. The guys says he is Chelsea Manning and the people who run this "encyclopedia" rush to change the pronouns? You have got to be kidding me. If I wake up in the morning and decide I am a woman, it doesn't make it so. This absolutely reeks of political correctness.74.138.45.132 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2013 (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.

Time for New Section on Gender Identity Issues?

I created a subsection for the BACKGROUND part of the article for his gender reassignment. This may only be a temporary thing. Should there be a seperate section collecting information on his gender issues? (I seem to be having an issue with his gender as I just realized I used the masculine pronoun for Chelsea.)Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole gender issue is ridiculous. Just because a person wants to change gender does not make it so. To the outside world he is still a man. Some people would like themselves to be called ´king´ or ´jesus´, but that does not mean the public acknowledge that. Also the term ´gender reassignment surgery´, why not call it what it is, a sex change operation. Are we going to call a kidney transplantation a ´kidney reassignment surgery´ too? By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it. Bradley Manning was a man for the first 25 years of his life, and will remain so until he has surgery, legal name change and sufficient consensus. And even if that does happen, it won´t undo the fact that she was a man for the first 25+ year of her life and should be described as a ´he´ for those years.

If one believes that "gender is what's between the ears, sex is what's between the legs" then the correct term is sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) because psychological gender cannot be modified surgically. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:49D (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is such a sad, pathetic joke

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.

---

Bradley Manning is the person's name, legally. I have no idea what is going on here, and assumed the article was vandalized, until I read all the nonsense above. I would have expected a speedy revert until a *reliable source* indiciated otherwise. Can an adult editor please step in? 198.161.2.241 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Admin of ten years standing here. today.com is a reliable source. Morwen (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to flash your badge, officer, but the manner in which this hasty move has been executed is a bit ridiculous. Surely you can see that? †TE†Talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you find to be hasty? Unless we aren't taking the Today Show as a reliable source, Manning's expression is public, and we should adjust our titles to reflect the policy of deference to LGBT self-identity. If you have a problem with that general policy, then we can talk about that. But Morwen is 100% correct that everyone needs a rebuttal. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"deference to LGBT self-identity" - so the majority should just go along with the minority because we're scared to offend people? obviously it was a hasty move, look how contentious it has been (currently re-move supports outnumber opposes). Clinton (talk)

Yes, it's ridiculous the number of people making transphobic arguments against a fairly straightforward page move. It's ridiculous that anyone would think they saying new here that hasn't been hashed out before, that we are supposed to rebut each one individually. Morwen (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Transphobic"? Am I missing something? Yintan  13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The theory being that Manning isn't allowed to decide how we should refer to her. That lack of deference to her wishes constitutes a lack of respect / transphobia. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted unsourced BLP>

The overriding "theory" is that we follow common names and valid sourcing. Maybe it will be there tomorrow, but it isn't there today. Editors who want to abuse Wikipedia for the sake of advocacy have been itching to make this move for many months now. They have moved too soon, and make Wikipedia live down to the level its critics accuse it of being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing is valid. MOS:IDENTITY is clear. Take your soapbox somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS does not override sourcing. Take your own soapbox somewhere else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We have multiple mainstream media sources reporting Manning's statement. If you wish to make even more of a fool of your self and argue that they aren't reliable, do so at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Reporting the statement, yes. He asked the media to start calling him "she". Once the media broadly starts doing that, then you'll have an argument. You don't, yet. The only fool that's being made of with this advocacy-driven change is Wikipedia itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My argument is based on what MOS:IDENTITY says. As it was when I opposed attempts to rename Manning as Breanna, prior to Manning making the statement. If you wish to argue that MOS:IDENTITY is wrong, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is the opinion of Wikipedians. It does not override sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning herself constitutes a higher-level of source than the mass media Rhialto (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This happens to be wikipedia and not a newspaper. So the MOS has relevance over your sourcing rules.

190.103.67.169 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) There is no "theory" about how we refer to HIM. HE is man biologically and legally. He is in prison without access to any medical procedure to assist him in any changes. As stated elsewhere on this page, I could declare myself as the King of England, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia will suddenly refer to me as His Majesty.198.161.2.241 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that going around declaring yourself the King of England is remotely comparable to a real, legitimate medical condition that presents real, legitimate WP:BLP issues, you need a slap upside the head with the biggest fish in the Atlantic Ocean. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this whole page just shows how biased Wikipedian's and therefore Wikipedia is.

I'll have to find the article, but there was this dude who said he was King of something or other and there was a huge brouhaha over whether he should be called king, ect. You really can't make this stuff up. I am still trying to wrap my head around Shin Dong-hyuk. --Malerooster (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Several comments on this page have ridiculed transgendered people in general, and compared a human being born a male who makes a declaration that they feel they are female and want to be called a female to the person claiming they are a King or Jesus or an animal or whatever. The who issue of transgender identity should not be made light of. Gender identity is more than genitalia, and it not the province of Wikipedia editors to override the declared gender identity of someone. Edison (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Feelopedia, the free online encyclopedia that cares for what people might feel. --Niemti (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A person's legal name is irrelevant to the question of what the article title should be. The rapper whose legal name is James Todd Smith, for instance, has his article at LL Cool J, not at "James Todd Smith". Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow, if only so much effort could be concentrated by editors in to reaching a consensus instead of deviating from it then we'd all be better off instead of expending so much energy on Wikipedia trying to demonstrate why X does not equal Y.5 Badanagram (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2013 (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.