Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea Manning: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m top: merge blp/living/activepol params into blp=activepol; cleanup
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Pp-move-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header|search=no|bottom=yes|noarchives=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=no|bottom=yes|noarchives=yes}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Round in circles|topic=article name and gender|search=no}}
{{Round in circles|topic=article name and gender|search=no}}
Line 8: Line 7:
}}
}}
{{MOS-TW}}
{{MOS-TW}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|living=y|activepol=yes|listas=Manning, Chelsea|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Manning, Chelsea|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=}}
Line 16: Line 15:
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|person=yes}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|person=yes}}
{{WikiProject Media|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Media|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Biography=y|US=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Biography=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject Oklahoma|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Oklahoma|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
Line 41: Line 40:
|otd1date=2019-02-18|otd1oldid=883922681
|otd1date=2019-02-18|otd1oldid=883922681
}}
}}
{{press|collapsed=yes
{{Press|collapsed=yes
|title=Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning's New Gender
|title=Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning's New Gender
|author=Mark Joseph Stern
|author=Mark Joseph Stern
Line 159: Line 158:
*RM, Chelsea Manning → Manning (U.S. Army), '''Not moved''', 14 March 2014, [[Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 14#Requested_move_14_March_2014|discussion]]
*RM, Chelsea Manning → Manning (U.S. Army), '''Not moved''', 14 March 2014, [[Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 14#Requested_move_14_March_2014|discussion]]
}}
}}
{{merged-from | Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage| 18 September 2013}}
{{Merged-from | Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage| 18 September 2013}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Annual readership}}
}}
}}
{{archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=180|units=days|index=/Archive index}}
{{Archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=180|units=days|index=/Archive index}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 173: Line 172:
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Chelsea Manning|answered=yes}}
This is Wikipedia while using pronouns that make the person feel better socially may be acceptable. Biologically Chelsea Manning is a man and should be edited to reflect that. [[Special:Contributions/2601:192:100:1A96:4BD:B0EE:1A9:6C86|2601:192:100:1A96:4BD:B0EE:1A9:6C86]] ([[User talk:2601:192:100:1A96:4BD:B0EE:1A9:6C86|talk]]) 03:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

* {{not done}} – Please see [[WP:MOSIDENTITY]] or read the FAQs for this article. – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 04:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

i second this [[User:Iamsuperspeed|Iamsuperspeed]] ([[User talk:Iamsuperspeed|talk]]) 20:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

if the person the article is about uses certain pronouns, then those pronouns need to be used. if she identifies as a girl and uses she/her, then that needs to be used in the article about her. [[User:KingcCake|KingcCake]] ([[User talk:KingcCake|talk]]) 05:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

:I second this [[User:TuringBox|TuringBox]] ([[User talk:TuringBox|talk]]) 15:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed Wikipedia, which is why we follow Wikipedia rules rather than individual editors' ideology when it comes to making editorial decisions on such matters as respecting people's pronouns. [[User:TuringBox|TuringBox]] ([[User talk:TuringBox|talk]]) 15:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

== Pronouns ==

Looking at her Twitter account, it seems that Manning uses both feminine (she/her/hers) and epicene (they/them/theirs) pronouns. It seems like the standard if a person uses more than one set is to make a note of it early on, and then pick one set to refer to them for consistency, but I just wanted to bring it up here first before doing anything/let someone know if they wanted to change it. [[User:FamAD123|FamAD123]] ([[User talk:FamAD123|talk]]) 01:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

:The complete capitulation to the quackery of insane woke-ism in these, and all, Wikipedia articles regarding mentally ill persons who simply choose to "be" something they are not, is quite frankly, cringeworthy. It is also yet another reason why any sane person still knows that Wikipedia cannot even hold a candle to the extremely neutral and objective writings of Britannica or World Book…sources which, in the not so distant past, were actually valued and scholarly researched/vetted. They weren't written by some 23-year-old who gets in a flame war on an edit page because someone didn't like his/they/ze/zem's/their username. And before you go saying, "okay, boomer," you little hive-minded, tender, snowflakes…I'll let you know that I'm 38. Not super young, but definitely not ancient. Just fortunate enough to have grown up experiencing at least a sliver of what were the better times here in the U.S. Thou thinks too highly of yourselves, Wikipedia "editors.." [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:FCA:5E00:C4F7:814B:74E1:2F28|2600:1700:FCA:5E00:C4F7:814B:74E1:2F28]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:FCA:5E00:C4F7:814B:74E1:2F28|talk]]) 06:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
:It's a "he." Science trumps Wikipedia's made-up "feelings" policies. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:FCA:5E00:C4F7:814B:74E1:2F28|2600:1700:FCA:5E00:C4F7:814B:74E1:2F28]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:FCA:5E00:C4F7:814B:74E1:2F28|talk]]) 06:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
::Anonymous poster: "Wikipedia cannot even hold a candle to the extremely neutral and objective writings of Britannica or World Book". Britannica: [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chelsea-Manning "In January 2018 Manning announced that she was seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. However, she lost in the primary."] -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 14:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
for the sake of it being easy to read, sure sticking with one set is probably best. but the other set(s) should still be used as well when talking about her [[User:KingcCake|KingcCake]] ([[User talk:KingcCake|talk]]) 05:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should stick to one set of pronouns within an article. Switching back and forth between different sets of pronouns within the same article is confusing to readers. Generally, if a subject is okay with gendered pronouns, they should be used rather than the singular they, as singular they is also potentially confusing to readers. [[User:Rreagan007|Rreagan007]] ([[User talk:Rreagan007|talk]]) 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022 ==


{{Edit semi-protected|Chelsea Manning|answered=yes}}
{{Edit semi-protected|Chelsea Manning|answered=yes}}
Chelsea's deadname should NOT be displayed on a public platform. This needs to be fixed ASAP. [[User:Rosemary Mccoy|Rosemary Mccoy]] ([[User talk:Rosemary Mccoy|talk]]) 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Chelsea's deadname should NOT be displayed on a public platform. This needs to be fixed ASAP. [[User:Rosemary Mccoy|Rosemary Mccoy]] ([[User talk:Rosemary Mccoy|talk]]) 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> because she was notable under her former name. See [[MOS:DEADNAME]] for the policy and [[Elliot Page]] for a similar example. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> because she was notable under her former name. See [[MOS:DEADNAME]] for the policy and [[Elliot Page]] for a similar example. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


maybe don't use old pictures though? or SOMEBODY ask her about it if no one has yet. [[User:KingcCake|KingcCake]] ([[User talk:KingcCake|talk]]) 05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
maybe don't use old pictures though? or SOMEBODY ask her about it if no one has yet. [[User:KingcCake|KingcCake]] ([[User talk:KingcCake|talk]]) 05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Line 224: Line 198:
{{Edit semi-protected|Chelsea Manning|answered=yes}}
{{Edit semi-protected|Chelsea Manning|answered=yes}}
Remove the phrase “and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics” as it is purely speculative. Manning had no higher education at the time of enlisting, and her GI Bill would have run out of money before reaching the doctorate level, so claiming she would have been acquiring a PhD with her GI Bill is inaccurate. Saying she enlisted in order to be eligible for GI Bill benefits is far more accurate. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2|2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2]] ([[User talk:2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2|talk]]) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Remove the phrase “and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics” as it is purely speculative. Manning had no higher education at the time of enlisting, and her GI Bill would have run out of money before reaching the doctorate level, so claiming she would have been acquiring a PhD with her GI Bill is inaccurate. Saying she enlisted in order to be eligible for GI Bill benefits is far more accurate. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2|2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2]] ([[User talk:2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2|talk]]) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The statement appears well-sourced – see ref 72 – is there some reason to assume the author of the reference was misinformed? [[User:Tollens|Tollens]] ([[User talk:Tollens|talk]]) 07:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The statement appears well-sourced – see ref 72 – is there some reason to assume the author of the reference was misinformed? [[User:Tollens|Tollens]] ([[User talk:Tollens|talk]]) 07:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


== Who is Casey Manning? ==
== Who is Casey Manning? ==
Line 238: Line 212:


:Fixed. I added the name to the statement she has an older sister.However, we may need to address how she is refered to later in the text, as at least one source gives her name as Casey Manning Majors, in which case she should be refered to once by that name and later by Majors during the testimony portion. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
:Fixed. I added the name to the statement she has an older sister.However, we may need to address how she is refered to later in the text, as at least one source gives her name as Casey Manning Majors, in which case she should be refered to once by that name and later by Majors during the testimony portion. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you for the reply and the edit.
:As to the naming, I am of the opinion that one should use the name of a person AT THE TIME of the event being discussed.
:IF the event is at birth, then the birth name should be used.
:In the case of the trial of "Bradley Manning" and prior events, it is wrong to distort history by speaking of "Chelsea Manning". If this becomes a requirement of "political correctness" then we are on a very slippery slope. [[User:Vonuan|Vonuan]] ([[User talk:Vonuan|talk]]) 11:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
::This was already a requirement; see [[MOS:DEADNAME]] and supplementary essay {{slink|Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Retroactivity}}. It is not common in written English to treat the names of people, places, or things as temporally fixed in the way you suggest (in fact it would be extremely confusing). Correctly naming living biography subjects is an act of basic decency and respect.
::If you have further comments or concerns on how Wikipedia writes about transgender people, please take them to a more general forum. Such a change would affect many more pages than this (and has been discussed to death hundreds of times and is never going to happen). –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] •&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

== why is her deadname literally in the first sentence ==

do better [[User:Beep320|Beep320]] ([[User talk:Beep320|talk]]) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:According to the policy, since she was also notable under her previous name, it goes in the lead section (See [[MOS:DEADNAME]]. In fact, her situation is even used as an example).--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 19:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::cringe and transphobic [[User:Beep320|Beep320]] ([[User talk:Beep320|talk]]) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Beep320|Beep320]] How is it transphobic? It is a legit guideline, did you not even bother to read MOS:DEADNAME before you baselessly called someone cringe and transphobic? [[User:Titan(moon)003|Titan(moon)003]] ([[User talk:Titan(moon)003|talk]]) 02:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:01, 11 November 2024

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

[edit]

Chelsea's deadname should NOT be displayed on a public platform. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Rosemary Mccoy (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: because she was notable under her former name. See MOS:DEADNAME for the policy and Elliot Page for a similar example. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maybe don't use old pictures though? or SOMEBODY ask her about it if no one has yet. KingcCake (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals opinions on the articles have no relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. Cautious behavior around living persons is for legal protection not to keep the topic happy. (Imagine if people were allowed to dictate what their articles are to be about? Wikipedia would be completely unreliable.) JSory (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not, soi disant, unreliable anyway? 86.17.194.20 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political prisoner

[edit]

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/chelsea-mannings-original-revelations-still-need-investigating

Amnesty has campaigned for Manning’s release since 2013, when she was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment - a jail term much longer than for military personnel convicted of murder, rape and war crimes - for leaking classified government material. Amnesty believes the sentence was excessive and should have been commuted to time served (over three years at the time of sentencing), not least because Manning was overcharged using antiquated legislation aimed at dealing with treason, and denied the opportunity to use a public interest defence at her trial.

In addition, the whistleblower was held for 11 months in pre-trial detention conditions that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez deemed to be cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. She was placed in solitary confinement as punishment for a suicide attempt last year, and was denied appropriate treatment related to her gender identity during her incarceration. In a podcast for Amnesty in 2016 (www.amnesty.org.uk/chelsea), Manning recounted the draconian nature of her pre-trial detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia: TimurMamleev (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimurMamleev, I'm unsure about your intentions. Do you think something needs to be added to the article? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added to the article that Amnesty International considered Manning a political prisoner and demanded his release and regularly published articles about her. However, Amnesty International argued that not every political prisoner is given the special status of "prisoner of conscience", which is designed to draw maximum attention to a particular political prisoner. TimurMamleev (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "political prisoner" is not used in either of the sources listed above, that I can find. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

[edit]

Remove the phrase “and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics” as it is purely speculative. Manning had no higher education at the time of enlisting, and her GI Bill would have run out of money before reaching the doctorate level, so claiming she would have been acquiring a PhD with her GI Bill is inaccurate. Saying she enlisted in order to be eligible for GI Bill benefits is far more accurate. 2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The statement appears well-sourced – see ref 72 – is there some reason to assume the author of the reference was misinformed? Tollens (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Casey Manning?

[edit]

Who is Casey Manning?

There are two mentions of this individual but no links or explanation about who this person is or how he/she/it are related to Chelsea/Bradley Manning.

The main article only says: "Manning has an older sister". So I assume Casey is Chelsea's older sister, but this should be stated explicitly, otherwise further refernces to this appelation has no grounding in fact.

Vonuan (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I added the name to the statement she has an older sister.However, we may need to address how she is refered to later in the text, as at least one source gives her name as Casey Manning Majors, in which case she should be refered to once by that name and later by Majors during the testimony portion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply and the edit.
As to the naming, I am of the opinion that one should use the name of a person AT THE TIME of the event being discussed.
IF the event is at birth, then the birth name should be used.
In the case of the trial of "Bradley Manning" and prior events, it is wrong to distort history by speaking of "Chelsea Manning". If this becomes a requirement of "political correctness" then we are on a very slippery slope. Vonuan (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was already a requirement; see MOS:DEADNAME and supplementary essay Wikipedia:Gender identity § Retroactivity. It is not common in written English to treat the names of people, places, or things as temporally fixed in the way you suggest (in fact it would be extremely confusing). Correctly naming living biography subjects is an act of basic decency and respect.
If you have further comments or concerns on how Wikipedia writes about transgender people, please take them to a more general forum. Such a change would affect many more pages than this (and has been discussed to death hundreds of times and is never going to happen). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why is her deadname literally in the first sentence

[edit]

do better Beep320 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy, since she was also notable under her previous name, it goes in the lead section (See MOS:DEADNAME. In fact, her situation is even used as an example).--MattMauler (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cringe and transphobic Beep320 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beep320 How is it transphobic? It is a legit guideline, did you not even bother to read MOS:DEADNAME before you baselessly called someone cringe and transphobic? Titan(moon)003 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]