This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert all names referring to Mr. Manning as "Chelsea Elizabeth" back to what his parents assigned to him upon his birth. The US Military does not currently recognize transgender and I feel some people may be mislead by what this Wikipedia page is implying. Thank you. 96.227.225.28 ( talk) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article for awhile so I just noticed the change. While the cited source may use the word "confidential," it does have the potential to cause a little confusion. The reason is because U.S. Government agencies actually use three levels of classification for classified material, with "Confidential" being the lowest level and "Secret" and "Top Secret" being higher. I'm not trying to tread into the original research area, but technically the source is incorrect calling all of the documents confidential when a good portion of them were secret. If we must use the word confidential because that is what the cited source says maybe we could consider seeking another source so the correct term is used in the article. Amducker ( talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
For me, this seals it. In her opinion piece "The years since I was jailed for releasing the 'war diaries' have been a rollercoaster," published today (May 27, 2015) by The Guardian, Chelsea Manning writes: "It all began in the first few weeks of 2010, when I made the life-changing decision to release to the public a repository of classified (and unclassified but "sensitive" ) documents that provided a simultaneously horrific and beautiful outlook on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.) If Manning herself calls the unclassified documents "sensitive," Wikipedia should follow suit and change our lead so that the clause will read: "…after disclosing to WikiLeaks a large repository of classified or unclassified but sensitive national security documents." Kent Krupa ( talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a post trans picture?-- 88.104.136.143 ( talk) 18:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See the FAQ at the top of this page. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Bradley Manning (legal name) is biologically and anatomically male. If a person is male it is imperative to use the male pronouns. Why? If we being to use pronouns that are not truly indicative of the person, we may as well refer to all other objects and animals by what they aren't. Doing so is confusing and detrimental long term. Gender is an abstract construct to refer to a state of mind, one which can change and is more volatile than a fixed anatomical state, being sex. Therefore referring to his sex is a more consistent and logical approach. We can still be respectful of his gender in understanding the wish to live a life looking like a woman, but simply he is not one. Use of the pronouns 'he', him' would be setting a non-confusing long term precedent for our future and Wikipedia's future - assuming Wikipedia wishes to remain non-confusing. I do use Wikipedia occasionally for my medical studies, and if Wikipedia wishes to address things based on whims rather than hard science that is unfortunate. I will be reconsidering use of Wikipedia for factual reference that is certain. If these changes are not within your administrative privilege, I would most appreciate you referring my text onto someone who can set a uniform standard at your organisation. Regards, V 101.170.213.83 ( talk) 04:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
I am sure this might have been brought up before but shouldn't this article mention the statues erected in the main square of Berlin which represent Manning, Assange and Snowden as heroes of freedom and free speech? This was completely ignored by US media, understandably, but I think it is worthy of mention... http://www.firstpost.com/world/anything-say-snowden-assange-manning-statues-unveiled-berlin-2226700.html Kind regards,-- Mondschein English ( talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prison Life In March 2015, Bloomberg News reported that Manning can be visited only by those she had named before her imprisonment, and not by journalists. However, in April of 2015, Manning was visited at Fort Leavenworth by Glenn Greenwald a reporter for the online publication, The Incercept. [1]
199.48.121.51 (
talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that Chelsea Manning has been particularly vocal as a trans woman, is it not more appropriate to feature an image of Chelsea that she prefers, i.e. as female-presenting? The image that accompanied her "I am Chelsea Manning" statement or Twitter image come immediately to mind. My email is ragnarok@brown.edu, I am a transfeminist writer and have written on CM from a transfeminist perspective. -Ragna
The caption for the photo says it was taken in April 2012, when Manning was arrested in May 2010. It seems the caption that states the picture was taken in April 2012 is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa44 ( talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that a user added three British categories to the article on August 24, which I am assuming is based on Manning's mother being a British citizen. The only reason I would probably consider that move as premature and a possible target for removal until sourced is because when a person enlists into the US military for a job that requires a security clearance, they may be required to renounce any non-US citizenships held as a prerequisite to accept the clearance. In other words, prior to being granted a TS/SCI clearance, Manning might have been required to renounce British citizenship. I'm not saying that Manning had to renounce British citizenship (assuming Manning even had it in the first place), but it would be a strong possibility. Amducker ( talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the picture from Chelsea Manning as a male in their military uniform to one of her being female
OraTexLadi ( talk) 10:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The article gives almost no information about the worldwide support Chelsea Manning enjoys. I believe there should at least be a mention of Ellsberg personal message, [1] of comments in the media about her conditions of detention [2] and of the appeal by Amnesty International to release her or, at least, commute her sentence. [3] Her sentencing to 35 years for leaking classified information about government’s wrongdoings is unparalleled in the civilized world and has shocked many people around the world. She has a support network with a website dedicated to her. I think this is also a notable fact that we should mention. [4] Againstdisinformation ( talk) 23:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2014, it was published an italian song about the story of Chelsea Manning. The album is called "Bioscop" by Wu Ming Contingent (Wu Ming contingent is part of the Wu Ming collective, here the wikipedia link /info/en/?search=Wu_Ming), the song is called "Soldato Manning" ("Soldier Manning").
185.35.95.12 ( talk) 17:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, i'm not familiar to wikipedia code. Anyway my request was to add in the section 7 ("Non-military tributes") something like: "In 2014, the italian group Wu Ming contingent (part of the Wu Ming collective) has released a song about the story of Chelsea Manning. The song is called "Soldato Manning" (english: "Soldier Manning") and it's part of the album "Bioscop". " Anyway as i'm not an english speaker, maybe the sentence should be changed in a better form. About the source, here it is the link to the official Wu Ming blog about the release of Bioscop (only in italian, i couldn't find any english page) http://www.wumingfoundation.com/giap/?p=17152 and here it is the official record label page http://www.woodworm-music.com/shop/wu-ming-contingent-bioscop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.35.95.20 ( talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The article gives almost no information about the worldwide support Chelsea Manning enjoys. I believe there should at least be a mention of Ellsberg personal message, [5] of comments in the media about her conditions of detention [6] and of the appeal by Amnesty International to release her or, at least, commute her sentence. [7] Her sentencing to 35 years for leaking classified information about government’s wrongdoings is unparalleled in the civilized world and has shocked many people around the world. She has a support network with a website dedicated to her. I think this is also a notable fact that we should mention. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ( talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article lacks source for "petition was quickly granted" under section #2014. Suggest adding source for it such as http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27132347 82.243.60.91 ( talk) 20:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe I worded that first question wrongly. What I meant was, when we first heard about this individual, it was "Bradley Manning" and nobody was calling him female---it was just that some guy leaked info. Now suddenly it's "Chelsea" and "she" and it doesn't even say that the person was known as a guy till recently. If it hadn't been for the section about the crimes committed, I wouldn't even realize this was the same person as "Bradley." This is confusing to people like me who don't keep up on every little tidbit of trans news. Mean Mister Ketchup ( talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence about how Manning qualified for the GWOT service ribbon. The 30 day time frame of "service in support of" is not really relevant. In fact, Manning is wearing 5 service ribbons and only 3 are listed in the info box. (All were issued because of a certain amount of time in the service.) These ribbons are simply handed out after a company clerk makes note in the members service record. The are hardly awarded. In Manning's case the amount of support actually provided to GWOT is problematic. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The article states that Chelsea was convicted of aiding the enemy. If possible, I would like to know more details on that specific matter instead of just seeing that Chelsea aided the enemy. Xdanx1232 ( talk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello. This is David Moulton. I am actually not a Captain in the Navy--the press got my rank wrong. I am a Commander, and was a Commander at the time of the trial. The abbreviation is CDR, and I prefer to be referred to as CDR David L. Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist. I was on Manning's defense team for about two years. Also, I don't feel the way the quoted paragraph is referenced clearly identifies me, though that was my statement.
Also, the correct abbreviation for Private First Class is PFC, all caps.
I think you can reference the transcripts from the freedom press website, and if so, I think the whole of the wiki article would be improved upon.
Might I suggest:
CDR David L. Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Manning for over 20 hours in the months after the arrest, said Manning showed signs of both Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Asperger syndrome. Moulton acknowledged that while Manning had narcissistic personality traits, Moulton did not agree with past clinicians who had diagnosed Manning with a personality disorder. Rather, Moulton identified Manning was suffering from Gender Dysphoria, exacerbated by Manning's inability to access appropriate psychological services from military mental health providers. Under the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Manning feared he would be administratively separated from the Army for disclosing his sexual orientation and gender identity. Moulton stated Manning did not feel he could participate in any meaningful way with military mental health without his gender identity being identified. As such, Manning had no effective treatment for his mood disorder, nor a sounding board to process his disenchantment with the wars and his preoccupation with effecting a change. Moulton said that, in leaking the material, Manning had been "acting out [a] grandiose ideation." that stemmed from post-adolescent idealism. In his testimony, Moulton provided insights into Manning's agenda:
"PFC Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if ... through crowdsourcing, enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, that it would lead to a greater good ... that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it ... that really no wars are worth it."[123]
Happy to provide further discussion. I can be reached at david.moulton@hsc.utah.edu
50.160.81.61 ( talk) 00:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The intro currently states that Manning is a "former soldier". Isn't she technically still a soldier as is indicated by the infobox under years of service? As I understand it the discharge is only effective once her term has been completed. Another Article ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep a watch on this, Manning may face solitary confinement. [8] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I got (via a friend) approval from Chelsea to use this photo ( https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*phC-t2GE3W_iESjvn4HUzw.jpeg) on her WP page. It was coded as CC-BY-SA for this purpose. My first thought is that I would like to replace the military photo in the infobox with this, but I realize that might not be completely representative of the article. So I'm reaching out to other editors for advice on where best to place it in the article. I'm somewhat "design challenged." I'll upload the photo to commons now, but wanted to get this discussion going. thx, LaMona ( talk) 22:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There is something wrong with the Intro - Manning is not known for being convicted but for leaking classified documents. The Intro should reflect that somehow bettr than it does right now ...-- ChristopheT ( talk) 20:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Chelsea Elizabeth Manning [2] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly three-quarters of a million classified or unclassified but sensitive military and diplomatic documents. [3]
References
To clarify, she should be known for being convicted.
Her transgender nature could be better exampled, within the boundaries. b. roffmann ( talk) 23:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning will receive gender transition surgery:: Today news is Michel is nervous on this Obama . This is trans verb citat from CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B15F:20E7:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 ( talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
From the infobox photo we can see the iraq campaign ribbon that is missing from the infobox awards section.
sources: /info/en/?search=Iraq_Campaign_Medal /info/en/?search=File:Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
On the same note, also missing the Army Overseas Service Ribbon
source: /info/en/?search=Overseas_Service_Ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
already resolved – see archives and FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Manning is physically and biologically male. Period. To use the pronoun 'she' is factually false. Period. End of discussion. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
|
The copyrighted image of Chelsea Manning in the blonde wig should be the main image of the article. As Manning is female identified, it is only right that this image be used, and I believe that it falls under the fair use rationale. Asarelah ( talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure about the rules for fair use, but I think it's inappropriate to have a picture in the infobox from when Chelsea was still identifying as male. I think that the most appropriate thing to do would be to have a picture of her where she is presenting as female, as long as one is available; otherwise, I would suggest removing the picture entirely. It is misleading to readers to show a picture of Manning that is outdated and might confuse people about her gender identity. Michelangelo1992 ( talk) 00:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
From the infobox photo we can see the iraq campaign ribbon that is missing from the infobox awards section.
sources: /info/en/?search=Iraq_Campaign_Medal /info/en/?search=File:Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
On the same note, also missing the Army Overseas Service Ribbon
source: /info/en/?search=Overseas_Service_Ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Done – albeit without the ribbon icons, which are visable on the official photo. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been put on twice, and it's got no place here. The claim is related only to Assange and has no bearing on Manning at all. Since there is no indictment (and therefore no extradition) it's not as if there's any form of quid-pro-quo entered in between Obama and Assange. If it belongs anywhere on wikipedia (unlikely, because it's by a non-repubtable source about themselves) then *maybe* on Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority but given it was an empty boast, even that is stretching it. Ktetch ( talk) 07:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The accounts of events prior to the medical intervention, are confusing. It seems apparent that it was a "he" that was born in Oklahoma, it was a "he" that enlisted in the Army and "he" leaked the documents. The actor was physically male, and for all we know genetically male as well, and so "he did those things". It is not clear what reason outside of POV or some sort of political correctness, there would be for using "she" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKN1 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a valid debate, but in the wrong venue. This article follows the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity. If you think those guidelines should be changed then please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This article is a biography of a living person and Manning may well read it. We need to take special care what of is discussed here, and how it is discussed. Verbcatcher ( talk) 02:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
See FAQ at top, and note that talk page is also under discretionary sanctions.
|
---|
Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change Bradley Manning was born a man, is presently a man, and will pass from this earth as a man. Wikipedia is knowingly pushing a demonstrable lie, enabling the delusions of a clinically disordered individual, and imposing this insanity on Wikipedia readers by brute force. This is dishonest, thuggish and completely without any basis in fact. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
And those 500,000+ page views came before this article was added to In the News a couple of hours ago. Funcrunch ( talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date of arrest is listed as May 20th 2007, whereas it should be May 20th 2010.
I fixed the info they suggested but there's something wrong with the section. Not sure how to edit it. ValarianB ( talk) 13:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that Manning is still known as "Bradley Manning" to many people, but many trans people who have changed their name are uncomfortable with their name assigned at birth. Do we know how comfortable Manning is with her name given at birth appearing in the first sentence of this article, as well as in the info box to the right? I know at least one trans woman who believes that this name shouldn't appear in the article at all. In the trans community, the name "Bradley" is known as Manning's "dead name," and being referred to by that name is often seen as hostile misgendering.
As with the photo appearing on the page, I think Wikipedia should go by how the subject wants her name assigned at birth to appear (or not appear) in this article.
67.242.214.51 ( talk) 05:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I question why Chelsea Manning's 1/17/17 Commutation by Pres. Obama isn't at the top (nor the bottom) of her Wikipedia page. If it is there, it was not easy for me to find it, but hope I just missed it.
(Don't believe it's necessary to cite sources for this common knowlegde.)
Joyce S. Tucson, AZ ( talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Joyce S. Tucson, AZ
Can someone change the part under "Commutation" where it says that she criticized President Obama? That quote is somewhat out of context and the column was not so much critical of him as it was expressing her dissatisfaction with his opposition's stubbornness and refusal to compromise. I'd probably say something like "On January 26, 2017, in her first column for The Guardian since the commutation, Manning lamented that President Obama's political opponents consistently refused to compromise, resulting in "very few permanent accomplishments" during his time in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.164 ( talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is not a neutral article when it fails to detail Manning calling a military leader a dyke and bragging about punching them in the face. That is an important issue in regards to Manning's demonstrated homophobia, and it should not be allowed to be written out Manning's history.
Chat Logs:
(01:45:18 PM) bradass87: i punched a dyke in the phace…
(01:46:46 PM) bradass87: i got sick of these dykes and their drama… it was worse than “The L Word”…
https://www.wired.com/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ Estrogin ( talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
How would we feel about replacing the bio picture with this one? [9] Artw ( talk) 17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi first time I've done a talk page, confused about the format, sorry if I do it wrong. What do people think about this new image? https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/865250670831702016 JacobK ( talk) 5:23 PM, Thursday, May 18, 2017
The ACLU said on their Facebook page that the photographer was Tim Travers Hawkins who I believe is a filmmaker doing a documentary about Chelsea. ACLU Facebook Page. Larla77 ( talk) 19:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI this is all worked out now; the photographer has confirmed the CC licensing of the new photo. See discussion on Commons for details. Funcrunch ( talk) 14:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As she is out of prison now, could someone perhaps comment on her Instagram and ask her to upload a public domain image to Wikimedia Commons that could be used of her presenting as female to replace her old, male-presenting image? I'm sure she'd be quite eager to get the old image replaced. Asarelah ( talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that Manning has taken a new high quality picture of herself since her release, should the infobox photo be changed to reflect her current self? Nee1927 ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops, just saw the other thread. Disregard this. Nee1927 ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the 2012 photo of Chelsea Manning to the/a photo she posted upon her release, due to her transition and 5 year difference VBudler ( talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it there anywhere a reference to him/her stating or mentioning about his/her intention of switching sex prior to being incarcerated? [conspiracy]It came out of the blue for many. It could be interpreted by other whistleblowers as a threat [/conspiracy]. It's just a question, cause probably he mentioned it way before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.160.138 ( talk) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does the preview image still show her old picture when I post a link Facebook? Does it just take a while for the data to update? Asarelah ( talk) 12:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence on the top section of the article has the wrong date.
"On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to a total of seven years of confinement dating from the date of arrest (May 20, 2010) by military authorities."
Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010. Not May 20. Can someone fix this please? Thanks! :) 75.115.245.131 ( talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's important to know that many people edit this talk page saying that this article's title needs to be moved because they think transgenderism is just playing make-believe. Please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely; otherwise people will continue. Georgia guy ( talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
{{hat}}{{hab}}
tags (easier than deleting comments because some wikipedians don't like deleting comments from talk pages even if it's obvious trolling, and despite there being no rule against it). --
ChiveFungi (
talk) 14:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
For the preceding discussion, see Please semi-protect this talk page.
Per WP:BLPTALK talk pages of biographies of leaving persons must follow the same general rules that apply to WP:BLPs. This means that libel must be removed immediately, and that potentially libelous content may be discussed but should be linked to and not hosted on wikipedia. Further, “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.”
Per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL “derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.” These two edits certainly fall into this category (and were rightly removed - that IP has also been suspended).
The following conclusions were made by the Arbitration Committee regarding previous conflicts on this page and it’s talk page:
10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy.
11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.Moving forward I propose that we make a more concerted effort to remove comments which assert that the subject of the article, or any living person mentioned in it, or an editor is delusional or mentally ill for thinking that Manning is a women. Similar remove any personal attacks. A warning should also be posted on that editors talk page. Following that reasoning, these edits [11] [12] should be removed. (From their edits, @ Srich32977: seems to disagree. Perhaps you could add your perspective?)
However, I do not believe that polite comments made in good faith should be sanctioned, even if they question the name of the article or the use of female pronouns etc. These comments are about the content in the article and show a desire to make wikipedia better. I think it is best to err on the side of caution and assume good faith whenever possible. If the comments are discussed directly in the FAQ then collapsing them and linking to the FAQ seems like the best solution.
Lastly I oppose semi-protecting this talk page as there have been several valuable semi-protected edit requests. BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 16:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The recent IP edits are blatantly offensive per the edit summaries (which should be removed). The [3] and [4] edits referred to above are not so bad as to get bent out of shape over, and they got polite replies. I do not think labeling polite edits as trolling will be helpful. Besides, this talk page gets archived quickly enough so questions like "why is he a she?" etc. will get resolved and filed out of sight. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not, for the record, Wikipedia's place to simply deny the validity of transgender identity — medical science confirms that it's a real thing, and the only known treatment for it is some form of gender transition — so it's not the role of a neutral encyclopedia, or contributors to it, to pretend that's not true. Our general concept articles about transgender issues can certainly document any controversy about this — but they cannot simply assert that it's not a real thing as if that were some kind of given, and individual BLPs of individual transgender people are most especially not the place to wage that war. Our job is to err on the side of respect for our article subjects, inclusive of their right to define their own gender identity — our job is not to placate people who aren't Chelsea Manning in their views on the validity or invalidity of the entire phenomenon of transgender identity, and our job is not to simply call it a psychological delusion as the commenters in question did. Medical science accepts that it's a real thing, and that's that — the general concept article transgender can document the existence of alternative views on the matter, but individual biographies of individual people aren't the place for it any more than individual biographies of individual Ismailis would be the appropriate platform for debating whether Ismailism is a branch of Islam or a heretic sect (which has also, inappropriately, happened more than once.) Bearcat ( talk) 19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank those taking the time to discuss these problems. Just reading a couple of the examples I find them childish but at the same time too upsetting to want to engage with or talk about, so am glad I feel I can walk away and let others safely handle the problem. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 19:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thus will be done by deleting remarks deemed unpalatable by transsexuals, refusing to debate changes to the article and not allowing challenges to general, unsubstantiated remarks such as 'medical science accepts' this and that. Nor will debate on the attitude Wikipedia should adopt in its articles be allowed. I am camping out here (good phrase for it, really). I have spoken. 12.201.7.201 ( talk) 05:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I have not been a contributor to this article and am not sure how her press appearances are being incorporated into it but believe there should be reference somewhere to this feature article and this movie. - phi ( talk) 10:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the article, it says Chelsea " is a former United States Army soldier..." However, it is my understanding that due to her continued appeals in the military court system, that she must continue in the service and is subject to the UCMJ. Until all appeals are denied, or she withdraws from the service (or President Trump's order about transgender personnel is implemented), I think it should say that she "is a United States Army soldier on excess leave..."
[1] Johnd39 ( talk) 19:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
References
On September 20, 2017, The Daily Caller posted a story by its National Security/Politics Reporter, Jonah Bennett, titled " Pentagon Debunks Chelsea Manning's Claims To Have Zero Access To Gov't Health Care." In it, Bennett quotes Army spokeswoman Valerie L. Mongello: "Manning is currently on excess leave pending completion of the appellate review of the court-martial conviction. While on excess leave, Manning is on active duty, but in an unpaid status. As an active duty Soldier, Manning is statutorily entitled to medical care."
In turn, Manning told The Daily Caller: "[I] have private healthcare with kaiser permanente, i am banned from all military posts and installations, i am statutorily barred from receiving any form of benefit from the DoD or VA by statute, and this administration has an incentive to claim i have access to healthcare in order to bolster its trans ban narrative. DoD and VA cite title 38, U.S.C. section 6105, due to the convictions under 18 usc 793(e). its kind of obscure but still has force and effect. [I] dont think that DoD is knowingly lying so much as there is a lot of confusion because everything is obscure, and medical information is considered extremely private under the Privacy Act."
This dispute affects our WP:BLP in two ways:
It's probably easier to deal with the second point first. The Army spokeswoman quoted by The Daily Caller does not claim that Manning is now receiving or has at any time since her release received government healthcare, merely that Manning "is statutorily entitled to medical care." Accordingly, our BLP does not contradict The Daily Caller story in that regard, and requires no change.
Manning's duty status is another matter, since our BLP and The Daily Caller are in clear disagreement.
I request editorial discussion and consensus on how to deal with this conflict. For the time being, I suggest we await clarification from additional WP:RS before identifying Manning as an active-duty soldier. I am troubled by the historical controversies enumerated on Wikipedia's page describing The Daily Caller, calling into question The Daily Caller's reliability, as well as by Jonah Bennett's consistent misgendering of Chelsea Manning—a sure sign of hostililty to transgender individuals. KalHolmann ( talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
On July 10, 2017, Guy Benson, political editor of Townhall.com, posted "Chelsea Manning: 'The Wealthy' Don't Pay Taxes, So We Must Force Them To, or Something", discussing the "gender-reassignment treatment and surgery [emphasis added] she received courtesy of taxpayers while incarcerated."
Under Chelsea_Manning#Gender_transition (2016), we incorporate the ACLU's September 2016 announcement that "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery." In the next sentence, we add that a month later, "Manning's attorneys reported that her military doctor, Dr. Ellen Galloway, refused Manning's request to change the gender on her military records to female." Since the source article does not mention surgery, it's unknown how, if at all, Dr. Galloway's refusal affected the Army's promise to provide Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS).
In January 2017, Charlie Savage wrote in The New York Times that, according to Manning, she had not seen a surgeon.
In the ensuing four months, I saw no news story that Manning had received SRS. And of course on May 17, 2017, she was released from prison.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't cite a lone source on such an important development. Yet on July 10, 2017, via her verified Twitter account, Chelsea Manning retweeted the Townhall article to her 246K followers, with a comment but conspicuously not denying Townhall's thesis that "Taxpayers Financed Her Gender Reassignment Surgery."
Coming from Manning herself, this not-quite-confirmation suggests, to me anyway, that Townhall may be accurate in disclosing that she has received SRS.
Since we extensively cover her Hormone Replacement Therapy, I presume medical confidentiality would not preclude similar coverage of her reliably sourced SRS.
Still, I think it's prudent to wait until this story is picked up elsewhere, or until Manning herself more definitively verifies it, before wading in. I'd appreciate guidance from more experienced editors. KalHolmann ( talk) 05:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with ValarianB's peremptory reversion of edit 801843574 by 2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54. I find nothing transphobic about the reverted commentary. It contained an allusion to Chelsea Manning as "this poor thing"—but that is not necessarily transphobic. Nor is the on-topic assertion that "the U.S. Army has not performed a single vaginoplasty in its history. The U.S. Army doesn't even have a urologist who can perform this type of surgery." While I dispute the opinion that "this article is propaganda," I see no reason to summarily delete the comment in question. KalHolmann ( talk) 20:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear. It was my comments. I totally support Chelsea's trans rights. However, the statement "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery, a first for a transgender inmate" is inaccurate. It seems to portray the U.S. Army as pro-trans rights place in the same way that the Sex reassignment surgery article makes it seems like the Islamic Republic of Iran is the hub and haven of transsexuals. I wrote the same thing there: "Shahryar Cohanzad is the only sex change surgeon in Iran. He does not perform vaginoplasty. [15] As of 2017, not a single surgeon existed in Iran who performed vaginoplasty." Basically, the U.S. Army was willing to do everything except vaginoplasty which is what I, a transsexual, and other transsexuals friends of mine want. The U.S. Army spends $30,000/year (and year and year for the same soldier) for each soldier's marriage allowance, but they cite inflated figures for vaginoplasty for which they don't have qualified urologists and which is currently only $10,000 to $15,000 in Thailand.-- 2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 ( talk) 04:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In the article it states that Manning "would have been eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence." As far as I am aware the U.S. Military like the Federal prison system doesn't have a parole system in place. I could be wrong if some would provide further clarification since the Washington Post Article is no longer available unless you paid. YborCityJohn ( talk) 02:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The MoS gender identity guidelines section on retroactivity ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Retroactivity) states that chosen names, pronouns, and other terminology in keeping with a person's current gender identity, should be used even in reference to events preceding the individual's transition or legal name change (except in specific circumstances, such as the individual publicly stating they should be referred to by their birth name and related terms when discussing the period before their transition). The subsequent section, "Common name", also provides relevant instructions. It basically states that chosen names should, generally speaking, be promptly updated and used in virtually all circumstances, though the birth name should be kept as a re-direct if it is well-known.
I believe the following are violations of the guidelines referenced above:
On the other hand, I believe the following do not constitute violations of the MoS, and should remain unchanged:
I understand Chelsea Manning was a prominent public figure before her transition, but I believe including her birth name as a redirect, along with the content in the introductory section that describes her transition, is sufficient to prevent confusion about who she is without unnecessarily misgendering her.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihhavens ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In
this edit, I moved the positioning of Chelsea Manning's birth name in the lede. There is a consensus to include in the lede, in bold, the birthname of any transgender person who was notable before they transitioned; I thought it would make sense to put the birthname somewhere it relates to the rest of the article content, so I reworded the first paragraph to include the sentence "Manning is a
trans woman who
came out in August 2013; during her tenure in the military and sentencing, she was known by her birth name, Bradley Edward Manning."
This edit was reverted by an editor (@
KalHolmann:) who claimed that it goes against existing consensus, but such consensus isn't mentioned in the FAQs on this talkpage. So I would like to know the details of that consensus, and whether or not it should be changed.
Chessrat (
talk,
contributions) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That Chelsea Manning attended a pro-Trump gala after announcing her Senate candidacy has been covered by RS. There is no reason to exclude this from the page. If any other Democratic politician would attend pro-rump parties, it would be covered on their Wikipedia pages. The fact that Manning states that she was there to engage in a political dialogue makes this explicitly connected to her status as a politician. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Buzzfeed's coverage was pretty terrible in this particular case. It would be wise to wait for more reliable sources to weigh in. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Leave it out. It's gotten coverage from a few sources (for some reason RT thought it worth mentioning, now there's a "reliable source" for you), but not enough coverage to be worth including. And of the ones that did cover it, nobody seems to have cited any evidence that it was part of her Senate campaign. Candidates go to a lot of events, there's no reason to list this one. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I would support inclusion, Chelsea Manning is now a politician, a declared candidate for public office. These sorts of things are not routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, but rather the heightened scrutiny that comes naturally to all candidates. If a sub-article is created, however, such as "Chealsea Manning 2018 Senatorial bid", it would be more appropriate to mention it there rather than the main bio. ValarianB ( talk) 13:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Three days after the event, MSM—in the form of The Washington Post—has finally covered what now seems like nothing more than an overblown Twitter spat. Certainly The Post does not frame Manning's presence at the Cernovich Gala as part of her senate campaign. Indeed, The Post mentions her candidacy only twice: once in passing ("I f‑‑‑ing crashed!" Manning, a current candidate for a Maryland U.S. Senate seat, told a New York Observer reporter at the coat check) and again in an embedded video that predates both her January 18 filing at the Maryland State Board of Elections and thus the January 20 Cernovich Gala. All of which leaves me more convinced than ever that this Page Six-style tabloid tempest does not belong in Wikipedia's BLP of Chelsea Manning. KalHolmann ( talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The cited sources, as well as Chelsea Manning herself, use the word " intelligence" or "intel" in describing what she sought to gather in infiltrating the alt-right. The Daily Beast, for example, reminds us that Manning "received military intelligence training in her time in the Army," and reports that according to an "organizer who was connected to from Manning's team who spoke on the condition of anonymity, one of the foundational goals of anti-fascist organizing is to gather intelligence into the activity of fascists and the alt-right."
However, Srich32977 insists that "'intelligence' is really a specific technical term, the article also uses 'information' and 'insight', which are more neutral; let's avoid WP:SYN."
Considering Manning's professional background in military intelligence, plus her own and reliable sources' use of that word in this particular context, I believe we ought to substitute it in the following sentence:
I'd appreciate any discussion. Thank you. KalHolmann ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The article referred to when stating that Manning's leaks did not have any strategic impact appears to have misread the heavily redacted report [1]. The article says that the leaks had no strategic impact in Afghanistan, however the document itself (page 13/35) says only that the leaks had no strategic impact on intelligence sources. Similarly, the article claims there was no increased risk to US senior leadership in Iraq, but that only means that the top US military leader himself has not been exposed to additional risk. Therefore, the article is incorrect in stating that the leaks had no strategic impact in the war effort.
I propose that we reword the statement on the leak's impact to reflect this, something like "A heavily redacted report on the Manning document leaks impact was made available, but strategic impacts of the leaks were not included." GrizzlyRich ( talk) 01:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Under the section Manning and Adrian Lamo there is a picture labelled that it is from 2001, but Lamo and Manning did not meet until 2010, and the Manning does not look 14 in the picture. Whats going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.216.85 ( talk) 06:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Manning is not in that photo, nor is it suggested they are. – Jonathan Williams ( talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "born Bradley Edward Manning". 100.36.164.66 ( talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd peep under the hood, but the article is full protected: Why is the See also section in mouse script? And on my screen at least, the last 2 items are differently aligned. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
At 21:04, 29 May 2018, User:BananaCarrot152 removed a newly added, reliably sourced section Suicide concerns, explaining, "WP:NOTATABLOID I think we should err on the side of privacy regarding acute medical emergencies." I request discussion as to why devoting a new section to suicide is inappropriate in this WP:BLP, which already contains longstanding sections describing Manning's experiences on suicide watch and prevention of injury status in 2010 and 2011, and her suicide attempts in July 2016 and October 2016. I am puzzled as to why actual attempts to kill herself are encyclopedic, but the apparent contemplation of self-destruction now constitutes an acute medical emergency that is taboo. Note that sources cited in the removed section reported that the operators of Manning's Twitter account tweeted that she is safe, and that people on the scene in Milan said "Chelsea Manning is fine and is already traveling to America." Additionally, Manning's friend and political communications director, Kelly Wright, told The Associated Press that Manning has not suspended her Senate campaign. Does this sound like someone in the grips of an acute medical emergency? KalHolmann ( talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice the Baltimore Sun, the one source about this event cited that I know for sure is a RS did not use the word suicide in it. NY Daily News is a tabloid and I'm unclear on the Italian source but the title seems very sensationalist for a sensitive BLP-related topic. Rab V ( talk) 00:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone actually seen the photo? I suspect that Wikipedia editors enforcing a taboo against the S word have not seen the picture that Manning attached to her second "im sorry" tweet on May 27, 2018. Google and MSM have essentially scrubbed the image from the Internet, no doubt out of privacy concerns. One outlet that hasn't is The Gateway Pundit. I do not suggest that we include them as a source. God forbid! But if anyone remains skeptical about whether or not this incident involved the threat of suicide, I invite you to look at the photo attached to what we are now timidly calling the "Window ledge tweet." And then think about how we are misleading our readers by camouflaging the truth. KalHolmann ( talk) 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I added to Manning's BLP a Glenn Greenwald quote saying Manning's two tweets "clearly were strong suggestions that she was strongly contemplating suicide." I cited Democracy Now! This was reverted by User:Rab V, who advised, "blp issues and due issues, take to talk page." So here it is. The talk page. Where reliably sourced quotations by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists come to die. KalHolmann ( talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I've removed all references to the tweets per BLP. Please gain consensus here before re-adding info about this recent incident. Valeince ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Kelly Wright, the communications director for her Senate bid, told The Associated Press on Monday that the 30-year-old transgender woman now needs the "space to heal." She did not reply when asked if Manning was seeking professional help. When asked whether Manning had suspended her Senate campaign, Wright wrote: "Negative."- not our analysis. That is AP asking and receiving answers. Manning requested space and said the campaign is not suspended. Those are notable outcomes for a candidate for senate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:9081:f571:c597:f64 ( talk) 02:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There has been no further coverage of these events in the past 4 days or so and I've been unable to find any new sources that add anything. All we have is a single wave of news reports saying that Manning's tweets/window ledge photo caused concern for her well being, that her account tweeted a short while later that she is "safe" and that her campaign is not suspended. We also have an interview with Glenn Greenwald where he speculates about her. This seems textbook WP:NOTNEWS to me. If User:Marteau is correct and these events are inherently notable then they will have a documented effect on something to do with Manning in the future. Until then we can only speculate. Therefore, I would like to close discussion here until further RS appear and ask that everyone refrain from re-adding the window ledge section so that our kind admins can unlock the page and we can all get back to editing as usual? BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 22:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the incident in question in the following article from The Intercept, a well respected newspaper, be added to Chelsea's page?
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/chelsea-manning-video-twitter-police-mental-health/
It represents a flagrant abuse on the part of police in the question of how to deal with mental health incidents, and it was widely covered by the press so it meets the importance standards of article inclusion. Resentcontributor ( talk) 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that I've opened a discussion at here regarding the repeated addition of contentious material based on conjecture. Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, please ensure that there is consensus for the inclusion of any such material prior to restoring it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
During the Q&A portion of her paid appearance on July 21, 2018 at the biennial Circle of HOPE ( Hackers on Planet Earth) conference in New York City, Chelsea Manning was asked about her Wikipedia page. "It's changing constantly," she replied. "I have noticed that. I went from a convicted leaker, to a whistleblower and convicted leaker, to politician and activist and whistleblower. And I'm not done yet, trust me. I got plenty of stuff down the line." However, she added, "There's a lot of inaccurate things on my Wikipedia page and on the history about this case. I know that they're wrong but I'm not gonna fight it or anything like that. I'm not so focused on it that I'm gonna like try to correct it."
During a follow-up radio interview immediately after her keynote talk, Manning was asked, "What were some of the most incisive things that you've read in your Wikipedia page where you almost said something?"
A. Honestly, it's like little things about like my early life where I'm just like that sounds really transphobic. I've had moments where I feel like people like look at my past and look at the things I've done like take away my political agency and my ability to think for myself and like I'm some hapless person who's just like falling like, oh, I don't know what I'm doing and therefore I'm falling—
Q. Falling down the stairs into the position you're currently in.
A. Yeah. I'm like, no, I can make mistakes, I can learn things, I can do things, I can make my own decisions, including bad ones, including good ones, and including mediocre ones. And I don't like the tone sometimes of me as like this hapless transgender person who's just dealing with so much that she can't handle it.
I've reread the entire Background section of our BLP, including its Early Life subsection, and I honestly do not understand what Manning considers transphobic. Perhaps, as a Top 10 editor of this page, I'm too close to it. I urge other editors to review that content for any hint of transphobia, and form consensus here as to how to remedy it. KalHolmann ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
We rely on what Reliable Sources say. We can't go searching through the Reliable Sources to find some way to reword them or recast them because of an implication someone might draw from them. I propose we not do a lot of soul-searching about this offhand comment by Manning and just continue to do our job as encyclopedists. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm slightly vague as to what the official policy is, if any (I checked the archives and I'm not sure about the consensus, but the link to gender identity for BLP seemed to just go to the MOS with no obvious reference) but it strikes me as a bit off that Manning's former name is quite so prominent in the intro. Though I would agree that it's reasonable to have it somewhere reasonably obvious, putting it in bold right after her real name seems a bit much and actually looks a little adversarial. Couldn't it be dialled down just a little without risk of compromising the article's usefulness? I can't help feel there's a reasonable balance between being respectful and conveniently informative and even at a glance that seems to be rather conspicuously awry.
If it is a policy (regardless of whether or not I could find it) to highlight a person's former name that they no longer identify with quite so assertively (indeed I'd go further and say aggressively) I can't help but feel that the policy should perhaps be revised. -- Vometia ( talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "born Bradley Edward Manning." It directly goes against the guidelines to include a trans person's birth name, and is highly disrespectful. Thank you. Transoulrebel ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name."This article is actually specifically mentioned as an example within that guideline. She was certainly notable under her birth name, so the article is written correctly under current guidelines. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are there no mentions of her suicide attempts after being released from prison? These have all been verified by reputable sources, and discussed by them as well. It seems highly pertinent considering that Manning was a senatorial candidate. A senate candidate actively attempting suicide seems noteworthy for Wikipedia's standards. I lived in Maryland when this event originally happened, and believe me I would have preferred to have known this. It's bizarre why it was never listed in the first place. [1] 2601:982:4200:A6C:B09F:9AE8:DADF:71BE ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2018 Manning challenged incumbent Senator Ben Cardin for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election in her home state of Maryland. [1] On June 26, 2018, Manning finished second among eight candidates. Manning received 5.7% of the votes; Cardin won renomination with 80.5% of the votes cast. [2]
Manning has returned to prison and I would like this to be included in the article
In 2018 Manning challenged incumbent Senator Ben Cardin for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election in her home state of Maryland. [1] On June 26, 2018, Manning finished second among eight candidates. Manning received 5.7% of the votes; Cardin won renomination with 80.5% of the votes cast. [2]
On March 8, 2019, Manning was jailed again after refusing to testify before a grand jury about Wikileaks. [3] 2601:447:4101:5780:C1F1:F850:EBD1:D353 ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the subject well but this seems like a notable event
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I was not able to find any mentioning or source here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktik ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
reading the article, 'Nicks' is referenced on so many occasions I think a minor rewrite is required to state who that is within the article. If you search for 'Nicks', you only get the answer you want at approx number 59/64 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A314:4A01:3908:2F83:4638:C546 ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose the following.
The Manual of Style is not prescriptive on this matter. —DIV ( 1.129.111.49 ( talk) 06:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC))
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert all names referring to Mr. Manning as "Chelsea Elizabeth" back to what his parents assigned to him upon his birth. The US Military does not currently recognize transgender and I feel some people may be mislead by what this Wikipedia page is implying. Thank you. 96.227.225.28 ( talk) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article for awhile so I just noticed the change. While the cited source may use the word "confidential," it does have the potential to cause a little confusion. The reason is because U.S. Government agencies actually use three levels of classification for classified material, with "Confidential" being the lowest level and "Secret" and "Top Secret" being higher. I'm not trying to tread into the original research area, but technically the source is incorrect calling all of the documents confidential when a good portion of them were secret. If we must use the word confidential because that is what the cited source says maybe we could consider seeking another source so the correct term is used in the article. Amducker ( talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
For me, this seals it. In her opinion piece "The years since I was jailed for releasing the 'war diaries' have been a rollercoaster," published today (May 27, 2015) by The Guardian, Chelsea Manning writes: "It all began in the first few weeks of 2010, when I made the life-changing decision to release to the public a repository of classified (and unclassified but "sensitive" ) documents that provided a simultaneously horrific and beautiful outlook on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.) If Manning herself calls the unclassified documents "sensitive," Wikipedia should follow suit and change our lead so that the clause will read: "…after disclosing to WikiLeaks a large repository of classified or unclassified but sensitive national security documents." Kent Krupa ( talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a post trans picture?-- 88.104.136.143 ( talk) 18:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See the FAQ at the top of this page. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Bradley Manning (legal name) is biologically and anatomically male. If a person is male it is imperative to use the male pronouns. Why? If we being to use pronouns that are not truly indicative of the person, we may as well refer to all other objects and animals by what they aren't. Doing so is confusing and detrimental long term. Gender is an abstract construct to refer to a state of mind, one which can change and is more volatile than a fixed anatomical state, being sex. Therefore referring to his sex is a more consistent and logical approach. We can still be respectful of his gender in understanding the wish to live a life looking like a woman, but simply he is not one. Use of the pronouns 'he', him' would be setting a non-confusing long term precedent for our future and Wikipedia's future - assuming Wikipedia wishes to remain non-confusing. I do use Wikipedia occasionally for my medical studies, and if Wikipedia wishes to address things based on whims rather than hard science that is unfortunate. I will be reconsidering use of Wikipedia for factual reference that is certain. If these changes are not within your administrative privilege, I would most appreciate you referring my text onto someone who can set a uniform standard at your organisation. Regards, V 101.170.213.83 ( talk) 04:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
I am sure this might have been brought up before but shouldn't this article mention the statues erected in the main square of Berlin which represent Manning, Assange and Snowden as heroes of freedom and free speech? This was completely ignored by US media, understandably, but I think it is worthy of mention... http://www.firstpost.com/world/anything-say-snowden-assange-manning-statues-unveiled-berlin-2226700.html Kind regards,-- Mondschein English ( talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prison Life In March 2015, Bloomberg News reported that Manning can be visited only by those she had named before her imprisonment, and not by journalists. However, in April of 2015, Manning was visited at Fort Leavenworth by Glenn Greenwald a reporter for the online publication, The Incercept. [1]
199.48.121.51 (
talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that Chelsea Manning has been particularly vocal as a trans woman, is it not more appropriate to feature an image of Chelsea that she prefers, i.e. as female-presenting? The image that accompanied her "I am Chelsea Manning" statement or Twitter image come immediately to mind. My email is ragnarok@brown.edu, I am a transfeminist writer and have written on CM from a transfeminist perspective. -Ragna
The caption for the photo says it was taken in April 2012, when Manning was arrested in May 2010. It seems the caption that states the picture was taken in April 2012 is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa44 ( talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that a user added three British categories to the article on August 24, which I am assuming is based on Manning's mother being a British citizen. The only reason I would probably consider that move as premature and a possible target for removal until sourced is because when a person enlists into the US military for a job that requires a security clearance, they may be required to renounce any non-US citizenships held as a prerequisite to accept the clearance. In other words, prior to being granted a TS/SCI clearance, Manning might have been required to renounce British citizenship. I'm not saying that Manning had to renounce British citizenship (assuming Manning even had it in the first place), but it would be a strong possibility. Amducker ( talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the picture from Chelsea Manning as a male in their military uniform to one of her being female
OraTexLadi ( talk) 10:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The article gives almost no information about the worldwide support Chelsea Manning enjoys. I believe there should at least be a mention of Ellsberg personal message, [1] of comments in the media about her conditions of detention [2] and of the appeal by Amnesty International to release her or, at least, commute her sentence. [3] Her sentencing to 35 years for leaking classified information about government’s wrongdoings is unparalleled in the civilized world and has shocked many people around the world. She has a support network with a website dedicated to her. I think this is also a notable fact that we should mention. [4] Againstdisinformation ( talk) 23:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2014, it was published an italian song about the story of Chelsea Manning. The album is called "Bioscop" by Wu Ming Contingent (Wu Ming contingent is part of the Wu Ming collective, here the wikipedia link /info/en/?search=Wu_Ming), the song is called "Soldato Manning" ("Soldier Manning").
185.35.95.12 ( talk) 17:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, i'm not familiar to wikipedia code. Anyway my request was to add in the section 7 ("Non-military tributes") something like: "In 2014, the italian group Wu Ming contingent (part of the Wu Ming collective) has released a song about the story of Chelsea Manning. The song is called "Soldato Manning" (english: "Soldier Manning") and it's part of the album "Bioscop". " Anyway as i'm not an english speaker, maybe the sentence should be changed in a better form. About the source, here it is the link to the official Wu Ming blog about the release of Bioscop (only in italian, i couldn't find any english page) http://www.wumingfoundation.com/giap/?p=17152 and here it is the official record label page http://www.woodworm-music.com/shop/wu-ming-contingent-bioscop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.35.95.20 ( talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The article gives almost no information about the worldwide support Chelsea Manning enjoys. I believe there should at least be a mention of Ellsberg personal message, [5] of comments in the media about her conditions of detention [6] and of the appeal by Amnesty International to release her or, at least, commute her sentence. [7] Her sentencing to 35 years for leaking classified information about government’s wrongdoings is unparalleled in the civilized world and has shocked many people around the world. She has a support network with a website dedicated to her. I think this is also a notable fact that we should mention. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ( talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article lacks source for "petition was quickly granted" under section #2014. Suggest adding source for it such as http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27132347 82.243.60.91 ( talk) 20:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe I worded that first question wrongly. What I meant was, when we first heard about this individual, it was "Bradley Manning" and nobody was calling him female---it was just that some guy leaked info. Now suddenly it's "Chelsea" and "she" and it doesn't even say that the person was known as a guy till recently. If it hadn't been for the section about the crimes committed, I wouldn't even realize this was the same person as "Bradley." This is confusing to people like me who don't keep up on every little tidbit of trans news. Mean Mister Ketchup ( talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence about how Manning qualified for the GWOT service ribbon. The 30 day time frame of "service in support of" is not really relevant. In fact, Manning is wearing 5 service ribbons and only 3 are listed in the info box. (All were issued because of a certain amount of time in the service.) These ribbons are simply handed out after a company clerk makes note in the members service record. The are hardly awarded. In Manning's case the amount of support actually provided to GWOT is problematic. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The article states that Chelsea was convicted of aiding the enemy. If possible, I would like to know more details on that specific matter instead of just seeing that Chelsea aided the enemy. Xdanx1232 ( talk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello. This is David Moulton. I am actually not a Captain in the Navy--the press got my rank wrong. I am a Commander, and was a Commander at the time of the trial. The abbreviation is CDR, and I prefer to be referred to as CDR David L. Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist. I was on Manning's defense team for about two years. Also, I don't feel the way the quoted paragraph is referenced clearly identifies me, though that was my statement.
Also, the correct abbreviation for Private First Class is PFC, all caps.
I think you can reference the transcripts from the freedom press website, and if so, I think the whole of the wiki article would be improved upon.
Might I suggest:
CDR David L. Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Manning for over 20 hours in the months after the arrest, said Manning showed signs of both Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Asperger syndrome. Moulton acknowledged that while Manning had narcissistic personality traits, Moulton did not agree with past clinicians who had diagnosed Manning with a personality disorder. Rather, Moulton identified Manning was suffering from Gender Dysphoria, exacerbated by Manning's inability to access appropriate psychological services from military mental health providers. Under the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Manning feared he would be administratively separated from the Army for disclosing his sexual orientation and gender identity. Moulton stated Manning did not feel he could participate in any meaningful way with military mental health without his gender identity being identified. As such, Manning had no effective treatment for his mood disorder, nor a sounding board to process his disenchantment with the wars and his preoccupation with effecting a change. Moulton said that, in leaking the material, Manning had been "acting out [a] grandiose ideation." that stemmed from post-adolescent idealism. In his testimony, Moulton provided insights into Manning's agenda:
"PFC Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if ... through crowdsourcing, enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, that it would lead to a greater good ... that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it ... that really no wars are worth it."[123]
Happy to provide further discussion. I can be reached at david.moulton@hsc.utah.edu
50.160.81.61 ( talk) 00:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The intro currently states that Manning is a "former soldier". Isn't she technically still a soldier as is indicated by the infobox under years of service? As I understand it the discharge is only effective once her term has been completed. Another Article ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep a watch on this, Manning may face solitary confinement. [8] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I got (via a friend) approval from Chelsea to use this photo ( https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*phC-t2GE3W_iESjvn4HUzw.jpeg) on her WP page. It was coded as CC-BY-SA for this purpose. My first thought is that I would like to replace the military photo in the infobox with this, but I realize that might not be completely representative of the article. So I'm reaching out to other editors for advice on where best to place it in the article. I'm somewhat "design challenged." I'll upload the photo to commons now, but wanted to get this discussion going. thx, LaMona ( talk) 22:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There is something wrong with the Intro - Manning is not known for being convicted but for leaking classified documents. The Intro should reflect that somehow bettr than it does right now ...-- ChristopheT ( talk) 20:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Chelsea Elizabeth Manning [2] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly three-quarters of a million classified or unclassified but sensitive military and diplomatic documents. [3]
References
To clarify, she should be known for being convicted.
Her transgender nature could be better exampled, within the boundaries. b. roffmann ( talk) 23:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning will receive gender transition surgery:: Today news is Michel is nervous on this Obama . This is trans verb citat from CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B15F:20E7:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 ( talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
From the infobox photo we can see the iraq campaign ribbon that is missing from the infobox awards section.
sources: /info/en/?search=Iraq_Campaign_Medal /info/en/?search=File:Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
On the same note, also missing the Army Overseas Service Ribbon
source: /info/en/?search=Overseas_Service_Ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
already resolved – see archives and FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Manning is physically and biologically male. Period. To use the pronoun 'she' is factually false. Period. End of discussion. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
|
The copyrighted image of Chelsea Manning in the blonde wig should be the main image of the article. As Manning is female identified, it is only right that this image be used, and I believe that it falls under the fair use rationale. Asarelah ( talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure about the rules for fair use, but I think it's inappropriate to have a picture in the infobox from when Chelsea was still identifying as male. I think that the most appropriate thing to do would be to have a picture of her where she is presenting as female, as long as one is available; otherwise, I would suggest removing the picture entirely. It is misleading to readers to show a picture of Manning that is outdated and might confuse people about her gender identity. Michelangelo1992 ( talk) 00:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
From the infobox photo we can see the iraq campaign ribbon that is missing from the infobox awards section.
sources: /info/en/?search=Iraq_Campaign_Medal /info/en/?search=File:Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
On the same note, also missing the Army Overseas Service Ribbon
source: /info/en/?search=Overseas_Service_Ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Done – albeit without the ribbon icons, which are visable on the official photo. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been put on twice, and it's got no place here. The claim is related only to Assange and has no bearing on Manning at all. Since there is no indictment (and therefore no extradition) it's not as if there's any form of quid-pro-quo entered in between Obama and Assange. If it belongs anywhere on wikipedia (unlikely, because it's by a non-repubtable source about themselves) then *maybe* on Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority but given it was an empty boast, even that is stretching it. Ktetch ( talk) 07:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The accounts of events prior to the medical intervention, are confusing. It seems apparent that it was a "he" that was born in Oklahoma, it was a "he" that enlisted in the Army and "he" leaked the documents. The actor was physically male, and for all we know genetically male as well, and so "he did those things". It is not clear what reason outside of POV or some sort of political correctness, there would be for using "she" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKN1 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a valid debate, but in the wrong venue. This article follows the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity. If you think those guidelines should be changed then please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This article is a biography of a living person and Manning may well read it. We need to take special care what of is discussed here, and how it is discussed. Verbcatcher ( talk) 02:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
See FAQ at top, and note that talk page is also under discretionary sanctions.
|
---|
Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change Bradley Manning was born a man, is presently a man, and will pass from this earth as a man. Wikipedia is knowingly pushing a demonstrable lie, enabling the delusions of a clinically disordered individual, and imposing this insanity on Wikipedia readers by brute force. This is dishonest, thuggish and completely without any basis in fact. 65.49.176.54 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
And those 500,000+ page views came before this article was added to In the News a couple of hours ago. Funcrunch ( talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date of arrest is listed as May 20th 2007, whereas it should be May 20th 2010.
I fixed the info they suggested but there's something wrong with the section. Not sure how to edit it. ValarianB ( talk) 13:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that Manning is still known as "Bradley Manning" to many people, but many trans people who have changed their name are uncomfortable with their name assigned at birth. Do we know how comfortable Manning is with her name given at birth appearing in the first sentence of this article, as well as in the info box to the right? I know at least one trans woman who believes that this name shouldn't appear in the article at all. In the trans community, the name "Bradley" is known as Manning's "dead name," and being referred to by that name is often seen as hostile misgendering.
As with the photo appearing on the page, I think Wikipedia should go by how the subject wants her name assigned at birth to appear (or not appear) in this article.
67.242.214.51 ( talk) 05:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I question why Chelsea Manning's 1/17/17 Commutation by Pres. Obama isn't at the top (nor the bottom) of her Wikipedia page. If it is there, it was not easy for me to find it, but hope I just missed it.
(Don't believe it's necessary to cite sources for this common knowlegde.)
Joyce S. Tucson, AZ ( talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Joyce S. Tucson, AZ
Can someone change the part under "Commutation" where it says that she criticized President Obama? That quote is somewhat out of context and the column was not so much critical of him as it was expressing her dissatisfaction with his opposition's stubbornness and refusal to compromise. I'd probably say something like "On January 26, 2017, in her first column for The Guardian since the commutation, Manning lamented that President Obama's political opponents consistently refused to compromise, resulting in "very few permanent accomplishments" during his time in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.164 ( talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is not a neutral article when it fails to detail Manning calling a military leader a dyke and bragging about punching them in the face. That is an important issue in regards to Manning's demonstrated homophobia, and it should not be allowed to be written out Manning's history.
Chat Logs:
(01:45:18 PM) bradass87: i punched a dyke in the phace…
(01:46:46 PM) bradass87: i got sick of these dykes and their drama… it was worse than “The L Word”…
https://www.wired.com/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ Estrogin ( talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
How would we feel about replacing the bio picture with this one? [9] Artw ( talk) 17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi first time I've done a talk page, confused about the format, sorry if I do it wrong. What do people think about this new image? https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/865250670831702016 JacobK ( talk) 5:23 PM, Thursday, May 18, 2017
The ACLU said on their Facebook page that the photographer was Tim Travers Hawkins who I believe is a filmmaker doing a documentary about Chelsea. ACLU Facebook Page. Larla77 ( talk) 19:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI this is all worked out now; the photographer has confirmed the CC licensing of the new photo. See discussion on Commons for details. Funcrunch ( talk) 14:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As she is out of prison now, could someone perhaps comment on her Instagram and ask her to upload a public domain image to Wikimedia Commons that could be used of her presenting as female to replace her old, male-presenting image? I'm sure she'd be quite eager to get the old image replaced. Asarelah ( talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that Manning has taken a new high quality picture of herself since her release, should the infobox photo be changed to reflect her current self? Nee1927 ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops, just saw the other thread. Disregard this. Nee1927 ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the 2012 photo of Chelsea Manning to the/a photo she posted upon her release, due to her transition and 5 year difference VBudler ( talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it there anywhere a reference to him/her stating or mentioning about his/her intention of switching sex prior to being incarcerated? [conspiracy]It came out of the blue for many. It could be interpreted by other whistleblowers as a threat [/conspiracy]. It's just a question, cause probably he mentioned it way before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.160.138 ( talk) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does the preview image still show her old picture when I post a link Facebook? Does it just take a while for the data to update? Asarelah ( talk) 12:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence on the top section of the article has the wrong date.
"On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to a total of seven years of confinement dating from the date of arrest (May 20, 2010) by military authorities."
Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010. Not May 20. Can someone fix this please? Thanks! :) 75.115.245.131 ( talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's important to know that many people edit this talk page saying that this article's title needs to be moved because they think transgenderism is just playing make-believe. Please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely; otherwise people will continue. Georgia guy ( talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
{{hat}}{{hab}}
tags (easier than deleting comments because some wikipedians don't like deleting comments from talk pages even if it's obvious trolling, and despite there being no rule against it). --
ChiveFungi (
talk) 14:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
For the preceding discussion, see Please semi-protect this talk page.
Per WP:BLPTALK talk pages of biographies of leaving persons must follow the same general rules that apply to WP:BLPs. This means that libel must be removed immediately, and that potentially libelous content may be discussed but should be linked to and not hosted on wikipedia. Further, “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.”
Per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL “derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.” These two edits certainly fall into this category (and were rightly removed - that IP has also been suspended).
The following conclusions were made by the Arbitration Committee regarding previous conflicts on this page and it’s talk page:
10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy.
11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.Moving forward I propose that we make a more concerted effort to remove comments which assert that the subject of the article, or any living person mentioned in it, or an editor is delusional or mentally ill for thinking that Manning is a women. Similar remove any personal attacks. A warning should also be posted on that editors talk page. Following that reasoning, these edits [11] [12] should be removed. (From their edits, @ Srich32977: seems to disagree. Perhaps you could add your perspective?)
However, I do not believe that polite comments made in good faith should be sanctioned, even if they question the name of the article or the use of female pronouns etc. These comments are about the content in the article and show a desire to make wikipedia better. I think it is best to err on the side of caution and assume good faith whenever possible. If the comments are discussed directly in the FAQ then collapsing them and linking to the FAQ seems like the best solution.
Lastly I oppose semi-protecting this talk page as there have been several valuable semi-protected edit requests. BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 16:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The recent IP edits are blatantly offensive per the edit summaries (which should be removed). The [3] and [4] edits referred to above are not so bad as to get bent out of shape over, and they got polite replies. I do not think labeling polite edits as trolling will be helpful. Besides, this talk page gets archived quickly enough so questions like "why is he a she?" etc. will get resolved and filed out of sight. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not, for the record, Wikipedia's place to simply deny the validity of transgender identity — medical science confirms that it's a real thing, and the only known treatment for it is some form of gender transition — so it's not the role of a neutral encyclopedia, or contributors to it, to pretend that's not true. Our general concept articles about transgender issues can certainly document any controversy about this — but they cannot simply assert that it's not a real thing as if that were some kind of given, and individual BLPs of individual transgender people are most especially not the place to wage that war. Our job is to err on the side of respect for our article subjects, inclusive of their right to define their own gender identity — our job is not to placate people who aren't Chelsea Manning in their views on the validity or invalidity of the entire phenomenon of transgender identity, and our job is not to simply call it a psychological delusion as the commenters in question did. Medical science accepts that it's a real thing, and that's that — the general concept article transgender can document the existence of alternative views on the matter, but individual biographies of individual people aren't the place for it any more than individual biographies of individual Ismailis would be the appropriate platform for debating whether Ismailism is a branch of Islam or a heretic sect (which has also, inappropriately, happened more than once.) Bearcat ( talk) 19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank those taking the time to discuss these problems. Just reading a couple of the examples I find them childish but at the same time too upsetting to want to engage with or talk about, so am glad I feel I can walk away and let others safely handle the problem. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 19:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thus will be done by deleting remarks deemed unpalatable by transsexuals, refusing to debate changes to the article and not allowing challenges to general, unsubstantiated remarks such as 'medical science accepts' this and that. Nor will debate on the attitude Wikipedia should adopt in its articles be allowed. I am camping out here (good phrase for it, really). I have spoken. 12.201.7.201 ( talk) 05:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I have not been a contributor to this article and am not sure how her press appearances are being incorporated into it but believe there should be reference somewhere to this feature article and this movie. - phi ( talk) 10:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the article, it says Chelsea " is a former United States Army soldier..." However, it is my understanding that due to her continued appeals in the military court system, that she must continue in the service and is subject to the UCMJ. Until all appeals are denied, or she withdraws from the service (or President Trump's order about transgender personnel is implemented), I think it should say that she "is a United States Army soldier on excess leave..."
[1] Johnd39 ( talk) 19:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
References
On September 20, 2017, The Daily Caller posted a story by its National Security/Politics Reporter, Jonah Bennett, titled " Pentagon Debunks Chelsea Manning's Claims To Have Zero Access To Gov't Health Care." In it, Bennett quotes Army spokeswoman Valerie L. Mongello: "Manning is currently on excess leave pending completion of the appellate review of the court-martial conviction. While on excess leave, Manning is on active duty, but in an unpaid status. As an active duty Soldier, Manning is statutorily entitled to medical care."
In turn, Manning told The Daily Caller: "[I] have private healthcare with kaiser permanente, i am banned from all military posts and installations, i am statutorily barred from receiving any form of benefit from the DoD or VA by statute, and this administration has an incentive to claim i have access to healthcare in order to bolster its trans ban narrative. DoD and VA cite title 38, U.S.C. section 6105, due to the convictions under 18 usc 793(e). its kind of obscure but still has force and effect. [I] dont think that DoD is knowingly lying so much as there is a lot of confusion because everything is obscure, and medical information is considered extremely private under the Privacy Act."
This dispute affects our WP:BLP in two ways:
It's probably easier to deal with the second point first. The Army spokeswoman quoted by The Daily Caller does not claim that Manning is now receiving or has at any time since her release received government healthcare, merely that Manning "is statutorily entitled to medical care." Accordingly, our BLP does not contradict The Daily Caller story in that regard, and requires no change.
Manning's duty status is another matter, since our BLP and The Daily Caller are in clear disagreement.
I request editorial discussion and consensus on how to deal with this conflict. For the time being, I suggest we await clarification from additional WP:RS before identifying Manning as an active-duty soldier. I am troubled by the historical controversies enumerated on Wikipedia's page describing The Daily Caller, calling into question The Daily Caller's reliability, as well as by Jonah Bennett's consistent misgendering of Chelsea Manning—a sure sign of hostililty to transgender individuals. KalHolmann ( talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
On July 10, 2017, Guy Benson, political editor of Townhall.com, posted "Chelsea Manning: 'The Wealthy' Don't Pay Taxes, So We Must Force Them To, or Something", discussing the "gender-reassignment treatment and surgery [emphasis added] she received courtesy of taxpayers while incarcerated."
Under Chelsea_Manning#Gender_transition (2016), we incorporate the ACLU's September 2016 announcement that "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery." In the next sentence, we add that a month later, "Manning's attorneys reported that her military doctor, Dr. Ellen Galloway, refused Manning's request to change the gender on her military records to female." Since the source article does not mention surgery, it's unknown how, if at all, Dr. Galloway's refusal affected the Army's promise to provide Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS).
In January 2017, Charlie Savage wrote in The New York Times that, according to Manning, she had not seen a surgeon.
In the ensuing four months, I saw no news story that Manning had received SRS. And of course on May 17, 2017, she was released from prison.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't cite a lone source on such an important development. Yet on July 10, 2017, via her verified Twitter account, Chelsea Manning retweeted the Townhall article to her 246K followers, with a comment but conspicuously not denying Townhall's thesis that "Taxpayers Financed Her Gender Reassignment Surgery."
Coming from Manning herself, this not-quite-confirmation suggests, to me anyway, that Townhall may be accurate in disclosing that she has received SRS.
Since we extensively cover her Hormone Replacement Therapy, I presume medical confidentiality would not preclude similar coverage of her reliably sourced SRS.
Still, I think it's prudent to wait until this story is picked up elsewhere, or until Manning herself more definitively verifies it, before wading in. I'd appreciate guidance from more experienced editors. KalHolmann ( talk) 05:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with ValarianB's peremptory reversion of edit 801843574 by 2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54. I find nothing transphobic about the reverted commentary. It contained an allusion to Chelsea Manning as "this poor thing"—but that is not necessarily transphobic. Nor is the on-topic assertion that "the U.S. Army has not performed a single vaginoplasty in its history. The U.S. Army doesn't even have a urologist who can perform this type of surgery." While I dispute the opinion that "this article is propaganda," I see no reason to summarily delete the comment in question. KalHolmann ( talk) 20:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear. It was my comments. I totally support Chelsea's trans rights. However, the statement "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery, a first for a transgender inmate" is inaccurate. It seems to portray the U.S. Army as pro-trans rights place in the same way that the Sex reassignment surgery article makes it seems like the Islamic Republic of Iran is the hub and haven of transsexuals. I wrote the same thing there: "Shahryar Cohanzad is the only sex change surgeon in Iran. He does not perform vaginoplasty. [15] As of 2017, not a single surgeon existed in Iran who performed vaginoplasty." Basically, the U.S. Army was willing to do everything except vaginoplasty which is what I, a transsexual, and other transsexuals friends of mine want. The U.S. Army spends $30,000/year (and year and year for the same soldier) for each soldier's marriage allowance, but they cite inflated figures for vaginoplasty for which they don't have qualified urologists and which is currently only $10,000 to $15,000 in Thailand.-- 2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 ( talk) 04:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In the article it states that Manning "would have been eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence." As far as I am aware the U.S. Military like the Federal prison system doesn't have a parole system in place. I could be wrong if some would provide further clarification since the Washington Post Article is no longer available unless you paid. YborCityJohn ( talk) 02:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The MoS gender identity guidelines section on retroactivity ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Retroactivity) states that chosen names, pronouns, and other terminology in keeping with a person's current gender identity, should be used even in reference to events preceding the individual's transition or legal name change (except in specific circumstances, such as the individual publicly stating they should be referred to by their birth name and related terms when discussing the period before their transition). The subsequent section, "Common name", also provides relevant instructions. It basically states that chosen names should, generally speaking, be promptly updated and used in virtually all circumstances, though the birth name should be kept as a re-direct if it is well-known.
I believe the following are violations of the guidelines referenced above:
On the other hand, I believe the following do not constitute violations of the MoS, and should remain unchanged:
I understand Chelsea Manning was a prominent public figure before her transition, but I believe including her birth name as a redirect, along with the content in the introductory section that describes her transition, is sufficient to prevent confusion about who she is without unnecessarily misgendering her.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihhavens ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In
this edit, I moved the positioning of Chelsea Manning's birth name in the lede. There is a consensus to include in the lede, in bold, the birthname of any transgender person who was notable before they transitioned; I thought it would make sense to put the birthname somewhere it relates to the rest of the article content, so I reworded the first paragraph to include the sentence "Manning is a
trans woman who
came out in August 2013; during her tenure in the military and sentencing, she was known by her birth name, Bradley Edward Manning."
This edit was reverted by an editor (@
KalHolmann:) who claimed that it goes against existing consensus, but such consensus isn't mentioned in the FAQs on this talkpage. So I would like to know the details of that consensus, and whether or not it should be changed.
Chessrat (
talk,
contributions) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That Chelsea Manning attended a pro-Trump gala after announcing her Senate candidacy has been covered by RS. There is no reason to exclude this from the page. If any other Democratic politician would attend pro-rump parties, it would be covered on their Wikipedia pages. The fact that Manning states that she was there to engage in a political dialogue makes this explicitly connected to her status as a politician. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Buzzfeed's coverage was pretty terrible in this particular case. It would be wise to wait for more reliable sources to weigh in. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Leave it out. It's gotten coverage from a few sources (for some reason RT thought it worth mentioning, now there's a "reliable source" for you), but not enough coverage to be worth including. And of the ones that did cover it, nobody seems to have cited any evidence that it was part of her Senate campaign. Candidates go to a lot of events, there's no reason to list this one. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I would support inclusion, Chelsea Manning is now a politician, a declared candidate for public office. These sorts of things are not routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, but rather the heightened scrutiny that comes naturally to all candidates. If a sub-article is created, however, such as "Chealsea Manning 2018 Senatorial bid", it would be more appropriate to mention it there rather than the main bio. ValarianB ( talk) 13:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Three days after the event, MSM—in the form of The Washington Post—has finally covered what now seems like nothing more than an overblown Twitter spat. Certainly The Post does not frame Manning's presence at the Cernovich Gala as part of her senate campaign. Indeed, The Post mentions her candidacy only twice: once in passing ("I f‑‑‑ing crashed!" Manning, a current candidate for a Maryland U.S. Senate seat, told a New York Observer reporter at the coat check) and again in an embedded video that predates both her January 18 filing at the Maryland State Board of Elections and thus the January 20 Cernovich Gala. All of which leaves me more convinced than ever that this Page Six-style tabloid tempest does not belong in Wikipedia's BLP of Chelsea Manning. KalHolmann ( talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The cited sources, as well as Chelsea Manning herself, use the word " intelligence" or "intel" in describing what she sought to gather in infiltrating the alt-right. The Daily Beast, for example, reminds us that Manning "received military intelligence training in her time in the Army," and reports that according to an "organizer who was connected to from Manning's team who spoke on the condition of anonymity, one of the foundational goals of anti-fascist organizing is to gather intelligence into the activity of fascists and the alt-right."
However, Srich32977 insists that "'intelligence' is really a specific technical term, the article also uses 'information' and 'insight', which are more neutral; let's avoid WP:SYN."
Considering Manning's professional background in military intelligence, plus her own and reliable sources' use of that word in this particular context, I believe we ought to substitute it in the following sentence:
I'd appreciate any discussion. Thank you. KalHolmann ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The article referred to when stating that Manning's leaks did not have any strategic impact appears to have misread the heavily redacted report [1]. The article says that the leaks had no strategic impact in Afghanistan, however the document itself (page 13/35) says only that the leaks had no strategic impact on intelligence sources. Similarly, the article claims there was no increased risk to US senior leadership in Iraq, but that only means that the top US military leader himself has not been exposed to additional risk. Therefore, the article is incorrect in stating that the leaks had no strategic impact in the war effort.
I propose that we reword the statement on the leak's impact to reflect this, something like "A heavily redacted report on the Manning document leaks impact was made available, but strategic impacts of the leaks were not included." GrizzlyRich ( talk) 01:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Under the section Manning and Adrian Lamo there is a picture labelled that it is from 2001, but Lamo and Manning did not meet until 2010, and the Manning does not look 14 in the picture. Whats going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.216.85 ( talk) 06:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Manning is not in that photo, nor is it suggested they are. – Jonathan Williams ( talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "born Bradley Edward Manning". 100.36.164.66 ( talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd peep under the hood, but the article is full protected: Why is the See also section in mouse script? And on my screen at least, the last 2 items are differently aligned. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
At 21:04, 29 May 2018, User:BananaCarrot152 removed a newly added, reliably sourced section Suicide concerns, explaining, "WP:NOTATABLOID I think we should err on the side of privacy regarding acute medical emergencies." I request discussion as to why devoting a new section to suicide is inappropriate in this WP:BLP, which already contains longstanding sections describing Manning's experiences on suicide watch and prevention of injury status in 2010 and 2011, and her suicide attempts in July 2016 and October 2016. I am puzzled as to why actual attempts to kill herself are encyclopedic, but the apparent contemplation of self-destruction now constitutes an acute medical emergency that is taboo. Note that sources cited in the removed section reported that the operators of Manning's Twitter account tweeted that she is safe, and that people on the scene in Milan said "Chelsea Manning is fine and is already traveling to America." Additionally, Manning's friend and political communications director, Kelly Wright, told The Associated Press that Manning has not suspended her Senate campaign. Does this sound like someone in the grips of an acute medical emergency? KalHolmann ( talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice the Baltimore Sun, the one source about this event cited that I know for sure is a RS did not use the word suicide in it. NY Daily News is a tabloid and I'm unclear on the Italian source but the title seems very sensationalist for a sensitive BLP-related topic. Rab V ( talk) 00:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone actually seen the photo? I suspect that Wikipedia editors enforcing a taboo against the S word have not seen the picture that Manning attached to her second "im sorry" tweet on May 27, 2018. Google and MSM have essentially scrubbed the image from the Internet, no doubt out of privacy concerns. One outlet that hasn't is The Gateway Pundit. I do not suggest that we include them as a source. God forbid! But if anyone remains skeptical about whether or not this incident involved the threat of suicide, I invite you to look at the photo attached to what we are now timidly calling the "Window ledge tweet." And then think about how we are misleading our readers by camouflaging the truth. KalHolmann ( talk) 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I added to Manning's BLP a Glenn Greenwald quote saying Manning's two tweets "clearly were strong suggestions that she was strongly contemplating suicide." I cited Democracy Now! This was reverted by User:Rab V, who advised, "blp issues and due issues, take to talk page." So here it is. The talk page. Where reliably sourced quotations by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists come to die. KalHolmann ( talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I've removed all references to the tweets per BLP. Please gain consensus here before re-adding info about this recent incident. Valeince ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Kelly Wright, the communications director for her Senate bid, told The Associated Press on Monday that the 30-year-old transgender woman now needs the "space to heal." She did not reply when asked if Manning was seeking professional help. When asked whether Manning had suspended her Senate campaign, Wright wrote: "Negative."- not our analysis. That is AP asking and receiving answers. Manning requested space and said the campaign is not suspended. Those are notable outcomes for a candidate for senate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:9081:f571:c597:f64 ( talk) 02:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There has been no further coverage of these events in the past 4 days or so and I've been unable to find any new sources that add anything. All we have is a single wave of news reports saying that Manning's tweets/window ledge photo caused concern for her well being, that her account tweeted a short while later that she is "safe" and that her campaign is not suspended. We also have an interview with Glenn Greenwald where he speculates about her. This seems textbook WP:NOTNEWS to me. If User:Marteau is correct and these events are inherently notable then they will have a documented effect on something to do with Manning in the future. Until then we can only speculate. Therefore, I would like to close discussion here until further RS appear and ask that everyone refrain from re-adding the window ledge section so that our kind admins can unlock the page and we can all get back to editing as usual? BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 22:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the incident in question in the following article from The Intercept, a well respected newspaper, be added to Chelsea's page?
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/chelsea-manning-video-twitter-police-mental-health/
It represents a flagrant abuse on the part of police in the question of how to deal with mental health incidents, and it was widely covered by the press so it meets the importance standards of article inclusion. Resentcontributor ( talk) 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that I've opened a discussion at here regarding the repeated addition of contentious material based on conjecture. Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, please ensure that there is consensus for the inclusion of any such material prior to restoring it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
During the Q&A portion of her paid appearance on July 21, 2018 at the biennial Circle of HOPE ( Hackers on Planet Earth) conference in New York City, Chelsea Manning was asked about her Wikipedia page. "It's changing constantly," she replied. "I have noticed that. I went from a convicted leaker, to a whistleblower and convicted leaker, to politician and activist and whistleblower. And I'm not done yet, trust me. I got plenty of stuff down the line." However, she added, "There's a lot of inaccurate things on my Wikipedia page and on the history about this case. I know that they're wrong but I'm not gonna fight it or anything like that. I'm not so focused on it that I'm gonna like try to correct it."
During a follow-up radio interview immediately after her keynote talk, Manning was asked, "What were some of the most incisive things that you've read in your Wikipedia page where you almost said something?"
A. Honestly, it's like little things about like my early life where I'm just like that sounds really transphobic. I've had moments where I feel like people like look at my past and look at the things I've done like take away my political agency and my ability to think for myself and like I'm some hapless person who's just like falling like, oh, I don't know what I'm doing and therefore I'm falling—
Q. Falling down the stairs into the position you're currently in.
A. Yeah. I'm like, no, I can make mistakes, I can learn things, I can do things, I can make my own decisions, including bad ones, including good ones, and including mediocre ones. And I don't like the tone sometimes of me as like this hapless transgender person who's just dealing with so much that she can't handle it.
I've reread the entire Background section of our BLP, including its Early Life subsection, and I honestly do not understand what Manning considers transphobic. Perhaps, as a Top 10 editor of this page, I'm too close to it. I urge other editors to review that content for any hint of transphobia, and form consensus here as to how to remedy it. KalHolmann ( talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
We rely on what Reliable Sources say. We can't go searching through the Reliable Sources to find some way to reword them or recast them because of an implication someone might draw from them. I propose we not do a lot of soul-searching about this offhand comment by Manning and just continue to do our job as encyclopedists. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm slightly vague as to what the official policy is, if any (I checked the archives and I'm not sure about the consensus, but the link to gender identity for BLP seemed to just go to the MOS with no obvious reference) but it strikes me as a bit off that Manning's former name is quite so prominent in the intro. Though I would agree that it's reasonable to have it somewhere reasonably obvious, putting it in bold right after her real name seems a bit much and actually looks a little adversarial. Couldn't it be dialled down just a little without risk of compromising the article's usefulness? I can't help feel there's a reasonable balance between being respectful and conveniently informative and even at a glance that seems to be rather conspicuously awry.
If it is a policy (regardless of whether or not I could find it) to highlight a person's former name that they no longer identify with quite so assertively (indeed I'd go further and say aggressively) I can't help but feel that the policy should perhaps be revised. -- Vometia ( talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "born Bradley Edward Manning." It directly goes against the guidelines to include a trans person's birth name, and is highly disrespectful. Thank you. Transoulrebel ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name."This article is actually specifically mentioned as an example within that guideline. She was certainly notable under her birth name, so the article is written correctly under current guidelines. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are there no mentions of her suicide attempts after being released from prison? These have all been verified by reputable sources, and discussed by them as well. It seems highly pertinent considering that Manning was a senatorial candidate. A senate candidate actively attempting suicide seems noteworthy for Wikipedia's standards. I lived in Maryland when this event originally happened, and believe me I would have preferred to have known this. It's bizarre why it was never listed in the first place. [1] 2601:982:4200:A6C:B09F:9AE8:DADF:71BE ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2018 Manning challenged incumbent Senator Ben Cardin for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election in her home state of Maryland. [1] On June 26, 2018, Manning finished second among eight candidates. Manning received 5.7% of the votes; Cardin won renomination with 80.5% of the votes cast. [2]
Manning has returned to prison and I would like this to be included in the article
In 2018 Manning challenged incumbent Senator Ben Cardin for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election in her home state of Maryland. [1] On June 26, 2018, Manning finished second among eight candidates. Manning received 5.7% of the votes; Cardin won renomination with 80.5% of the votes cast. [2]
On March 8, 2019, Manning was jailed again after refusing to testify before a grand jury about Wikileaks. [3] 2601:447:4101:5780:C1F1:F850:EBD1:D353 ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the subject well but this seems like a notable event
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I was not able to find any mentioning or source here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktik ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
reading the article, 'Nicks' is referenced on so many occasions I think a minor rewrite is required to state who that is within the article. If you search for 'Nicks', you only get the answer you want at approx number 59/64 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A314:4A01:3908:2F83:4638:C546 ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose the following.
The Manual of Style is not prescriptive on this matter. —DIV ( 1.129.111.49 ( talk) 06:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC))