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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
The line "as Daniel Domscheit-Berg had previously done" seems to suggest that CM stated this line she die not and is totally separate and hardly relevant as DDB is not a USA citizen, is not in the US and was not subpoenaed, an international request and immunity for prosecution agreement does not constitute anything close to the same thing. Needs to be deleted immediately 2404:4408:205A:4B00:4D43:12DF:80AE:4C08 ( talk)
On October 20, 2018,
User:Rab V
reverted my addition of Chelsea Manning's announcement that she had, after years of fighting for it, finally undergone surgery. In his edit summary, Rab V made two points. First, it was "not directly stated in tweet what the surgery is." Any fair reading of
Chelsea Manning would confirm that Manning has fought for only one type of surgery:
Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Second, Rab V contends that "without secondary source it is difficult to establish how relevant a surgery would be to rest of article." Again, one need merely read this BLP, which mentions SRS four times, to establish that editorial consensus has long recognized the relevance of said surgery to Chelsea Manning. I request renewed discussion to affirm that this latest development is, obviously, about SRS and that it is, just as obviously, relevant to the BLP.
KalHolmann (
talk)
20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
See also
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IP address ( talk) date (UTC)
Chelsea Manning has had long hair for the last three years; it's her usual appearance rather than the short-haired pic in the infobox. As a result, I'd suggest replacing it with one where her hair is longer, such as File:Chelsea Manning.jpg. Thoughts? Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 02:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The current picture is quite outdated at this point and there's much nicer more recent pictures of her.
A few suggestions include the pictures from
- https://wamu.org/story/18/02/02/will-protect-chelsea-manning-u-s-senate-run-maryland/ - https://www.dailywire.com/news/chelsea-manning-released-from-prison-after-judge-dissolves-julian-assange-grand-jury (could not find original source, attributed to Win McNamee via Getty Images) - https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/443053-chelsea-manning-released-from-jail (this one is also attributed to Getty Images, couldn't find photographer's name)
Unlike the previous post, these are taken by professional photographers, much like the current infobox, and are on from happy occasions / taken for the purpose of having a nice picture.
-- Dominikasokolov ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of section 'Parents' divorce, move to Wales':
This period of Manning's life was dramatised by [ Price] in National Theatre Wales' highly acclaimed The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, which received the 2013 James Tait Black Prize for Drama. Ymaherenawrnow ( talk) 14:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 17, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-12-17. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.I double-checked each of the 10 inline citations, and we do not interpret any descriptive statements of facts.
There's been some edit warring lately by editors who seem to place their views above what the reliable sources say, and it needs to stop. This regards a claim by a Navy psychiatrist about Manning's physiognomy showing signs of fetal alcohol syndrome. The first removal was accompanied by the summary "This sentence was untrue and linked to a fake reference". However the psychiatrist did make the statement, and it was linked to a reliable source, so I reverted and added an archive-url (is the 404 what was meant by "fake reference"?). The content was then removed again, saying, "That is not exactly what the quote says, and I'm not seeing how a psychiatrist could make a determination like that. if this is only in one source, then it seems UNDUE" and another editor properly reverted this. Had the material not been restored, I would have restored it again, and added five new references [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] along with a summary saying that my addition was WP:CITECLUTTER and should be pared down to one.
Let's be clear about one thing: Wikipedia editors are not in the business about deciding whether Manning does, or doesn't have F.A.S., or whether psychiatrists are or are not able to make diagnoses in absentia. We *are* in the business about deciding what reliable sources are saying, and trying to summarize them in proportion to their appearance in reliable, secondary sources. There is a possible argument to be made that the content should be excluded per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Exactly how to word the content can be discussed here, as well, but I think it's been covered sufficiently in sources to merit a mention. However, removals based on what you think Manning's condition really is, or whether you think psychiatrists are qualified to make pronouncements on people they haven't treated, are out of bounds here. If you want the content removed, please make a policy-based argument that supports your view. Also, please keep WP:BRD in mind: the original content has been removed and restored twice now; editors still wishing to remove it, should make their case here first. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
"Captain David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, told the court that Manning's facial features showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome"in the Early Life subsection is that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder occurs in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy. Manning's mother drank alcohol during her pregnancy with Chelsea, which can reasonably be considered part of Chelsea's early life. The symptoms of short height and low body weight likewise first manifested during Chelsea's early life. NedFausa ( talk) 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the d in front of "dactivist" at the beginning of the first paragraph/ Change "dactivist" to activist. J tommasi88 ( talk) 04:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Under the heading "Background: Parents' divorce, move to Wales", the final part of the third paragraph states that Manning"...started taking running jumps at walls..." Perhaps this is a colloquialism in some part of the world, but I suspect to most English-speakers, it's confusing. One might intentionally "run into walls", but "running jumps"? What would adding a jump do? If the goal is self-harm, it would likely decrease the likelihood of that, since it would divert momentum from a perpendicular approach to one that dissipates energy upwards. Can anyone make sense of this? Unless someone can support the claim that "jumps" were involved, or can articulate why the word should be retained, I propose it be rephrased as "...attempted to harm herself by running head-long into a wall", or some such. Bricology ( talk) 05:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an obscure fact that might fall under "cultural impact", but wanted to add it to the discussion.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfVIPqcF9I&t=13s
RAMEADE (
talk)
02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Bradley Edward Manning" from Born section, her deadname is nobody's business. 193.115.83.240 ( talk) 06:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
07:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)I fully agree with the policy at WP:DEADNAME (even as a trans-questioning person myself). However, I don't think the readers knows very much on the topic of deadnaming, and thus could lead to confusion at a glance. Similarly, those in the know of trans subjects might see it as disrespectful or confusing. So I suggest introducing a hatnote clarifying it, that only the current name is to be used. I don't see that as POVing or censoring content, but just instructing the reader about how to use the person's name. Since we uncontroversially use {{ family name hatnote}}, we already provide reader guidance on how subjects' names should be used and handled. I think deadnames are equally important to explain.
I created a hatnote template as a suggestion: {{ deadname}}
Seeking consensus or lack thereof. Gaioa ( T C L) 15:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- This article on Chelsea Manning uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. Additionally, MOS:DEADNAME specifies that a trans person's deadname may be included if they were sufficiently notable under said name. See the talk page for further discussion. Many thanks.
A trans woman, Manning stated in 2013 that she had a female gender identity since childhood and wanted to be known as Chelsea Manning.That sentence sufficiently informs the reader that this bio involves a person who prefers to no longer be known by her original name. Moreover, Manning's previous notability by her deadname is obvious even to the most casual reader, who can see at a glance how much of our article describes Chelsea's life prior to 2013. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Although she was indeed known by it, is it not at least mildly rude to mention her deadname? RooinMahmood07 ( talk) 10:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
In April 2014, the Kansas District Court granted a petition from Manning for a legal name change.Those who object to Manning's deadname, however, will never be satisfied until "Bradley" is completely expunged from the record. I've even seen some fanatics argue that publications such as The Guardian ought to go back and sanitize all their news stories from May 2010 onward to eliminate every last vestige of Bradley. It's historical revisionism on the order of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Where is Winston Smith (6079 Smith W) now that we need him? NedFausa ( talk) 20:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It's funny, because if a television show has long been off the air, the policy is still to say it IS a TV show, because it still exits, even if it's no longer airing. We don't call it a "dead show." Trying to say Bradley Manning is a "deadname," when it's the name the subject used at the time he was doing what he did to merit an article in the first place, seems a bit contradictory. 71.226.227.121 ( talk) 06:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
besides, "deadname" is not a real thing. It is made up by activists, and there is no reason for the rest of the world to do as they want. 142.163.194.97 ( talk) 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"Administrative segregation" is a synonymous euphemism for the practice of solitary confinement. The use of this term (In general, not only within its current placement in the article) is intended to soften and obfuscate the nature of Manning's treatment. Juan Mendez, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, has argued emphatically that solitary confinement is torture in publicly available documents such as this. The term "administrative segregation" is less widely known by the public than the term "solitary confinement" and thus is politically coded language that makes all uses of the term in the article less clear. Whenever you have two exactly synonymous terms, the only sensible course of action is to use the more widely understood term. The only argument that could possibly be made for using the lesser known of two identical terms is to present information in such a way which obscures the true nature of events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4600:86b0:dd0a:3a7c:7a59:a73b ( talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a rule why the pronoun "she" should be used to cover all the time before his/her transition? I mean, the common courtesy aside, in case of military personel this is relevant. It would make way more sense to refer to Manning as "him" until the official announcement of the transition and only henceforth as "her". Because surely the military authorities who hired him were not in a position to hire her etc.--
Polska jest Najważniejsza (
talk)
18:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This BLP states: Manning was arrested by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command,[171] on May 27, 2010, and transferred four days later to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.[172]
Thus, neither of the cited sources supports Wikipedia's arrest date of May 27, 2010.
In a story that we cite in reference to Manning's altercation with an intelligence analyst, The Guardian reports (May 27, 2011) "Manning's arrest on 29 May 2010."
In a story that we don't cite, CNN reports (July 29, 2013) that "Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 27, 2010."
Similarly, Rutgers University professor of English Richard E. Miller writes in his book On the End of Privacy: Dissolving Boundaries in a Screen-Centric World (University of Pittsburgh Press; 2019), "Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010."
Finally, in a primary source that I suppose we cannot cite but which I offer here strictly for information, the U.S. government's Second Superseding Indictment (June 24, 2020) of Julian Assange asserts (p. 9), "Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010."
As a newbie editor, I am at a loss as to how to properly document the arrest date with inline citations that clarify yet do not contradict the existing references. Please advise. Portewfik ( talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's been reported recently that Chelsea Manning is now in a relationship with Grimes. This is mentioned in Grimes' infobox and article, but is not mentioned in this article at all. 150.107.175.208 ( talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pictures of Chelsea prior to transition were added, for example "Manning in 2009", this file also has the name "Bradley Manning", it's difficult to parse which edit added a non text entry (for me), but I believe that change could have been motivated by transphobia and ought to be removed, and similar photos questioned 2601:602:A000:7580:C98B:B26E:ED53:E3BF ( talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, it just seems a little voyeuristic and non-notable. I'd like to hear other people's perspectives on this (especially trans people I guess; being trans myself it just seems really weird to include a battery of medical procedures and personal statements.)
Hmm... I think it could be edited into one succinct section discussing systemic treatment, cultural impact, and the like. But a year-by-year breakdown of everything that happened (especially in that format) seems excessive
2600:1700:9480:5D10:C51E:2AF5:1264:CD51 ( talk) 07:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) anonymous blowhard
Including the name Chelsea was born with is unnecessary and highly disrespectful. Please remove it. 142.186.56.28 ( talk) 05:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Should we start a discussion on what's the best image for Chelsea? I am of the opinion that the 2017 image is too old, and that the 2021 image is more flattering, from a better angle, and more representative of how she looks today (See the notable difference in hairstyle.) I'd be willing to come to a consensus for the image if that's the case. Thank you! rogueshanghai chat (they/them) 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Add new info regarding denial to Canadian entry. 24.222.242.194 ( talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't "convincted spy" be added to her description? It would balance the "whistleblower" which seems to be more of an opinion. Saxophool ( talk) 00:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point. Everywhere she is called a whistleblower but she was also convincted of espionage. Those who are convincted of espionage are called spies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxophool ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to edit the information about Chelsea Manning to include that it was Barack Hussein Obama who commuted Chelsea Manning sentence by 28 years because for some reason they left that information out... Dawn Mauro ( talk) 13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Chelsea's Twitch career, while insignificant compared to other acts of hers, isn't insignificant as a Twitch career - is it worth being included somewhere on this page, especially with collaborations with streamers such as Keffals? If nothing else, should she have the Twitch Streamer infobox included? Inkublu ❤ ( talk) 22:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Additional note - I believe she has also streamed with AOC and Ilhan Omar, which adds notability (22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkublu ( talk • contribs)
Should Manning be described as a "whistleblower" or a "leaker"? Pinging @ BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL and Newimpartial, who've been involved in back-and-forth editing about the descriptor. I'm leaning toward 'whisteblower', which I know to be ubiquitous in sources, and I'm leaning against BO's "legal definition of whistleblower" argument, though I'd be glad to hear more about it. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent article:
says, quoting Manning:
... there are a number of diagnoses on her Wikipedia page that are misidentified PTSD. “Gender dysphoria’s not on the radar any more; it’s been treated, or some would go so far as to say ‘cured’. All the other diagnoses were just untreated, unidentified, complex post traumatic stress syndrome. That is my sole diagnosis.”
I'm not clear to what in the article this refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
shouldn't we change it from son to daughter and he/him to she/her? even when talking about her pre-transition and pre-coming out. whether she was out or not at the time that's being spoken about, shouldn't we get the gender stuff right? KingcCake ( talk) 05:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Suggest deleting the Covid-19 section, which at this time reads in full "On September 14, 2021, Manning tested positive for COVID-19. She reportedly exhibited mild symptoms and would be quarantining until October 1, 2021. Manning, who had previously been vaccinated, issued a statement that "vaccines work, masks work, testing works, healthcare is a right, and we all need to support each other."
I have no idea why someone thought this was worth mentioning. 69.251.120.211 ( talk) 00:56, 15 December 2022 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
The line "as Daniel Domscheit-Berg had previously done" seems to suggest that CM stated this line she die not and is totally separate and hardly relevant as DDB is not a USA citizen, is not in the US and was not subpoenaed, an international request and immunity for prosecution agreement does not constitute anything close to the same thing. Needs to be deleted immediately 2404:4408:205A:4B00:4D43:12DF:80AE:4C08 ( talk)
On October 20, 2018,
User:Rab V
reverted my addition of Chelsea Manning's announcement that she had, after years of fighting for it, finally undergone surgery. In his edit summary, Rab V made two points. First, it was "not directly stated in tweet what the surgery is." Any fair reading of
Chelsea Manning would confirm that Manning has fought for only one type of surgery:
Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Second, Rab V contends that "without secondary source it is difficult to establish how relevant a surgery would be to rest of article." Again, one need merely read this BLP, which mentions SRS four times, to establish that editorial consensus has long recognized the relevance of said surgery to Chelsea Manning. I request renewed discussion to affirm that this latest development is, obviously, about SRS and that it is, just as obviously, relevant to the BLP.
KalHolmann (
talk)
20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
See also
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IP address ( talk) date (UTC)
Chelsea Manning has had long hair for the last three years; it's her usual appearance rather than the short-haired pic in the infobox. As a result, I'd suggest replacing it with one where her hair is longer, such as File:Chelsea Manning.jpg. Thoughts? Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 02:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The current picture is quite outdated at this point and there's much nicer more recent pictures of her.
A few suggestions include the pictures from
- https://wamu.org/story/18/02/02/will-protect-chelsea-manning-u-s-senate-run-maryland/ - https://www.dailywire.com/news/chelsea-manning-released-from-prison-after-judge-dissolves-julian-assange-grand-jury (could not find original source, attributed to Win McNamee via Getty Images) - https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/443053-chelsea-manning-released-from-jail (this one is also attributed to Getty Images, couldn't find photographer's name)
Unlike the previous post, these are taken by professional photographers, much like the current infobox, and are on from happy occasions / taken for the purpose of having a nice picture.
-- Dominikasokolov ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of section 'Parents' divorce, move to Wales':
This period of Manning's life was dramatised by [ Price] in National Theatre Wales' highly acclaimed The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, which received the 2013 James Tait Black Prize for Drama. Ymaherenawrnow ( talk) 14:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 17, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-12-17. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.I double-checked each of the 10 inline citations, and we do not interpret any descriptive statements of facts.
There's been some edit warring lately by editors who seem to place their views above what the reliable sources say, and it needs to stop. This regards a claim by a Navy psychiatrist about Manning's physiognomy showing signs of fetal alcohol syndrome. The first removal was accompanied by the summary "This sentence was untrue and linked to a fake reference". However the psychiatrist did make the statement, and it was linked to a reliable source, so I reverted and added an archive-url (is the 404 what was meant by "fake reference"?). The content was then removed again, saying, "That is not exactly what the quote says, and I'm not seeing how a psychiatrist could make a determination like that. if this is only in one source, then it seems UNDUE" and another editor properly reverted this. Had the material not been restored, I would have restored it again, and added five new references [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] along with a summary saying that my addition was WP:CITECLUTTER and should be pared down to one.
Let's be clear about one thing: Wikipedia editors are not in the business about deciding whether Manning does, or doesn't have F.A.S., or whether psychiatrists are or are not able to make diagnoses in absentia. We *are* in the business about deciding what reliable sources are saying, and trying to summarize them in proportion to their appearance in reliable, secondary sources. There is a possible argument to be made that the content should be excluded per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Exactly how to word the content can be discussed here, as well, but I think it's been covered sufficiently in sources to merit a mention. However, removals based on what you think Manning's condition really is, or whether you think psychiatrists are qualified to make pronouncements on people they haven't treated, are out of bounds here. If you want the content removed, please make a policy-based argument that supports your view. Also, please keep WP:BRD in mind: the original content has been removed and restored twice now; editors still wishing to remove it, should make their case here first. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
"Captain David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, told the court that Manning's facial features showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome"in the Early Life subsection is that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder occurs in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy. Manning's mother drank alcohol during her pregnancy with Chelsea, which can reasonably be considered part of Chelsea's early life. The symptoms of short height and low body weight likewise first manifested during Chelsea's early life. NedFausa ( talk) 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the d in front of "dactivist" at the beginning of the first paragraph/ Change "dactivist" to activist. J tommasi88 ( talk) 04:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Under the heading "Background: Parents' divorce, move to Wales", the final part of the third paragraph states that Manning"...started taking running jumps at walls..." Perhaps this is a colloquialism in some part of the world, but I suspect to most English-speakers, it's confusing. One might intentionally "run into walls", but "running jumps"? What would adding a jump do? If the goal is self-harm, it would likely decrease the likelihood of that, since it would divert momentum from a perpendicular approach to one that dissipates energy upwards. Can anyone make sense of this? Unless someone can support the claim that "jumps" were involved, or can articulate why the word should be retained, I propose it be rephrased as "...attempted to harm herself by running head-long into a wall", or some such. Bricology ( talk) 05:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an obscure fact that might fall under "cultural impact", but wanted to add it to the discussion.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfVIPqcF9I&t=13s
RAMEADE (
talk)
02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Bradley Edward Manning" from Born section, her deadname is nobody's business. 193.115.83.240 ( talk) 06:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
07:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)I fully agree with the policy at WP:DEADNAME (even as a trans-questioning person myself). However, I don't think the readers knows very much on the topic of deadnaming, and thus could lead to confusion at a glance. Similarly, those in the know of trans subjects might see it as disrespectful or confusing. So I suggest introducing a hatnote clarifying it, that only the current name is to be used. I don't see that as POVing or censoring content, but just instructing the reader about how to use the person's name. Since we uncontroversially use {{ family name hatnote}}, we already provide reader guidance on how subjects' names should be used and handled. I think deadnames are equally important to explain.
I created a hatnote template as a suggestion: {{ deadname}}
Seeking consensus or lack thereof. Gaioa ( T C L) 15:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- This article on Chelsea Manning uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. Additionally, MOS:DEADNAME specifies that a trans person's deadname may be included if they were sufficiently notable under said name. See the talk page for further discussion. Many thanks.
A trans woman, Manning stated in 2013 that she had a female gender identity since childhood and wanted to be known as Chelsea Manning.That sentence sufficiently informs the reader that this bio involves a person who prefers to no longer be known by her original name. Moreover, Manning's previous notability by her deadname is obvious even to the most casual reader, who can see at a glance how much of our article describes Chelsea's life prior to 2013. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Although she was indeed known by it, is it not at least mildly rude to mention her deadname? RooinMahmood07 ( talk) 10:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
In April 2014, the Kansas District Court granted a petition from Manning for a legal name change.Those who object to Manning's deadname, however, will never be satisfied until "Bradley" is completely expunged from the record. I've even seen some fanatics argue that publications such as The Guardian ought to go back and sanitize all their news stories from May 2010 onward to eliminate every last vestige of Bradley. It's historical revisionism on the order of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Where is Winston Smith (6079 Smith W) now that we need him? NedFausa ( talk) 20:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It's funny, because if a television show has long been off the air, the policy is still to say it IS a TV show, because it still exits, even if it's no longer airing. We don't call it a "dead show." Trying to say Bradley Manning is a "deadname," when it's the name the subject used at the time he was doing what he did to merit an article in the first place, seems a bit contradictory. 71.226.227.121 ( talk) 06:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
besides, "deadname" is not a real thing. It is made up by activists, and there is no reason for the rest of the world to do as they want. 142.163.194.97 ( talk) 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"Administrative segregation" is a synonymous euphemism for the practice of solitary confinement. The use of this term (In general, not only within its current placement in the article) is intended to soften and obfuscate the nature of Manning's treatment. Juan Mendez, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, has argued emphatically that solitary confinement is torture in publicly available documents such as this. The term "administrative segregation" is less widely known by the public than the term "solitary confinement" and thus is politically coded language that makes all uses of the term in the article less clear. Whenever you have two exactly synonymous terms, the only sensible course of action is to use the more widely understood term. The only argument that could possibly be made for using the lesser known of two identical terms is to present information in such a way which obscures the true nature of events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4600:86b0:dd0a:3a7c:7a59:a73b ( talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a rule why the pronoun "she" should be used to cover all the time before his/her transition? I mean, the common courtesy aside, in case of military personel this is relevant. It would make way more sense to refer to Manning as "him" until the official announcement of the transition and only henceforth as "her". Because surely the military authorities who hired him were not in a position to hire her etc.--
Polska jest Najważniejsza (
talk)
18:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This BLP states: Manning was arrested by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command,[171] on May 27, 2010, and transferred four days later to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.[172]
Thus, neither of the cited sources supports Wikipedia's arrest date of May 27, 2010.
In a story that we cite in reference to Manning's altercation with an intelligence analyst, The Guardian reports (May 27, 2011) "Manning's arrest on 29 May 2010."
In a story that we don't cite, CNN reports (July 29, 2013) that "Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 27, 2010."
Similarly, Rutgers University professor of English Richard E. Miller writes in his book On the End of Privacy: Dissolving Boundaries in a Screen-Centric World (University of Pittsburgh Press; 2019), "Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010."
Finally, in a primary source that I suppose we cannot cite but which I offer here strictly for information, the U.S. government's Second Superseding Indictment (June 24, 2020) of Julian Assange asserts (p. 9), "Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010."
As a newbie editor, I am at a loss as to how to properly document the arrest date with inline citations that clarify yet do not contradict the existing references. Please advise. Portewfik ( talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's been reported recently that Chelsea Manning is now in a relationship with Grimes. This is mentioned in Grimes' infobox and article, but is not mentioned in this article at all. 150.107.175.208 ( talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chelsea Manning has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pictures of Chelsea prior to transition were added, for example "Manning in 2009", this file also has the name "Bradley Manning", it's difficult to parse which edit added a non text entry (for me), but I believe that change could have been motivated by transphobia and ought to be removed, and similar photos questioned 2601:602:A000:7580:C98B:B26E:ED53:E3BF ( talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, it just seems a little voyeuristic and non-notable. I'd like to hear other people's perspectives on this (especially trans people I guess; being trans myself it just seems really weird to include a battery of medical procedures and personal statements.)
Hmm... I think it could be edited into one succinct section discussing systemic treatment, cultural impact, and the like. But a year-by-year breakdown of everything that happened (especially in that format) seems excessive
2600:1700:9480:5D10:C51E:2AF5:1264:CD51 ( talk) 07:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) anonymous blowhard
Including the name Chelsea was born with is unnecessary and highly disrespectful. Please remove it. 142.186.56.28 ( talk) 05:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Should we start a discussion on what's the best image for Chelsea? I am of the opinion that the 2017 image is too old, and that the 2021 image is more flattering, from a better angle, and more representative of how she looks today (See the notable difference in hairstyle.) I'd be willing to come to a consensus for the image if that's the case. Thank you! rogueshanghai chat (they/them) 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Add new info regarding denial to Canadian entry. 24.222.242.194 ( talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't "convincted spy" be added to her description? It would balance the "whistleblower" which seems to be more of an opinion. Saxophool ( talk) 00:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point. Everywhere she is called a whistleblower but she was also convincted of espionage. Those who are convincted of espionage are called spies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxophool ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to edit the information about Chelsea Manning to include that it was Barack Hussein Obama who commuted Chelsea Manning sentence by 28 years because for some reason they left that information out... Dawn Mauro ( talk) 13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Chelsea's Twitch career, while insignificant compared to other acts of hers, isn't insignificant as a Twitch career - is it worth being included somewhere on this page, especially with collaborations with streamers such as Keffals? If nothing else, should she have the Twitch Streamer infobox included? Inkublu ❤ ( talk) 22:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Additional note - I believe she has also streamed with AOC and Ilhan Omar, which adds notability (22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkublu ( talk • contribs)
Should Manning be described as a "whistleblower" or a "leaker"? Pinging @ BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL and Newimpartial, who've been involved in back-and-forth editing about the descriptor. I'm leaning toward 'whisteblower', which I know to be ubiquitous in sources, and I'm leaning against BO's "legal definition of whistleblower" argument, though I'd be glad to hear more about it. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent article:
says, quoting Manning:
... there are a number of diagnoses on her Wikipedia page that are misidentified PTSD. “Gender dysphoria’s not on the radar any more; it’s been treated, or some would go so far as to say ‘cured’. All the other diagnoses were just untreated, unidentified, complex post traumatic stress syndrome. That is my sole diagnosis.”
I'm not clear to what in the article this refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
shouldn't we change it from son to daughter and he/him to she/her? even when talking about her pre-transition and pre-coming out. whether she was out or not at the time that's being spoken about, shouldn't we get the gender stuff right? KingcCake ( talk) 05:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Suggest deleting the Covid-19 section, which at this time reads in full "On September 14, 2021, Manning tested positive for COVID-19. She reportedly exhibited mild symptoms and would be quarantining until October 1, 2021. Manning, who had previously been vaccinated, issued a statement that "vaccines work, masks work, testing works, healthcare is a right, and we all need to support each other."
I have no idea why someone thought this was worth mentioning. 69.251.120.211 ( talk) 00:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)