![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Apparently the MIT researcher who visits Manning has said something about Oct 11 being the terminus ante quem, as far as I can understand it on the grounds that Manning's ?contract? with the military runs out then. Can he be court-martialled when he's not in the armed forces, is this all confused, should it be mentioned? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see the new See Also links defended... they seem extremely dubious and very much pushing a point (i.e. Manning is illegally detained). Fail to see any particular link with Shi Tao, he is not even identified as a whistleblower in his article. The two other items are linked to sources which draw connections between the Manning case and Guantanamo Bay detainees. I don;t entirely see the relevance in either case - Yee is not a similar case, and drawing links to the treatment is Undue because at this stage we have only opinons on Mannings treatment, nothing legal etc. Even if some sources are drawing links I do not think it is reasonable to give it such prominence. Remember; see also links are supposed to give links to fairly related subjects that aren't dealt with in the main article. In this case Incarceration in the United States is a great example of the sort of relevant link that builds on article content. James Yee is an example of a See Also link that advances a point of view. -- Errant ( chat!) 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, as requested by User:ErrantX, here goes...
These are the current see alsos:
As I understand it, the three pre-existing ones, while quite correct, and telling the only legitimate story, might nevertheless be wrongfully assailed as POV by fundamentalist extremists since they seem to be suggesting that Manning is indeed guilty of taking classified information, without any regard to the sensitivity of such information, and providing this to mercenary trouble-making journalists who have no regard for national security, cost lives, and in fact, as Sarah Palin has admirably demonstrated, are at least as much of a threat to the US as the leaders of al-Qaida. I understand the basic reason the US does not want this information released is because it is a little shy and does not want to boast about all the good work it does around the world, as otherwise it might feel a little bashful next time it meets another country.
I added incarceration, which is presumably the meritorious consequence of such heinous misdemeanours. I understand that solitary confinement is pretty uncontested by both sides, while habeas corpus is some abstract mediaeval notion about imprisonment and trials I saw in a few RS and thought if they thought it was relevant who am I to disagree. So now we have four for the anti-Manning brigade, two neutral ones, with Human rights, presumably of interest to everyone everywhere, making that in fact three neutral ones (I understand that it is WP:OR if you don't show your source).
Torture concerns are possibly something the pro-Manning brigade might suggest - but then this is endorsed by none other than the United Nations, so presumably that has a bit of weight to it and doesn't really count as a pro-Manning one, so is that not 4-4-0?
The Guantanamo Bay parallel is that drawn by an eminent Professor at the University of Michigan - there has not yet been much academic commentary cited in the article, yet I don't see how his basic point, which is the parallel of Manning's imprisonment with Gitmo, could be usefully elaborated within the article without violating WP:Due Weight; as mere Wikipedia editors we presumably should not venture to disregard such an eminent commentator, so I thought perhaps a quick see also would suffice as it seems only 'peripherally related' (per WP:See also policy) - with some kind of explanation of the meaning of such an obscure geographic location clearly warranted.
Yee is apparently a parallel with Manning's case suggested by another WP:RS, yet obviously it's not at all a close one, since he is a principled man, held at an apparently abusive detention facility, subjected to sensory deprivation, who eventually had his erroneous court-martial case dropped - none of which relate to Manning who, as the good TV colonel has ably demonstrated, is positively mollycoddled contrary to what he deserves and is having his 'speedy trial' rights upheld, all of which presumably needs to be highlighted lest some of our more impressionable readers might misunderstand.
As for the notorious Shi Tao, who according to this was imprisoned for 'divulging state secrets' relating to Tiananmen Square (a place of cultural interest apparently) he only got ten years since his regime is most tolerant, yet this might serve as some kind of warning in the meantime to those who might emulate Manning. Perhaps you're right, perhaps all these see-alsos are still pushing a point, and we need someone to suggest some pro-Manning ones for balance, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If you see the David Hicks article, under the (UK) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, British citizenship was sought for a Guantanamo detainee with a British mother in an attempt for Justice to be provided in some way, since the US is clearly incapable of it - although the UK, after openly criticising the US, then backpeddled - anyone seen anything like this re Manning (who has a British mother, and presumably would not be similarly abandoned by the UK)? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
His lawyer (Mr. Coombs) says Manning is not a dual citizen. See: [3] -- S. Rich ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done some tidying again. I made some of the ref formats consistent (still some to do), made date formats consistent (because the subject is American, the article uses the January 27, 2011 format), removed repetitive material and repetitive refs, moved some material into chronological position, removed some overlinking, and removed some See alsos that seemed either POV or not directly relevant.
I also removed some overegging of the pudding from the Response section, where we had started to quote everyone who had commented. Less is more. :) SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Good work. This needed tightening up, it was getting quite prolix. Nandt1 ( talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The article currently heavily implies that Manning's alleged disclosure was directly related to problems in his personal life. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH, which I will try to remedy if I get time, but I would appreciate some help on this. Also, a large amount of material on his actual stated motivations has been removed. Gregcaletta ( talk) 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Manning was detained for several weeks or months without charge. The date of his arrest has been removed from the article, so this is no longer apparent. Does anyone know why it was removed and can someone please reinsert it? Gregcaletta ( talk) 06:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
a) Assange pic in "charges" because one of them it that material was leaked to him. b) Collateral Murder video in "siprnet" because it was obtained through access to this net c) Lamo pic in Lamo section because... duh, bit self-explanatory, isn't it? White spaces are not to be avoided at all cost, they may provide space and volume. Right now I see only one in "charges", it is not obtrusive and anyway this section will soon be expanded as the process goes on. Cheers. walk victor falk talk 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin reverted some of my changes to the headings multiple times without responding to my reasoning, so I will repeat my arguments here. "Background" does not really make sense in a biography article. It would make sense if this were an article for the event of the disclosure, arrest and charges, rather than the person. "Early life and education" is more appropriate, and his enlistment is neither part of his early life and education, nor his "background" so it does not fit under this heading. "Chats", "Arrest" and "Charges" are not part of the "disclosure", so it does not make sense to have them as sub-headings to the disclosure. The current headings do not make sense, so I would encourage SlimVirgin to work towards consensus through offering alternatives to both my headings and those previous, if he has some objection to the headings I have used (although he has not stated what those objections might be). Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The only argument the SlimVirgin has given is that it is "unusual" to have no subheadings in an article, so the "onus" is on me to justify their removal. The fact that most article have subheadings is not in itself a reason to add them, especially if they don't make sense, as I have argued. Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be good if we could get this article to GA or even FA status once it has developed sufficiently, and I've been maintaining it with that in mind.
Recent edits have included adding white spaces around the images (and reverting when they were removed), removing all the subheads (and reverting when they were restored), adding "Carrer [sic] in the U.S. Army" and "Arrest, detainment [sic] and charges". And the first two sentences contained repetition (emphasis added): "Bradley E. Manning is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 and charged in July with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. He has been detained since May 2010 ..."
It's much easier to maintain clear writing and formatting as we go along, than struggling to do a big rewrite every few weeks or months, so if people could bear that in mind, particularly the need to follow the MoS (no need to be overly strict about it, but within reason), it would help a lot. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 06:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Victor, regarding the sentence you want to change:
If and whether aren't good, and the sentence could be read as saying that Assange may have encouraged Manning in order to charge him with conspiracy.
What do you see as the problem with the sentence as currently written? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 14:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
He was sent to a chaplain for no reason? Victor, can you explain where you're coming from with these edits? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello 183.173. I removed "controversial" about the collateral murder video, as generally we are to avoid such words (see wp:weasel). If it is controversial, then the article should be written as to make that clear from the context, preferably. walk victor falk talk 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of an aunt in the infobox is problematic. What role does she have in this matter? Same thing for the parents. (Other than the question of Manning's possible British citizenship.) It may be that these people are terribly embarrassed by the whole matter and would prefer that their names be left out of the article. For guidance, I refer editors to WP:PRIVACY which says: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information . . . on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name . . . and work organisation, . . . whether any such information is accurate or not. . . . This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. [emphasis added]" Accordingly, let's leave them out of this article. -- S. Rich ( talk) 04:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the above named user keeps undoing updates to the article and labelling these complete undos as things like "tidied". First-hand evidence from Adrian Lamo shows that Bradley Manning did NOT read the Wired profile on him before contacting him, but despite this, it is presented under the heading "Manning's chats with Adrian Lamo" deliberately, and misleadingly, trying to link these two events together. The only version of events that we have at the moment come from Adrian Lamo, and he specifically states that Manning found him through a Twitter post he made. There is no mention of this fact, and when this missing information has been added (with solid references) SlimVirgin undoes the edit and claims that he's "tidied" the article. It's my understanding that this sort of knee-jerk "undoing" of any missing relevant and verifiable material is NOT part of Wikipedia's guidelines, and instead such information should be incorporated into, not deleted from, in future edits. As ever in these cases, I do not have the time or energy or waste getting involved in an edit war, so I instead am raising the issue here. I hope someone with authority can sort this out. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What??? Every day??? Soldier in Leaks Case Will Be Made to Sleep Naked Nightly Is this a real story??? See also I think that might deserver it's own section and brought together with the claims of cruel, unsual & degrading treatment. IQinn ( talk) 01:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Iquinn removed the image of the Pentagon general counsel. Can you say why, Iquinn? (Temporarily using this account because of technical problems with my old one.) SlimVirgin test account ( talk) 00:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a photo of Manning's lawyer is particularly relevant to this article. I wouldn't object to it, but it would never occur to me to add it – except in a separate section that is specifically about the lawyer. At the moment, such a section does not exist. A photo of someone who merely inspected Manning's detention conditions is even less relevant. I wouldn't mind it very much, but it seem inappropriate. Similarly, the photo of Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg only makes sense because of the section "WikiLeaks", which is also of borderline relevance to the article. Hans Adler 08:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This should probably be added to the article along with something like a "Fallout" section. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/mi6_dearlove_wikileaks/ Zuchinni one ( talk) 05:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Not unsurprisingly a link to manning.org has resurfaced. It is, this time, disguised as information about the board of advisors. The info is entirely primary source and I have tagged it as such. As I read WP:ELNO, the link clearly violates nos. 4 & 19. The fact that they are in a footnote and not a separate EL section does not work as WP:EL pertains to entire articles. I do not see a footnote exception to the guidance. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
My two concerns are: First, that creating the section promotes the support network unnecessarily. We do not have info on those people (networked or not) who are anti-support to counter balance. That is, it is easy to create a "network" with a "board" that sounds impressive, but is this network actually effective? By including it we are promoting it. My view about this promotion of the network is supported by my Second concern regarding the fact that we have a link to the organization contrary to WP:ELNO guidance -- as discussed above.-- S. Rich ( talk) 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've posted this issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. -- S. Rich ( talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I added to the introduction of the article a sourced (x2) reference to Lamo's status as a convicted felon in the sentence that reveals it was Lamo who denounced Manning to the government. I'm a neutral editor in this scenario and don't seek to excuse what Manning is alleged to have done, or excoriate Lamo for denouncing him to the gov't. I believe it bears mentioning in this Manning article that Lamo, "the felon," denounced him. Plea agreements can require the defendant, as a condition of their probation, to disassociate from criminals and refrain from engaging in illegal behavior, and to immediately report any potential criminality that they become aware of. My understanding is that Lamo cited his desire not to again fall afoul of the US Gov't or have agents of the FBI burst through his front door (paraphrasing) as informing his decision to alert authorities to Manning's alleged activities. This one small detail, that it was a convicted felon who reported Manning's alleged criminal action, seems to me to be integral to understanding the facts of the situation as we know them and how chance it was that Manning's alleged activities ever came to light (had Manning confided in someone who had no prior criminal conviction for computer crimes, the government might not have been contacted). To omit it from the article may hinder the reader's ability to take the full measure of events. Nonetheless I wanted to provide others with the opportunity to reject the change by at least calling attention to it. Joep01 ( talk) 23:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Iquinn, I added a source as requested for Ellsberg being involved with WikiLeaks, but you again posted that he's not. Can you explain? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. I refrain from editing here since I'm involved. I'm described as a US citizen, but I'm actually a *former* citizen. See, for example, http://www.nostate.com/3815/interview-with-rt-russia-today-news/ and http://www.nostate.com/2876/interview-markiza-magazine/ — Mike Gogulski ↗ C• @• T↗ 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am coming back on this discussion page -bradley Manning's case has been granted a FULL page in French leading newspaper Le Monde (mercredi 23 mars ,page 3, by Corine Lesnes)- . Wouldn't it be usefull to cite in the article brian Manning 's words on his son (his first public declaration since the begining of the case !). I quickly browsed and found in english: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-dad-of-wikileaks-suspect-says-son-is-innocent-031011/ ,wherein I picked : "“It’s shocking enough that I would come out of our silence as a family and say, ‘Now, then, you crossed the line. This is wrong,’“ Brian Manning said." or :"Brian Manning also said his son isn’t particularly patriotic — “I don’t think he follows any regime of any kind” — and that Pfc. Manning enlisted in 2007 at his father’s urging.“He needed structure in his life. He was aimless. And I was going on my own experience. When I was growing up, that was the only thing that put structure in my life was joining the Navy, and everything’s been fine since then.”". Brian Manning is said to have spoken on Frontline(?).... Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would make this short addition : "Urged by his father,he enlisted in the army in October 2007, doing his basic training...." [ or "Supposedly urged by his father...";" encouraged","pressed" ...?]. Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the reference for the Frontline interview : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/brian-manning/ . SlimVirgin : is this ref wiki-eligible ? . Of notice : "Brian Manning discussed how he was himself once an intelligence analyst for the Navy"; "We will be reporting extensively on Bradley Manning's upbringing and young adulthood, as well as his alleged crimes, in two upcoming FRONTLINE reports.... " Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the E. stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.24.216 ( talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
His bio section is kind of written like a conservapedia article. Who cares if he's gay or not? It didn't have anything to do with his choices. The wording makes it sound like his past of 'homosexual deviance' makes him a criminal or something. Every guy feels gay in high school, that's what our public schools and our religion do. 50.40.193.20 ( talk) 20:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two military prisons at Fort Leavenworth -- the maximum security U.S. Disciplinary Barracks and the newly opened medium security Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility. My understanding is that he is to go to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility however that has not been definitely stated at this point. Americasroof ( talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
slim - the wall street journal says "to move" not "moved" [10]; there is an AP source [11], and reuters source [12]; please don't remove references without discussion here. Slowking4 ( talk) 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This article uses the term computer hacker where "cracker" would be more appropriate. Does the wikipedia have a style manual on the use of the term "computer hacker" vs. computer cracker? I looked around and found nothing. - Ich ( talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it e worth starting a page for David House, or including more information about him and his increasing role here? Totorotroll ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Bit of unwelcome trans-phobia in the article. Pronouns should be 'she' at least from the point where ze felt female. Dismissive "gender confusion" language should either be entirely removed or if it is a direct quote, formatted as such. If it is more important that the article use a single pronoun, then a gender neutral one should be selected. 24.146.204.47 ( talk) 07:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't check this site this often, but I was concerned to see that mention of Brad's citizenship status was unceremoniously deleted on 15 May without discussion or seemingly anyone noticing. I would remind you all that it was confirmed in the House of Commons on the evening of 4th April that Bradley is indeed a British citizen under the terms of the 1981 UK Nationality Act and the UK Government has indeed intervened with the State Department on this basis on two separate occasions.
Since - full disclosure - I'm running the UK campaign, it would be ideal if someone who isn't me could keep an eye on this; but I will take on that job if noone else does.
Relevant Hansard entry: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002 Initial report in The Guardian, 2nd Feb: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen
-- Auerfeld ( talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we have a link for Wales? Just "Wales" without a link is confusing to non-Americans like me who don't know there's a Wales outside of Wales, United Kingdom nor where it is in the States. Manytexts ( talk) 11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
"The hacker group Anonymous, a clan of delusional, thirteen year-old script kiddies," Is this really what counts as NPOV around here? Somebody really ought to change the tone of this section. 70.75.92.198 ( talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In the Manning-Lamo chat logs, Bradley Manning states clearly that he was considering "transitioning" and that he believed that his admission that he was questioning his "gender identity" was the cause for his "pending discharge" - "im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for “adjustment disorder” in lieu of “gender identity disorder” and "questioned my gender for several years" among other admissions like "waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged… and figure out how on earth im going to transition". Do others think that this is worth adding to the article? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs Totorotroll ( talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't check this site this often, but I was concerned to see that mention of Brad's citizenship status was unceremoniously deleted on 15 May without discussion or seemingly anyone noticing. I would remind you all that it was confirmed in the House of Commons on the evening of 4th April that Bradley is indeed a British citizen under the terms of the 1981 UK Nationality Act and the UK Government has indeed intervened with the State Department on this basis on two separate occasions.
Since - full disclosure - I'm running the UK campaign, it would be ideal if someone who isn't me could keep an eye on this; but I will take on that job if noone else does.
Relevant Hansard entry: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002 Initial report in The Guardian, 2nd Feb: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen
-- Auerfeld ( talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the below, Robert Brockaway is correct. The discussion does seem to have been prematurely closed: US military regulations have no bearing on whether, in the eyes of the British Government, Bradley Manning is a citizen - which clearly he is.
Bradley Manning's citizenship status has now been reported in major news media on repeated occasions, beginning with the Guardian's front page story on 2nd February this year, which was backed up with supporting quotes from Amnesty and immigration lawyers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen
I note that someone in the discussion linked to above referred to David Coombs' blog post
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/02/clarification-regarding-pfc-mannings.html
There is nothing in this that changes Bradley's legal position - which is why Mr Coombs does not straightforwardly deny that his client holds dual citizenship. The possession of a passport does not hold any bearing on whether one is a citizen or not.
To conclude, not only Bradley Manning's British citizenship has been confirmed by the British Government - which is the only body with the authority to rule on the matter - it has been reported widely in the past six months. He automatically qualifies as a citizen by descent by virtue of his mother's nationality and of his being born after 1983. The language of the 1981 British Nationality Act is unequivocal:
Article 2 - from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61
"(1)A person born outside the United Kingdom [F17and the qualifying territories] after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother—(
a)is a British citizen otherwise than by descent..."
"Commencement" in the language of the 1981 Act refers to the date on which the Act came into force, which is 1983. Bradley Manning was born in 1987 and as such his status falls under the scope of Article 2.
Bradley's mother Susan Manning, was born in the United Kingdom to parents settled in the United Kingdom and is therefore a British citizen otherwise by descent. Given that the British Government formally recognised this was on the case on 4th April (see my original post linked to above), that should be all that is required to settle the matter. It is also the case, of course, that the content of Bradley Manning's wikipedia article essentially reflects the above position (and includes all the relevant references) - it is only the info box that does not. This now needs to be corrected.
Auerfeld ( talk) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Randy,
I'm pleased that Robert has now referred this upwards, but felt I should add that the British Government's acknowledgement of Bradley's citizenship status was cited previously, in my original post. Here's the relevant passage in Hansard:
You will note that Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham ackowledges that Ann Clwyd's understanding of the British Nationality Act is correct.
Secondary sources citing Bradley's citizenship status have been plentiful over the past six months. Here are some additional ones:
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html
New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/brits_pressure_us_on_bradley_m.html
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/bradley-manning-british-government-concern
The references above are all secondary reporting of the Parliamentary debate for which I have provided the Hansard reference - this really should be enough for Wikipedia purposes. Some additional citations:
The Guardian [again]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/13/bradley-manning-mother-william-hague
The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8377603/Bradley-Mannings-treatment-ridiculous-says-Hillary-Clintons-spokesman.html
I can probably dig out a few more if it is deemed necessary.
All the best,
Naomi
Auerfeld ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification |
to articles on animals therefore makes it easier to quickly find such information and to compare it with that of other articles.
Auerfeld ( talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
We've now reached a compromise solution on this, as per https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bradley_Manning I would draw your attention in particular to the Washington Post article there, which puts David Coombs' comments in context - the fact that the British Government has intervened on Bradley's behalf does make his citizenship pertinent to his wikipedia article - particularly as it has been widely written about.
Auerfeld ( talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Auerfeld ( talk) 23:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Folks, having just read the whole of this talk page I have to ask whether there are more important issues for us to get worked up about. The article discusses the citizenship issue that should be enough in my view, no need for the ibox to refer to British citizenship. And I don't say this lightly, I am a "permanent resident" of the US and I am also proud to be a Brit, it's part of my identity. But in this case where the subject of the article through his lawyer has made it abundantly clear that he does not consider himself British, that should be the end of it. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In response to a question in parliament from the campaign, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "Well, on this particular case, Mr Manning’s lawyer apparently wrote on the 2nd February on his blog that 'Mr. Manning does not hold a UK passport, nor does he consider himself a UK citizen.' Beyond that we can’t comment on an individual’s nationality without their consent. And in that situation, of course, our standing on this matter is limited. He is not asking for our help, nor considering himself British." [16]
So the British government and Manning's lawyer have confirmed that Manning has not asked for British govt help, does not consider himself British, that the British govt's standing is limited, and that they can't comment on the citizenship issue further. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
-
:"Private... Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen".
(Copy of response I made on my talk page) Not sure what to think about the info box. IMHO about 90% of everything points to his nationality as being simply American. The reasons why I consider the 10% to be only 10% is that even if the British government said he can have or has British citizenship, (and apparently there are wp:RS'd statements to that effect) the next question is that could a person be forced to have an additional citizenship without accepting it? Also, keeping in mind that this is a statement / opinion of just one national government. And then finally, could this possible 2nd citizenship refute calling his nationality simply American? I think "nationality" includes more things than just citizenship(s). So, outside of Wikipedia, I personally would call him an American. And inside Wikipedia, I would just include an explanation of the situaiton in the text without trying to boil it down to a one word judgment.
When I said "not sure about the info box", I said that because IMHO the info box, including the very brief statements that it makes, should include only stuff which is not seriously contested. Including "British" as a nationality IMHO would not meet this test. Possibly calling him simply "American" also does not meet this test. If the latter were true, then a remedy might be to leave it out of the info box and just explain it in more depth in the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Auerfeld ( talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Auerfeld, as you didn't like my Jewish law analogy, here's another.
Iman al-Obeidi is a Libyan woman who was gang-raped in March in Libya. She spoke out about it, which triggered attacks from the Libyan government designed to undermine her, and an attempt by her family to help her by marrying her in absentia to a cousin. This was the family's way of confirming their faith in her "honour". It meant she was married according to the law and customs of her country. That the marriage had taken place was sourced, and an attempt was made to add the name of her spouse to her Wikipedia infobox, by an editor who was also probably trying to help her. [17] According to your argument, her marriage was simply a "fact" under Libyan law, even though she did not request it, consent to it, or acknowledge it. And because it was a "fact," we should have added her married status to the infobox in Wikipedia's voice.
Is that your position?
The bottom line is that the infobox is for material that isn't disputed—particularly not for anything disputed by the subject where it's a BLP—e.g. "school teacher, born in Paris, died in Berlin." Anything contentious or UNDUE belongs in the article body, where we can clarify what the different sources say. Your view of Manning's dual citizenship is disputed by him, in the sense, just like al-Obeidi's wedding, that he didn't request it, consent to it, or acknowledge it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:IBX says KISS. I'm with SV. -- S. Rich ( talk) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin pointed out that the infobox is held to a higher standard than the rest of the article (eg, undisputed information). I certainly acknowledge that Manning doesn't recognise his British citizenship so I'm prepared call that disputed information, especially in the interests of reaching a compromise. I understand from this compromise that there is no problem with the article stating that he is considered a British citizen under British law. Auerfeld, is this acceptable to you? Robert Brockway ( talk) 04:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It's much easier to simply omit citizenship from the infobox. If an appropriate, well-referenced, balanced, weighted, neutral sentence or two concerning this matter can be written, with independent, reliable secondary sources, then by all means propose that specific addition here, and see if a consensus can be reached.
An infobox is part of the lede - a quick summary, nothing more. It's not the place to get into complicated details. It's for things like "Mr X. is a doctor from Footown." - in many cases, the 'nationality', 'citizenship', and suchlike are simple, uncontroversial facts like that - and belong in infobox. But it's all opinional.
As regards the body-text - I'm certainly not suggesting any censorship of any kind. Just, please provide a suggested wording, with references to show why it is appropriate for the article.
Come up with a simple, clear "I think we should add THIS for THESE (policy/guideline) reasons. And then folks like me can come here, read it, and express our support for that, or opposition - with reasoning - and/or suggest modifications. A specific suggestion will make these discussions much easier, instead of trying to discuss all the broader implications. Chzz ► 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Based upon the above discussions, it seems reasonable to simply remove the nationality from the infobox - so I did [18]. Chzz ► 01:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in the article (that might be my fault, not the article). Is there a date set when he will finally appear in court? -- megA ( talk) 15:24, 17 September 2011 (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 spoken privately to people who know them and they have a female identity. They may or may not be transexual but they certainly are transgender thus the wikipedia name conventions apply. At the very least He should be replaced with they for the time being
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28identity%29
"Transgender people should be referred to using pronouns consistent with their current gender identification. If unsure, it may be acceptable to employ terms consistent with the person's gender presentation: for example, if a person lives as female and appears female, it is probably fine to describe her using female pronouns. Note that it is not necessary for a person to have had or even to have contemplated sex reassignment surgery — use the pronouns consistent with the person's public gender presentation, regardless of the current configuration of their genitals. A person's current gender identity should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Watch, however, for situations where this may create some confusion (e.g. "she fathered her first child") — instead, such a sentence should be rewritten to avoid references to gender (e.g. "Smith became a parent for the first time").
X-mass ( talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove the ability to discuss an issue - the fact that bradley manning is transgender is not in doubt - They have confirmed it themelsves and it is logged in the actual text of the articles in various places
please do not modify this agin as you are showing example of clear transphobia in your editing.
It might be helpful to look at the definition of transgender before editing this X-mass ( talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
quote from main text - from chat log from manning
"1:13:10 PM Manning: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...
why would they be upset about being seen as a boy if they were not transgender? I know via friens manning I know stuff I cannot post we should be using she! X-mass ( talk) 04:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Manning’s concerns about his sexual identity were intensifying. In November 2009, he made contact on the web with a gender counselor back in the States. When I met the counselor, he was easygoing and upbeat for someone who’d spent hours talking to servicemen who believed they were inhabiting the wrong body. He knew what he was talking about, though. In person, his gender was difficult to discern—he’d begun his transition as a teenager. “Bradley felt he was female,” the counselor told me. “He was very solid on that.” Quickly, their conversation shifted to the practicalities: How does someone transition from male to female? “He really wanted to do surgery,” the counselor recalled. “He was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird.” To the counselor, it was clear Manning was in crisis. “I feel like a monster,” he’d typed on his computer several times. The statement referred partly to his gender struggles but more to his job.
start by reading what manning has said about HER self in both her logs and article about HER as quoted to you above
I was in th process of sticking a direct link to the new your times article here that I have block quoted http://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/index4.html
btw i am a transexual activist who has been active since the eighties abd I think I can tell transphobia when I see it. You choose to deny her history in the face of direct reporting both from Manning and from her councellor as quoted by the new your times - what is your basis for stating that she is a Man! X-mass ( talk) 04:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I unreservedly apologise for describing someone as transphobic because they repeatedly removed the ability to even discuss the issue, that was a personal attack and wrong. In my defence i got insomnia and my adhd dugs have worn off X-mass ( talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
this is the problem with the production of history based on various quality of sources. I went for they as a description because it was the middle ground between how the US army treats them as, and how they have been labelled in the media and how bradley maning describes herself as in her logs and when quoting the gender counsellor she spoke to.
I recognise people have issues around gender, the need to believe that how your present is who you really are or how your body is, how you were labelled at birth by a doctor. For example I have always known myself to be a girl/woman but i was forced in my childhood to present as male, despite repeatedly and publicly objecting to it. Other people want to still refer to me as male despite having not lived as male for over half my life. So in a wikipedia article about me would I be referred to as he and him, because people find that less challenging? If someone is born into slavery are they always intrinsically a slave? X-mass ( talk) 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The substituting of "they" instead of a singular pronoun is very confusing. At one point I thought "him" and "his" sister were both enlisted in the military and such until I realized that "they" and "their" came up way to often. In my opinion you should just use a singular pronoun, use the gender on the birth certificate or other public records. Until the gender is officially changed on public records then the pronoun should remain based on the public record gender. Either use a singular pronoun or stay consistent because this is very confusing for the average reader, in my opinion as an average reader. RedMarllboro ( talk) 04:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Bradley Manning hasn't made a public statement about his gender identity. We should wait for this. Totorotroll ( talk) 14:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Manning has been "awaiting his first hearing" since when? Isn't there a legal deadline for length of detention without trial? From the United States v. Bradley Manning article: "A Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 32 pre-trial hearing was scheduled for May/June 2011." - ?? -- megA ( talk) 18:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Bradley Manning Protest 2011 Shankbone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
The statement about partially edited because correctly referenced should be considered incorrect - the lose control statement in the last paragraph is the opinion of a single reporter and is used to heavily bias this portion of the article, I agree with the suggested change.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Enlistment in the U.S. Army and deployment to Iraq, please change:
"While at Fort Drum, Manning had already begun to lose control, according to Steve Fishman in New York magazine, falling out with roommates, and screaming at superior officers. He said he was being bullied for being gay, and by August 2009 had been referred to an Army mental-health counsellor.[10] In October 2009, despite the doubts about his fitness to be deployed, he was sent to Iraq with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based at Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad. His unhappiness and loneliness continued there. "
to:
"While at Fort Drum, Manning said he was being bullied for being gay. In August 2009, he was referred to an Army mental-health counselor.[10] In Octobter 2009, he was sent to Iraq with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based at Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad."
because:
It is misleading to use highly biased terms such as "already begun to lose control" to imply that Manning's unhappiness in the military was related to the alleged leaking of classified documents. It seems otherwise clear that Manning was happy with the military for some time, and that he may have been unhappy due to being bullied and breaking up with his ex, but there is no proven correlation between his personal unhappiness and any ostensible resentment toward the military. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence (in the alleged chat logs, released by Wired magazine) that Manning's motives for allegedly releasing classified documents were political in nature - he is quoted extensively as saying he hoped the release would inspire change, reforms, worldwide discussions, and the like. If the chatlogs are indeed his, he named certain injustices within the cables (like the "Collateral Murder" video) as abhorrent abuses that the public needed to see. There is no clear correlation between those observations and any personal emotional distress, and it is therefore deceptive to suggest otherwise.
Nathanlfuller ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: Removed the term "already" because that does imply that his unhappiness was linked to the leak. However, the rest of the paragraph is correctly referenced information and so has been left as-is.--
Hazel77
talk
18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks. The media (e.g. ABC news) has reported that Cpl Manning suffers from Gender Identity Disorder. In line with Wikipedia's policy on this, we should be alert and ready to make the changes necessary to the article (e.g. correcting names and pronouns or avoiding them where possible). I expect some degree of conflict to arise over this.
Pro immediate change:
Con immediate change:
Suggestion:
I welcome input, and if I receive none I shall undertake these changes as soon as I am able. 7daysahead ( talk) 16:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (Psh, should have logged in first.)
(realigned to left for readability.) Redchiron is suggesting changing Manning's pronouns to female - I disagree with this because Manning has not made any public statement; Mr G. Williams and I are suggesting that the article be made as gender-neutral as possible. This would not reduce its accuracy or make it less readable and satisfies S. Rich's three earlier questions ("1. Has a...?"), so I don't see any current explicit objections to this.
In the setting of a court the defense may well be obliged to refer to Manning by their legal gender, so your last point doesn't hold water, S. Rich.
(Berean Hunter, I am female: Please don't call me 'he' again. Always worth pointing out, but in this context...). 7daysahead ( talk) 15:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, very relevant: Sonia Burgess redirects to David Burgesss - (Burgess was female socially but male professionally) and the article uses no pronouns at all. Redchiron, short of an explicit statement from Manning, you and I are unable to know that Manning doesn't have a gender identity like that of Burgess; female pronouns are inappropriate in general. 7daysahead ( talk) 15:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"1:13:10 PM Manning: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ..." The reason why this is coming up now instead of earlier is because until the defense released the information (very recently), we did not know what name to use to refer to her! I also tend to think that the mainstream media tend to use a bad editorial practice of referring to trans women as "he" sometimes, which is quite abusive and disrespectful, and while we wait for mainstream view on current events, we shouldn't follow the bad editorial practices of corporate media. It's hardly "righting a great wrong" to use respectful language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redchiron ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I am weakly in favour of moving the article, but only weakly as per WP:NORUSH. I would note that any information presented to the wider world is going to be heavily filtered by what the various legal staff involved, including those working for Manning, regard as prudent and probably should not be regarded as credible until tested in court. (Unfortunately, although the released information might help Manning, the whole "Gender Dysphoria is confusing so they couldn't do their job" line is something I hope get thoroughly discredited). I would strongly support using gender-neutral phraseology where possible as it's sensitive to the issue. This isn't mentioned as an option in MOS:IDENTITY but I disagree with that anyway and it is not policy. as has been mentioned above. ~Excesses~ ( talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
NakashimaMarch52011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Apparently the MIT researcher who visits Manning has said something about Oct 11 being the terminus ante quem, as far as I can understand it on the grounds that Manning's ?contract? with the military runs out then. Can he be court-martialled when he's not in the armed forces, is this all confused, should it be mentioned? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see the new See Also links defended... they seem extremely dubious and very much pushing a point (i.e. Manning is illegally detained). Fail to see any particular link with Shi Tao, he is not even identified as a whistleblower in his article. The two other items are linked to sources which draw connections between the Manning case and Guantanamo Bay detainees. I don;t entirely see the relevance in either case - Yee is not a similar case, and drawing links to the treatment is Undue because at this stage we have only opinons on Mannings treatment, nothing legal etc. Even if some sources are drawing links I do not think it is reasonable to give it such prominence. Remember; see also links are supposed to give links to fairly related subjects that aren't dealt with in the main article. In this case Incarceration in the United States is a great example of the sort of relevant link that builds on article content. James Yee is an example of a See Also link that advances a point of view. -- Errant ( chat!) 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, as requested by User:ErrantX, here goes...
These are the current see alsos:
As I understand it, the three pre-existing ones, while quite correct, and telling the only legitimate story, might nevertheless be wrongfully assailed as POV by fundamentalist extremists since they seem to be suggesting that Manning is indeed guilty of taking classified information, without any regard to the sensitivity of such information, and providing this to mercenary trouble-making journalists who have no regard for national security, cost lives, and in fact, as Sarah Palin has admirably demonstrated, are at least as much of a threat to the US as the leaders of al-Qaida. I understand the basic reason the US does not want this information released is because it is a little shy and does not want to boast about all the good work it does around the world, as otherwise it might feel a little bashful next time it meets another country.
I added incarceration, which is presumably the meritorious consequence of such heinous misdemeanours. I understand that solitary confinement is pretty uncontested by both sides, while habeas corpus is some abstract mediaeval notion about imprisonment and trials I saw in a few RS and thought if they thought it was relevant who am I to disagree. So now we have four for the anti-Manning brigade, two neutral ones, with Human rights, presumably of interest to everyone everywhere, making that in fact three neutral ones (I understand that it is WP:OR if you don't show your source).
Torture concerns are possibly something the pro-Manning brigade might suggest - but then this is endorsed by none other than the United Nations, so presumably that has a bit of weight to it and doesn't really count as a pro-Manning one, so is that not 4-4-0?
The Guantanamo Bay parallel is that drawn by an eminent Professor at the University of Michigan - there has not yet been much academic commentary cited in the article, yet I don't see how his basic point, which is the parallel of Manning's imprisonment with Gitmo, could be usefully elaborated within the article without violating WP:Due Weight; as mere Wikipedia editors we presumably should not venture to disregard such an eminent commentator, so I thought perhaps a quick see also would suffice as it seems only 'peripherally related' (per WP:See also policy) - with some kind of explanation of the meaning of such an obscure geographic location clearly warranted.
Yee is apparently a parallel with Manning's case suggested by another WP:RS, yet obviously it's not at all a close one, since he is a principled man, held at an apparently abusive detention facility, subjected to sensory deprivation, who eventually had his erroneous court-martial case dropped - none of which relate to Manning who, as the good TV colonel has ably demonstrated, is positively mollycoddled contrary to what he deserves and is having his 'speedy trial' rights upheld, all of which presumably needs to be highlighted lest some of our more impressionable readers might misunderstand.
As for the notorious Shi Tao, who according to this was imprisoned for 'divulging state secrets' relating to Tiananmen Square (a place of cultural interest apparently) he only got ten years since his regime is most tolerant, yet this might serve as some kind of warning in the meantime to those who might emulate Manning. Perhaps you're right, perhaps all these see-alsos are still pushing a point, and we need someone to suggest some pro-Manning ones for balance, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If you see the David Hicks article, under the (UK) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, British citizenship was sought for a Guantanamo detainee with a British mother in an attempt for Justice to be provided in some way, since the US is clearly incapable of it - although the UK, after openly criticising the US, then backpeddled - anyone seen anything like this re Manning (who has a British mother, and presumably would not be similarly abandoned by the UK)? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
His lawyer (Mr. Coombs) says Manning is not a dual citizen. See: [3] -- S. Rich ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done some tidying again. I made some of the ref formats consistent (still some to do), made date formats consistent (because the subject is American, the article uses the January 27, 2011 format), removed repetitive material and repetitive refs, moved some material into chronological position, removed some overlinking, and removed some See alsos that seemed either POV or not directly relevant.
I also removed some overegging of the pudding from the Response section, where we had started to quote everyone who had commented. Less is more. :) SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 08:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Good work. This needed tightening up, it was getting quite prolix. Nandt1 ( talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The article currently heavily implies that Manning's alleged disclosure was directly related to problems in his personal life. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH, which I will try to remedy if I get time, but I would appreciate some help on this. Also, a large amount of material on his actual stated motivations has been removed. Gregcaletta ( talk) 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Manning was detained for several weeks or months without charge. The date of his arrest has been removed from the article, so this is no longer apparent. Does anyone know why it was removed and can someone please reinsert it? Gregcaletta ( talk) 06:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
a) Assange pic in "charges" because one of them it that material was leaked to him. b) Collateral Murder video in "siprnet" because it was obtained through access to this net c) Lamo pic in Lamo section because... duh, bit self-explanatory, isn't it? White spaces are not to be avoided at all cost, they may provide space and volume. Right now I see only one in "charges", it is not obtrusive and anyway this section will soon be expanded as the process goes on. Cheers. walk victor falk talk 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin reverted some of my changes to the headings multiple times without responding to my reasoning, so I will repeat my arguments here. "Background" does not really make sense in a biography article. It would make sense if this were an article for the event of the disclosure, arrest and charges, rather than the person. "Early life and education" is more appropriate, and his enlistment is neither part of his early life and education, nor his "background" so it does not fit under this heading. "Chats", "Arrest" and "Charges" are not part of the "disclosure", so it does not make sense to have them as sub-headings to the disclosure. The current headings do not make sense, so I would encourage SlimVirgin to work towards consensus through offering alternatives to both my headings and those previous, if he has some objection to the headings I have used (although he has not stated what those objections might be). Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The only argument the SlimVirgin has given is that it is "unusual" to have no subheadings in an article, so the "onus" is on me to justify their removal. The fact that most article have subheadings is not in itself a reason to add them, especially if they don't make sense, as I have argued. Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be good if we could get this article to GA or even FA status once it has developed sufficiently, and I've been maintaining it with that in mind.
Recent edits have included adding white spaces around the images (and reverting when they were removed), removing all the subheads (and reverting when they were restored), adding "Carrer [sic] in the U.S. Army" and "Arrest, detainment [sic] and charges". And the first two sentences contained repetition (emphasis added): "Bradley E. Manning is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 and charged in July with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. He has been detained since May 2010 ..."
It's much easier to maintain clear writing and formatting as we go along, than struggling to do a big rewrite every few weeks or months, so if people could bear that in mind, particularly the need to follow the MoS (no need to be overly strict about it, but within reason), it would help a lot. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 06:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Victor, regarding the sentence you want to change:
If and whether aren't good, and the sentence could be read as saying that Assange may have encouraged Manning in order to charge him with conspiracy.
What do you see as the problem with the sentence as currently written? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 14:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
He was sent to a chaplain for no reason? Victor, can you explain where you're coming from with these edits? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello 183.173. I removed "controversial" about the collateral murder video, as generally we are to avoid such words (see wp:weasel). If it is controversial, then the article should be written as to make that clear from the context, preferably. walk victor falk talk 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of an aunt in the infobox is problematic. What role does she have in this matter? Same thing for the parents. (Other than the question of Manning's possible British citizenship.) It may be that these people are terribly embarrassed by the whole matter and would prefer that their names be left out of the article. For guidance, I refer editors to WP:PRIVACY which says: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information . . . on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name . . . and work organisation, . . . whether any such information is accurate or not. . . . This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. [emphasis added]" Accordingly, let's leave them out of this article. -- S. Rich ( talk) 04:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the above named user keeps undoing updates to the article and labelling these complete undos as things like "tidied". First-hand evidence from Adrian Lamo shows that Bradley Manning did NOT read the Wired profile on him before contacting him, but despite this, it is presented under the heading "Manning's chats with Adrian Lamo" deliberately, and misleadingly, trying to link these two events together. The only version of events that we have at the moment come from Adrian Lamo, and he specifically states that Manning found him through a Twitter post he made. There is no mention of this fact, and when this missing information has been added (with solid references) SlimVirgin undoes the edit and claims that he's "tidied" the article. It's my understanding that this sort of knee-jerk "undoing" of any missing relevant and verifiable material is NOT part of Wikipedia's guidelines, and instead such information should be incorporated into, not deleted from, in future edits. As ever in these cases, I do not have the time or energy or waste getting involved in an edit war, so I instead am raising the issue here. I hope someone with authority can sort this out. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What??? Every day??? Soldier in Leaks Case Will Be Made to Sleep Naked Nightly Is this a real story??? See also I think that might deserver it's own section and brought together with the claims of cruel, unsual & degrading treatment. IQinn ( talk) 01:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Iquinn removed the image of the Pentagon general counsel. Can you say why, Iquinn? (Temporarily using this account because of technical problems with my old one.) SlimVirgin test account ( talk) 00:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a photo of Manning's lawyer is particularly relevant to this article. I wouldn't object to it, but it would never occur to me to add it – except in a separate section that is specifically about the lawyer. At the moment, such a section does not exist. A photo of someone who merely inspected Manning's detention conditions is even less relevant. I wouldn't mind it very much, but it seem inappropriate. Similarly, the photo of Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg only makes sense because of the section "WikiLeaks", which is also of borderline relevance to the article. Hans Adler 08:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This should probably be added to the article along with something like a "Fallout" section. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/mi6_dearlove_wikileaks/ Zuchinni one ( talk) 05:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Not unsurprisingly a link to manning.org has resurfaced. It is, this time, disguised as information about the board of advisors. The info is entirely primary source and I have tagged it as such. As I read WP:ELNO, the link clearly violates nos. 4 & 19. The fact that they are in a footnote and not a separate EL section does not work as WP:EL pertains to entire articles. I do not see a footnote exception to the guidance. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
My two concerns are: First, that creating the section promotes the support network unnecessarily. We do not have info on those people (networked or not) who are anti-support to counter balance. That is, it is easy to create a "network" with a "board" that sounds impressive, but is this network actually effective? By including it we are promoting it. My view about this promotion of the network is supported by my Second concern regarding the fact that we have a link to the organization contrary to WP:ELNO guidance -- as discussed above.-- S. Rich ( talk) 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've posted this issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. -- S. Rich ( talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I added to the introduction of the article a sourced (x2) reference to Lamo's status as a convicted felon in the sentence that reveals it was Lamo who denounced Manning to the government. I'm a neutral editor in this scenario and don't seek to excuse what Manning is alleged to have done, or excoriate Lamo for denouncing him to the gov't. I believe it bears mentioning in this Manning article that Lamo, "the felon," denounced him. Plea agreements can require the defendant, as a condition of their probation, to disassociate from criminals and refrain from engaging in illegal behavior, and to immediately report any potential criminality that they become aware of. My understanding is that Lamo cited his desire not to again fall afoul of the US Gov't or have agents of the FBI burst through his front door (paraphrasing) as informing his decision to alert authorities to Manning's alleged activities. This one small detail, that it was a convicted felon who reported Manning's alleged criminal action, seems to me to be integral to understanding the facts of the situation as we know them and how chance it was that Manning's alleged activities ever came to light (had Manning confided in someone who had no prior criminal conviction for computer crimes, the government might not have been contacted). To omit it from the article may hinder the reader's ability to take the full measure of events. Nonetheless I wanted to provide others with the opportunity to reject the change by at least calling attention to it. Joep01 ( talk) 23:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Iquinn, I added a source as requested for Ellsberg being involved with WikiLeaks, but you again posted that he's not. Can you explain? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. I refrain from editing here since I'm involved. I'm described as a US citizen, but I'm actually a *former* citizen. See, for example, http://www.nostate.com/3815/interview-with-rt-russia-today-news/ and http://www.nostate.com/2876/interview-markiza-magazine/ — Mike Gogulski ↗ C• @• T↗ 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am coming back on this discussion page -bradley Manning's case has been granted a FULL page in French leading newspaper Le Monde (mercredi 23 mars ,page 3, by Corine Lesnes)- . Wouldn't it be usefull to cite in the article brian Manning 's words on his son (his first public declaration since the begining of the case !). I quickly browsed and found in english: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-dad-of-wikileaks-suspect-says-son-is-innocent-031011/ ,wherein I picked : "“It’s shocking enough that I would come out of our silence as a family and say, ‘Now, then, you crossed the line. This is wrong,’“ Brian Manning said." or :"Brian Manning also said his son isn’t particularly patriotic — “I don’t think he follows any regime of any kind” — and that Pfc. Manning enlisted in 2007 at his father’s urging.“He needed structure in his life. He was aimless. And I was going on my own experience. When I was growing up, that was the only thing that put structure in my life was joining the Navy, and everything’s been fine since then.”". Brian Manning is said to have spoken on Frontline(?).... Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would make this short addition : "Urged by his father,he enlisted in the army in October 2007, doing his basic training...." [ or "Supposedly urged by his father...";" encouraged","pressed" ...?]. Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the reference for the Frontline interview : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/brian-manning/ . SlimVirgin : is this ref wiki-eligible ? . Of notice : "Brian Manning discussed how he was himself once an intelligence analyst for the Navy"; "We will be reporting extensively on Bradley Manning's upbringing and young adulthood, as well as his alleged crimes, in two upcoming FRONTLINE reports.... " Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the E. stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.24.216 ( talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
His bio section is kind of written like a conservapedia article. Who cares if he's gay or not? It didn't have anything to do with his choices. The wording makes it sound like his past of 'homosexual deviance' makes him a criminal or something. Every guy feels gay in high school, that's what our public schools and our religion do. 50.40.193.20 ( talk) 20:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two military prisons at Fort Leavenworth -- the maximum security U.S. Disciplinary Barracks and the newly opened medium security Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility. My understanding is that he is to go to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility however that has not been definitely stated at this point. Americasroof ( talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
slim - the wall street journal says "to move" not "moved" [10]; there is an AP source [11], and reuters source [12]; please don't remove references without discussion here. Slowking4 ( talk) 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This article uses the term computer hacker where "cracker" would be more appropriate. Does the wikipedia have a style manual on the use of the term "computer hacker" vs. computer cracker? I looked around and found nothing. - Ich ( talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it e worth starting a page for David House, or including more information about him and his increasing role here? Totorotroll ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Bit of unwelcome trans-phobia in the article. Pronouns should be 'she' at least from the point where ze felt female. Dismissive "gender confusion" language should either be entirely removed or if it is a direct quote, formatted as such. If it is more important that the article use a single pronoun, then a gender neutral one should be selected. 24.146.204.47 ( talk) 07:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't check this site this often, but I was concerned to see that mention of Brad's citizenship status was unceremoniously deleted on 15 May without discussion or seemingly anyone noticing. I would remind you all that it was confirmed in the House of Commons on the evening of 4th April that Bradley is indeed a British citizen under the terms of the 1981 UK Nationality Act and the UK Government has indeed intervened with the State Department on this basis on two separate occasions.
Since - full disclosure - I'm running the UK campaign, it would be ideal if someone who isn't me could keep an eye on this; but I will take on that job if noone else does.
Relevant Hansard entry: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002 Initial report in The Guardian, 2nd Feb: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen
-- Auerfeld ( talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we have a link for Wales? Just "Wales" without a link is confusing to non-Americans like me who don't know there's a Wales outside of Wales, United Kingdom nor where it is in the States. Manytexts ( talk) 11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
"The hacker group Anonymous, a clan of delusional, thirteen year-old script kiddies," Is this really what counts as NPOV around here? Somebody really ought to change the tone of this section. 70.75.92.198 ( talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In the Manning-Lamo chat logs, Bradley Manning states clearly that he was considering "transitioning" and that he believed that his admission that he was questioning his "gender identity" was the cause for his "pending discharge" - "im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for “adjustment disorder” in lieu of “gender identity disorder” and "questioned my gender for several years" among other admissions like "waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged… and figure out how on earth im going to transition". Do others think that this is worth adding to the article? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs Totorotroll ( talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't check this site this often, but I was concerned to see that mention of Brad's citizenship status was unceremoniously deleted on 15 May without discussion or seemingly anyone noticing. I would remind you all that it was confirmed in the House of Commons on the evening of 4th April that Bradley is indeed a British citizen under the terms of the 1981 UK Nationality Act and the UK Government has indeed intervened with the State Department on this basis on two separate occasions.
Since - full disclosure - I'm running the UK campaign, it would be ideal if someone who isn't me could keep an eye on this; but I will take on that job if noone else does.
Relevant Hansard entry: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002 Initial report in The Guardian, 2nd Feb: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen
-- Auerfeld ( talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the below, Robert Brockaway is correct. The discussion does seem to have been prematurely closed: US military regulations have no bearing on whether, in the eyes of the British Government, Bradley Manning is a citizen - which clearly he is.
Bradley Manning's citizenship status has now been reported in major news media on repeated occasions, beginning with the Guardian's front page story on 2nd February this year, which was backed up with supporting quotes from Amnesty and immigration lawyers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-uk-citizen
I note that someone in the discussion linked to above referred to David Coombs' blog post
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/02/clarification-regarding-pfc-mannings.html
There is nothing in this that changes Bradley's legal position - which is why Mr Coombs does not straightforwardly deny that his client holds dual citizenship. The possession of a passport does not hold any bearing on whether one is a citizen or not.
To conclude, not only Bradley Manning's British citizenship has been confirmed by the British Government - which is the only body with the authority to rule on the matter - it has been reported widely in the past six months. He automatically qualifies as a citizen by descent by virtue of his mother's nationality and of his being born after 1983. The language of the 1981 British Nationality Act is unequivocal:
Article 2 - from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61
"(1)A person born outside the United Kingdom [F17and the qualifying territories] after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother—(
a)is a British citizen otherwise than by descent..."
"Commencement" in the language of the 1981 Act refers to the date on which the Act came into force, which is 1983. Bradley Manning was born in 1987 and as such his status falls under the scope of Article 2.
Bradley's mother Susan Manning, was born in the United Kingdom to parents settled in the United Kingdom and is therefore a British citizen otherwise by descent. Given that the British Government formally recognised this was on the case on 4th April (see my original post linked to above), that should be all that is required to settle the matter. It is also the case, of course, that the content of Bradley Manning's wikipedia article essentially reflects the above position (and includes all the relevant references) - it is only the info box that does not. This now needs to be corrected.
Auerfeld ( talk) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Randy,
I'm pleased that Robert has now referred this upwards, but felt I should add that the British Government's acknowledgement of Bradley's citizenship status was cited previously, in my original post. Here's the relevant passage in Hansard:
You will note that Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham ackowledges that Ann Clwyd's understanding of the British Nationality Act is correct.
Secondary sources citing Bradley's citizenship status have been plentiful over the past six months. Here are some additional ones:
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html
New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/brits_pressure_us_on_bradley_m.html
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/bradley-manning-british-government-concern
The references above are all secondary reporting of the Parliamentary debate for which I have provided the Hansard reference - this really should be enough for Wikipedia purposes. Some additional citations:
The Guardian [again]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/13/bradley-manning-mother-william-hague
The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8377603/Bradley-Mannings-treatment-ridiculous-says-Hillary-Clintons-spokesman.html
I can probably dig out a few more if it is deemed necessary.
All the best,
Naomi
Auerfeld ( talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning/Archive 3 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification |
to articles on animals therefore makes it easier to quickly find such information and to compare it with that of other articles.
Auerfeld ( talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
We've now reached a compromise solution on this, as per https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bradley_Manning I would draw your attention in particular to the Washington Post article there, which puts David Coombs' comments in context - the fact that the British Government has intervened on Bradley's behalf does make his citizenship pertinent to his wikipedia article - particularly as it has been widely written about.
Auerfeld ( talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Auerfeld ( talk) 23:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Folks, having just read the whole of this talk page I have to ask whether there are more important issues for us to get worked up about. The article discusses the citizenship issue that should be enough in my view, no need for the ibox to refer to British citizenship. And I don't say this lightly, I am a "permanent resident" of the US and I am also proud to be a Brit, it's part of my identity. But in this case where the subject of the article through his lawyer has made it abundantly clear that he does not consider himself British, that should be the end of it. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In response to a question in parliament from the campaign, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "Well, on this particular case, Mr Manning’s lawyer apparently wrote on the 2nd February on his blog that 'Mr. Manning does not hold a UK passport, nor does he consider himself a UK citizen.' Beyond that we can’t comment on an individual’s nationality without their consent. And in that situation, of course, our standing on this matter is limited. He is not asking for our help, nor considering himself British." [16]
So the British government and Manning's lawyer have confirmed that Manning has not asked for British govt help, does not consider himself British, that the British govt's standing is limited, and that they can't comment on the citizenship issue further. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
-
:"Private... Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen".
(Copy of response I made on my talk page) Not sure what to think about the info box. IMHO about 90% of everything points to his nationality as being simply American. The reasons why I consider the 10% to be only 10% is that even if the British government said he can have or has British citizenship, (and apparently there are wp:RS'd statements to that effect) the next question is that could a person be forced to have an additional citizenship without accepting it? Also, keeping in mind that this is a statement / opinion of just one national government. And then finally, could this possible 2nd citizenship refute calling his nationality simply American? I think "nationality" includes more things than just citizenship(s). So, outside of Wikipedia, I personally would call him an American. And inside Wikipedia, I would just include an explanation of the situaiton in the text without trying to boil it down to a one word judgment.
When I said "not sure about the info box", I said that because IMHO the info box, including the very brief statements that it makes, should include only stuff which is not seriously contested. Including "British" as a nationality IMHO would not meet this test. Possibly calling him simply "American" also does not meet this test. If the latter were true, then a remedy might be to leave it out of the info box and just explain it in more depth in the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Auerfeld ( talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Auerfeld, as you didn't like my Jewish law analogy, here's another.
Iman al-Obeidi is a Libyan woman who was gang-raped in March in Libya. She spoke out about it, which triggered attacks from the Libyan government designed to undermine her, and an attempt by her family to help her by marrying her in absentia to a cousin. This was the family's way of confirming their faith in her "honour". It meant she was married according to the law and customs of her country. That the marriage had taken place was sourced, and an attempt was made to add the name of her spouse to her Wikipedia infobox, by an editor who was also probably trying to help her. [17] According to your argument, her marriage was simply a "fact" under Libyan law, even though she did not request it, consent to it, or acknowledge it. And because it was a "fact," we should have added her married status to the infobox in Wikipedia's voice.
Is that your position?
The bottom line is that the infobox is for material that isn't disputed—particularly not for anything disputed by the subject where it's a BLP—e.g. "school teacher, born in Paris, died in Berlin." Anything contentious or UNDUE belongs in the article body, where we can clarify what the different sources say. Your view of Manning's dual citizenship is disputed by him, in the sense, just like al-Obeidi's wedding, that he didn't request it, consent to it, or acknowledge it. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:IBX says KISS. I'm with SV. -- S. Rich ( talk) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin pointed out that the infobox is held to a higher standard than the rest of the article (eg, undisputed information). I certainly acknowledge that Manning doesn't recognise his British citizenship so I'm prepared call that disputed information, especially in the interests of reaching a compromise. I understand from this compromise that there is no problem with the article stating that he is considered a British citizen under British law. Auerfeld, is this acceptable to you? Robert Brockway ( talk) 04:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It's much easier to simply omit citizenship from the infobox. If an appropriate, well-referenced, balanced, weighted, neutral sentence or two concerning this matter can be written, with independent, reliable secondary sources, then by all means propose that specific addition here, and see if a consensus can be reached.
An infobox is part of the lede - a quick summary, nothing more. It's not the place to get into complicated details. It's for things like "Mr X. is a doctor from Footown." - in many cases, the 'nationality', 'citizenship', and suchlike are simple, uncontroversial facts like that - and belong in infobox. But it's all opinional.
As regards the body-text - I'm certainly not suggesting any censorship of any kind. Just, please provide a suggested wording, with references to show why it is appropriate for the article.
Come up with a simple, clear "I think we should add THIS for THESE (policy/guideline) reasons. And then folks like me can come here, read it, and express our support for that, or opposition - with reasoning - and/or suggest modifications. A specific suggestion will make these discussions much easier, instead of trying to discuss all the broader implications. Chzz ► 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Based upon the above discussions, it seems reasonable to simply remove the nationality from the infobox - so I did [18]. Chzz ► 01:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in the article (that might be my fault, not the article). Is there a date set when he will finally appear in court? -- megA ( talk) 15:24, 17 September 2011 (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 spoken privately to people who know them and they have a female identity. They may or may not be transexual but they certainly are transgender thus the wikipedia name conventions apply. At the very least He should be replaced with they for the time being
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28identity%29
"Transgender people should be referred to using pronouns consistent with their current gender identification. If unsure, it may be acceptable to employ terms consistent with the person's gender presentation: for example, if a person lives as female and appears female, it is probably fine to describe her using female pronouns. Note that it is not necessary for a person to have had or even to have contemplated sex reassignment surgery — use the pronouns consistent with the person's public gender presentation, regardless of the current configuration of their genitals. A person's current gender identity should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Watch, however, for situations where this may create some confusion (e.g. "she fathered her first child") — instead, such a sentence should be rewritten to avoid references to gender (e.g. "Smith became a parent for the first time").
X-mass ( talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove the ability to discuss an issue - the fact that bradley manning is transgender is not in doubt - They have confirmed it themelsves and it is logged in the actual text of the articles in various places
please do not modify this agin as you are showing example of clear transphobia in your editing.
It might be helpful to look at the definition of transgender before editing this X-mass ( talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
quote from main text - from chat log from manning
"1:13:10 PM Manning: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...
why would they be upset about being seen as a boy if they were not transgender? I know via friens manning I know stuff I cannot post we should be using she! X-mass ( talk) 04:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Manning’s concerns about his sexual identity were intensifying. In November 2009, he made contact on the web with a gender counselor back in the States. When I met the counselor, he was easygoing and upbeat for someone who’d spent hours talking to servicemen who believed they were inhabiting the wrong body. He knew what he was talking about, though. In person, his gender was difficult to discern—he’d begun his transition as a teenager. “Bradley felt he was female,” the counselor told me. “He was very solid on that.” Quickly, their conversation shifted to the practicalities: How does someone transition from male to female? “He really wanted to do surgery,” the counselor recalled. “He was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird.” To the counselor, it was clear Manning was in crisis. “I feel like a monster,” he’d typed on his computer several times. The statement referred partly to his gender struggles but more to his job.
start by reading what manning has said about HER self in both her logs and article about HER as quoted to you above
I was in th process of sticking a direct link to the new your times article here that I have block quoted http://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/index4.html
btw i am a transexual activist who has been active since the eighties abd I think I can tell transphobia when I see it. You choose to deny her history in the face of direct reporting both from Manning and from her councellor as quoted by the new your times - what is your basis for stating that she is a Man! X-mass ( talk) 04:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I unreservedly apologise for describing someone as transphobic because they repeatedly removed the ability to even discuss the issue, that was a personal attack and wrong. In my defence i got insomnia and my adhd dugs have worn off X-mass ( talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
this is the problem with the production of history based on various quality of sources. I went for they as a description because it was the middle ground between how the US army treats them as, and how they have been labelled in the media and how bradley maning describes herself as in her logs and when quoting the gender counsellor she spoke to.
I recognise people have issues around gender, the need to believe that how your present is who you really are or how your body is, how you were labelled at birth by a doctor. For example I have always known myself to be a girl/woman but i was forced in my childhood to present as male, despite repeatedly and publicly objecting to it. Other people want to still refer to me as male despite having not lived as male for over half my life. So in a wikipedia article about me would I be referred to as he and him, because people find that less challenging? If someone is born into slavery are they always intrinsically a slave? X-mass ( talk) 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The substituting of "they" instead of a singular pronoun is very confusing. At one point I thought "him" and "his" sister were both enlisted in the military and such until I realized that "they" and "their" came up way to often. In my opinion you should just use a singular pronoun, use the gender on the birth certificate or other public records. Until the gender is officially changed on public records then the pronoun should remain based on the public record gender. Either use a singular pronoun or stay consistent because this is very confusing for the average reader, in my opinion as an average reader. RedMarllboro ( talk) 04:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Bradley Manning hasn't made a public statement about his gender identity. We should wait for this. Totorotroll ( talk) 14:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Manning has been "awaiting his first hearing" since when? Isn't there a legal deadline for length of detention without trial? From the United States v. Bradley Manning article: "A Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 32 pre-trial hearing was scheduled for May/June 2011." - ?? -- megA ( talk) 18:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Bradley Manning Protest 2011 Shankbone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
The statement about partially edited because correctly referenced should be considered incorrect - the lose control statement in the last paragraph is the opinion of a single reporter and is used to heavily bias this portion of the article, I agree with the suggested change.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Enlistment in the U.S. Army and deployment to Iraq, please change:
"While at Fort Drum, Manning had already begun to lose control, according to Steve Fishman in New York magazine, falling out with roommates, and screaming at superior officers. He said he was being bullied for being gay, and by August 2009 had been referred to an Army mental-health counsellor.[10] In October 2009, despite the doubts about his fitness to be deployed, he was sent to Iraq with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based at Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad. His unhappiness and loneliness continued there. "
to:
"While at Fort Drum, Manning said he was being bullied for being gay. In August 2009, he was referred to an Army mental-health counselor.[10] In Octobter 2009, he was sent to Iraq with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based at Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad."
because:
It is misleading to use highly biased terms such as "already begun to lose control" to imply that Manning's unhappiness in the military was related to the alleged leaking of classified documents. It seems otherwise clear that Manning was happy with the military for some time, and that he may have been unhappy due to being bullied and breaking up with his ex, but there is no proven correlation between his personal unhappiness and any ostensible resentment toward the military. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence (in the alleged chat logs, released by Wired magazine) that Manning's motives for allegedly releasing classified documents were political in nature - he is quoted extensively as saying he hoped the release would inspire change, reforms, worldwide discussions, and the like. If the chatlogs are indeed his, he named certain injustices within the cables (like the "Collateral Murder" video) as abhorrent abuses that the public needed to see. There is no clear correlation between those observations and any personal emotional distress, and it is therefore deceptive to suggest otherwise.
Nathanlfuller ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: Removed the term "already" because that does imply that his unhappiness was linked to the leak. However, the rest of the paragraph is correctly referenced information and so has been left as-is.--
Hazel77
talk
18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks. The media (e.g. ABC news) has reported that Cpl Manning suffers from Gender Identity Disorder. In line with Wikipedia's policy on this, we should be alert and ready to make the changes necessary to the article (e.g. correcting names and pronouns or avoiding them where possible). I expect some degree of conflict to arise over this.
Pro immediate change:
Con immediate change:
Suggestion:
I welcome input, and if I receive none I shall undertake these changes as soon as I am able. 7daysahead ( talk) 16:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (Psh, should have logged in first.)
(realigned to left for readability.) Redchiron is suggesting changing Manning's pronouns to female - I disagree with this because Manning has not made any public statement; Mr G. Williams and I are suggesting that the article be made as gender-neutral as possible. This would not reduce its accuracy or make it less readable and satisfies S. Rich's three earlier questions ("1. Has a...?"), so I don't see any current explicit objections to this.
In the setting of a court the defense may well be obliged to refer to Manning by their legal gender, so your last point doesn't hold water, S. Rich.
(Berean Hunter, I am female: Please don't call me 'he' again. Always worth pointing out, but in this context...). 7daysahead ( talk) 15:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, very relevant: Sonia Burgess redirects to David Burgesss - (Burgess was female socially but male professionally) and the article uses no pronouns at all. Redchiron, short of an explicit statement from Manning, you and I are unable to know that Manning doesn't have a gender identity like that of Burgess; female pronouns are inappropriate in general. 7daysahead ( talk) 15:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"1:13:10 PM Manning: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ..." The reason why this is coming up now instead of earlier is because until the defense released the information (very recently), we did not know what name to use to refer to her! I also tend to think that the mainstream media tend to use a bad editorial practice of referring to trans women as "he" sometimes, which is quite abusive and disrespectful, and while we wait for mainstream view on current events, we shouldn't follow the bad editorial practices of corporate media. It's hardly "righting a great wrong" to use respectful language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redchiron ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I am weakly in favour of moving the article, but only weakly as per WP:NORUSH. I would note that any information presented to the wider world is going to be heavily filtered by what the various legal staff involved, including those working for Manning, regard as prudent and probably should not be regarded as credible until tested in court. (Unfortunately, although the released information might help Manning, the whole "Gender Dysphoria is confusing so they couldn't do their job" line is something I hope get thoroughly discredited). I would strongly support using gender-neutral phraseology where possible as it's sensitive to the issue. This isn't mentioned as an option in MOS:IDENTITY but I disagree with that anyway and it is not policy. as has been mentioned above. ~Excesses~ ( talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
NakashimaMarch52011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).