Talk:Chelsea Manning

Alias as title?

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.

---

Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well known under his real name. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you not see the faq at the top of this very page or are you just being a tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.61.205 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This user has been blocked multiple times in the recent past for disruptive edits, and, most likely, will be blocked again. At least this time it's a talk page and not an article.LaMona (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How is raising a legitimate point about an article title violating Wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME considered something to be blocked over? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Because you're being transphobic! 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You work in the House of Representatives, don't you have something better to do? https://twitter.com/congressedits --75.92.165.95 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is an extremely well-trodden path. Let's not go through it again. AABoyles (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prisoner vs. Inmate vs. Soldier – post-sentencing

In official literature from the Army Corrections System, we can see that prisoners are referred to as "prisoners" or "inmates".^{[citation needed]} They are not referred to as soldiers or addressed by their "lowest enlisted pay grade", which is E-1. They do not hold the "rank" of Private or E-1. For their legal status, they remain under the custody of the US Army until release into the civilian population. The results of the court martial receive modification and approval by the Convening Authority, who issues Promulgating Orders (R.C.M. Rule 1114; also see UCMJ Art. 71). Per UCMJ Article 57 "All other sentences of courts-martial [i.e., the DD] are effective on the date ordered executed." A sentence of DD is "self-executing", so no order for the reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade is issued. Instead, the promulgating order by the Convening Authority is forward to the personal office, which prepares a discharge order and certificate. The promulgating order gives the date the sentence was adjudged. This establishes the date of discharge, but does not stop any appellate review or request for a pardon. In any event the Army does not wait until Manning is released from confinement to issue the discharge. Manning is a former US Army soldier. – S. Rich (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of all this original research? Per Wikipedia:No original research it cannot be used in the article. Please confine yourself to citing reliable sources. JohnValeron (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You will note that I made no changes that included information about promulgating orders or the RCM or UCMJ. And I think my changes are proper WP:SUMMARYSTYLE renditions of the RS. At the same time I am a subject matter expert and so Facepalm I'd like to see is an accurate story that is properly sourced. Hence my explanation (above) which hopefully will serve as fodder for future changes. Original research does come into play when editors say Manning is a soldier. They are presuming that because she's confined for X years that she remains as a member of the Army. – S. Rich (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We have nothing but your own word to establish that you are a "subject matter expert." That is useless for purposes of editing Chelsea Manning. Please cite to a reliable, 3rd-party published source reporting that Manning is no longer a solider. Until then, your opinion is unsubstantiated. JohnValeron (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile you may be interested in this Associated Press report published in the MilitaryTimes two days after Manning was sentenced to reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and allowances, confinement for 35 years and a dishonorable discharge. It refers to Manning, directly or indirectly, as a soldier eight times. JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. The day after sentence is announced by the judge the press is using the term soldier to describe Manning. The press is correct to a certain extent. Sentence was announced and the media wrote about it. I'm not trying to get the press to revise the story, but I do point out that once the convening authority promulgates the order her status changes. But it is unlikely that the news media will pick up on this, so we will be stuck with the inaccurate news stories. Not a big deal – I just wish there was a good way to find and institute "the truth", based on RS, and get this BLP right. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140812/NEWS/308120071/Attorney-Manning-not-receiving-hormone-therapy The last sentence from this Army Times article states, "...Manning can't be discharged from the service while serving her prison sentence." $0.02 Robertvincentswain (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. That's what it says. Too bad the Army Times doesn't do a better job of vetting the stories it gets from the Associated Press. Sooner or later a more authoritative reliable source will get the story right. Until then I'll have to live with what it says. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is fascinating and all, but maybe it just points to a greater need in bulking up the associated articles dealing with the topic. We have articles on things like United States Army Corrections Command and United States Disciplinary Barracks, but the material on the various issues surrounding Courts-Martial seem to be thin on the ground. Even historically, I was having trouble finding something like Category:Military trials. Maybe not a discussion for here, but it doesn't seem like this is an issue that is unique to this page. But basically, if the general articles backed up your understanding with sources, then it wouldn't seem like OR for this one edit.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

For the instant case, we do not need additional or bulked-up Wikipedia articles. We simply need S. Rich to submit a single, reliable, third-party published source substantiating each of his claims that (a) servicemembers confined to the USDB are referred to as "prisoners" or "inmates" not as soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines; (b) said prisoners hold no military rank; (c) Chelsea Manning, whose sentence has been reviewed and approved by the convening authority, meaning it goes automatically to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, has already been discharged by the Army and is accordingly a "former" soldier. These assertions are absurd. JohnValeron (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundant categorization.

There is no reason to categorise people in both Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. The second one is a sub-category of the first, and it's completely obvious that all those convicted, were also charged. "Persons convicted" makes no sense as a non-diffusing category. If you double categorise here then you get an unwieldy list of over seventy names in "charged" with no way of easily telling who wasn't convicted without cross-referencing it with the names in "convicted".__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 is a non-diffusing subcategory of Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. Just as, in the example given at WP:SUBCAT, not all Film actors are Best Actor Academy Award winners, so too not all Persons charged are convicted. It is uniquely helpful to have a standalone list of all persons charged, whether or not convicted. If you want a list containing the subset of people charged but not convicted, you ought to create a new Category:Persons charged but not convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. As is, you're trying to artificially restrict a more comprehensive parent category for your decidedly subcategorical purpose. JohnValeron (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

All people convicted were also charged. It's redundant to list both on an article. It's not a non-diffusing cat situation. It is more like Category:People indicted for war crimes and Category:People convicted of war crimes. One nests in the other, and it's clear that the members of the smaller cat are logically part of the bigger cat. All people convicted are also obviously charged. The fact that you suggest making a third category for sorting shows that something needlessly complicated is being suggested.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 corresponds to Category:People indicted for war crimes, and Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 corresponds to Category:People convicted of war crimes. In your first comment, you said you want an easy way to see the subset of those charged but not convicted. Where is the subset of those charged with War Crimes but not convicted? JohnValeron (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Catgories in Wikipeida are retarded. A better way exists, though I'm not holding my breath.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to change the lead photo, not because we have to, but because it's far more common now.

Maybe it's time to change the lead photo, not because we have to but because it's far more common now. It's been a year, and over 90% of articles have used the "Chelsea in the car" photo as their main illustration for articles, at every level of publication. I usually treat Google-hits arguments skeptically, but that photo is by far the most common picture to come up on a Google images search of the subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning Support Network raises money for Chelsea's legal defense, to educate the public about her case, and to organize public support for Chelsea. Its website hosts a gallery of Manning images, including the official U.S. Army photo from April 2012 that Wikipedia uses in its lead. The Support Network calls this Manning's "preferred photo image," and adds, "New images are not expected to become available anytime soon."

However, the gallery also includes a drawing captioned "How Chelsea Manning sees herself. By Alicia Neal, in cooperation with Chelsea herself, commissioned by the Chelsea Manning Support Network, 23 April 2014." A separate URL contains an image file of sufficient size and quality to illustrate Wikipedia's lead. Happily for our purpose, at the bottom of its home page the Support Network declares: "All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated. Link and attribution appreciated." Since I find no copyright claim associated with Alicia Neal's drawing anywhere on the several pages where it appears on this website, it's safe to assume the image is indeed in the public domain.

I would fully support replacing the outdated Army photo in Wikipedia's lead with this portrait, which is endorsed by Chelsea herself. It is much more dignified than the ugly black-&-white selfie of Manning in cheap blond wig and tacky makeup from four years ago.
JohnValeron (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything undignified in the black&white photo. I think it's arguably become iconic of the subject, and was taken fairly contemporaneously with the time of the leaks. No offence to Alicia Neal but it's very rare to have illustrations as main photos, and the current one is probably still better than an illustration. The black&white one has been used by more reliable sources, more frequently, and with more significant visibility than any other single picture ever taken of the subject though. I don't think Wikipedia's broken if it doesn't change, but it doesn't seem to match how much coverage that photo got in all other sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please, can you point me to a single Wikipedia article where a selfie illustrates the lead? Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Update I found one myself. Not sure this is a very auspicious precedent, however. Do you really want Manning paired in the annals of Wikipedia with a monkey? JohnValeron (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Be serious, what a juvenile thing to link this discussion to. I can probably find ten other serious articles with self-taken photos and you could too; there's nothing necessarily wrong with a self-taken photo. This photo was considered fine for illustrating articles in the Washington Post, NYT etc. If you don't prefer this specific photo from your individual perspective, that's fine, but it shouldn't really matter who took it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSED I oppose replacing the dignified April 2012 U.S. Army photo—which the Chelsea Manning Support Network identifies as Manning's "preferred photo image"—with the deliberately garish selfie taken two years earlier in a desperate, futile attempt to get Manning's supervisor to recommend kicking her out of the service. JohnValeron (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "can you point me to a single Wikipedia article where a selfie illustrates the lead?": can you point to an article where a drawing illustrates the lead despite a photograph being available? -sche (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Seeing the current image used is preferred by Manning, the army photo is also of higher quality than the other image taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• On a similar note, we should think about changing the article back to Bradley Manning. Almost every source that has claimed to use Chelsea seems to use language like "Bradley Manning (now Chelsea)" to the point that the flawed consensus from the past rename discussion is obvious.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Two kinds of pork: Pork I agree if the number of reliable sources are in it's favor but it would most likely get shot down because of other's emotions here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideally we try to exclude emotion. The cognitive dissonance caused by this article is legion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention Passive-aggressive behavior. Just saying. AnonNep (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that reliable sources have changed back to "Bradley". More of them are using Chelsea than a year ago, and more of them have stories without using "Chelsea (formerly Bradley)" and just a standalone "Chelsea Manning". It's possible the cognitive dissonance you sense is your own. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, agree. I did a quick check looking at usage in WP:RS and the majority appear to be consistently using Chelsea in headline, lede and body text of article. There may be a qualifier mentioning previous name but that's about it. AnonNep (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well as long as a majority of RS are using Chelsea per WP:COMMONNAME it should remain as such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny that, from the recent sources I've seen, they have lead with Bradley and qualified with Chelsea. I wouldn't have thought twice about this except these sources made a point to explain their policy and seemingly don't follow it. I'm not interested however, to collate the usage. Others may find this a good use of their time, but not me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Caution: There may be licensing issues specifically restricting use of File:Chelsea_Manning_with_wig.jpg for other than its stated purpose.

• According to the summary section of that file's Wikipedia page, "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): The subject's (Manning's) gender." The summary goes on to declare that the image will have "Minimal use: The file will only be used in the section detailing Manning's gender." Clearly, moving the image from that section to the lead would violate this provision.
• The summary also identifies Chelsea Manning as author or copyright owner. Do we have her permission to illustrate Wikipedia's lead with this unbecoming selfie to replace what the Chelsea Manning Support Network has identified as Manning's "preferred photo image"? Legalisms aside, to do so without her permission would be arrogant and insulting.
• Finally, please note that her selfie is not one of the 72 Manning images hosted by Wikimedia Commons. That, I believe, is a telling omission. We are not on solid ground here, folks. JohnValeron (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The photo is not a bad one. I don't know why you're so disparaging of it. People use it all of the time[1] without it seeming disrespectful in any way.If you have some direct indication the subject doesn't like it you should pass it on, but I don't think it's somehow unflattering.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand about the Chelsea Manning Support Network's identification of Manning's April 2012 U.S. Army portrait as her "preferred photo image"? That seems plain enough to me. And why did you evade the licensing issues? JohnValeron (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

But can a support network really know what she prefers? Remember, all sources, even if not directly cited, must be verifiable. KonveyorBelt 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning contain an External Link to the Chelsea Manning Support Network? Why does the same article include a photo of a pro-Manning billboard erected in Washington, D.C., by the same network? I doubt it's because there's a consensus among Wikipedia editors that the Chelsea Manning Support Network does not accurately and conscientiously represent the sentiments of Chelsea Manning. JohnValeron (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not evading anything, I don't think that's a particularly huge issue and like I said, if the picture doesn't change I don't think it's fatal. Since every reliable source has used it as a government-agency-released photo from the trial, I would generally think any copyright concern is not as looming as you're making it sound here. I was asking a real question as I don't see why you have such animosity for a picture that all kinds of people considered sympathetic to Chelsea use all of the time. I find it strange, because I don't think the picture is unflattering.

The external links don't have to be reliable to be included. And as far as the support network goes, I became a bit more cautious about thinking of them as a proxy for "Chelsea's wishes" after they put out some silly stuff about how she might be sometimes okay with male pronouns that was flatly contradicted by Chelsea herself when she was able to communicate more directly. Maybe it is her preferred picture? In any case, is the b&w a denounced picture? You seem entrenched in your opinion, and I don't think the current picture has to change if there's second-hand assertions she doesn't hate it, but I don't think it's necessarily the best overall choice of our options.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

{And that billboard was erected before the trial even began. It should be pretty obvious why they'd have that photo on the billboard, before the b&w photo was even released at the trial.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe the Chelsea Manning Support Network is lying about Manning's preferred photo image? Do you also believe the Support Network is lying about having commissioned the artwork "How Chelsea Manning sees herself" by Alicia Neal, in cooperation with Chelsea herself? That was published four months ago—plenty of time for the media to have revealed that it's a fraud, personally disavowed by Manning in favor of a four-year old selfie taken in a desperate bid to compel a psychiatric discharge. If such news reports by reliable sources are out there, I missed them. JohnValeron (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's lying. Settle down. The illustration is obviously from four months ago but most of the website was written much earlier than that, and very unevenly updated or left stale. It's possible your "preferred photo image" text is antique and accidentally still there. I don't have complete confidence that the text on the website is current. If you look at this you'll see their featured posters are completely outdated. A lot of the website was written 2012/2013 and is clearly not completely current. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is lying here. The network should not be considered a direct link to Chelsea, rather, a link to her supporters. Per WP:V, the fact that she wants one picture or another to be what she considers herself MUST be independantly verifiable. Even if this group was contacting Chelsea directly, it is a primary source and requires a secondary source to verify that assertion. KonveyorBelt 22:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And it's weird that you say she took a photo of herself to "compel a psychiatric discharge". I think you're reading into her motives a little there. It's clear from the sources that she had been presenting herself that way in her off-duty time, photo or no. So she wasn't putting on make-up just to get out of the army. That should be clear by now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You claim "it's clear from the sources" that Manning had been presenting herself in wig, makeup and dressed as a woman in her off-duty time prior to emailing the selfie to her supervisor in April 2010. Yet that is not discussed in Wikipedia's article Chelsea Manning. We know from sources not cited in our article that, while stateside on regular mid-tour leave from Iraq during January–February 2010, Manning dressed in drag while traveling from her aunt's house in Maryland to see her boyfriend in Massachusetts. But it's not clear this was normal off-duty behavior. Rather, it appears that Manning staged the selfie for the very specific purpose of emailing it to Master Sergeant Paul Adkins to bolster her self-diagnosis of gender identity disorder. It's entirely reasonable to infer that her motive was to so alarm MSgt Adkins that he would recommend her for a psychiatric discharge. The selfie was photographic reinforcement. JohnValeron (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's becoming pretty clear you don't understand that Chelsea Manning is a trans woman, and she wasn't dressing in "drag". You're reading things into Manning's motivations for taking a photograph that you couldn't possibly know. Please stop with the admitted speculation, it's obviously not about improving the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That is kind of a huge leap you just made @Elaqueate: he is right in saying that the sources do not go on to say that Manning dressed as a woman before the picture was taken. In any case the picture is low quality better to have a high quality image that Manning does not mind using (Cited in the article unless you dispute the RS). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying Johnvaleron is wrong to claim she had dressed in women's clothes before the picture was taken? Or just me? Because we both say that happened. I don't think you've read those comments correctly. You're the only one saying now saying it didn't happen, and I have to say you're not making sense. Are you saying Manning didn't dress in women's clothing in 2010, before the picture was taken?__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on further thought you probably shouldn't have continued adding material to this line of discussion in the first place. That subject only came up because Johnvaleron was using the talk page as a forum to impugn motives to the subject of the BLP. If he believes her gender identity was staged to get out of the army, he should keep it to himself in the future because it's a toxic argument that shouldn't have a place on this page. If it gets repeated again, someone should take it to BLPN or an equivalent.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please let me explain why I referred above to Manning's "self-diagnosis of gender identity disorder." It was a factual statement not intended to impugn her GID, of which I have no doubt. Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning article tells us that, while in Iraq during November 2009, Manning wrote to a civilian gender counselor stateside to say she felt female. The cited source, an article in New York magazine, quotes the counselor as saying "Bradley felt he was female" and that Manning was clearly in crisis—albeit only partly due to her gender struggles; more to her job. New York does not indicate whether or not the counselor, who never met Manning, made a formal diagnosis of GID. But it's safe to presume that client confidentiality would have prevented the counselor from sharing his opinion with the Army.

Our WP article goes on to identify Captain Michael Worsley as the first military psychologist to treat Manning before her arrest. Capt. Worsley was called as a defense witness during the pre-sentencing phase of Manning's court-martial, where he testified that he discussed "some gender issues" with Manning only after Manning had sent her famous selfie to her supervisor. "Did you make any additional diagnosis based upon the conversation?" asked Manning's lawyer. "At that point," Worsley replied, "I think it was gender identity disorder. It met the criteria." This testimony appears on numbered pages 47–48 (PDF pages 48–49) of the trial transcript published by Freedom of the Press Foundation. As far as I can tell, Worsley's diagnosis, which came not only after Manning's selfie but as a consequence of it, was the first formal diagnosis of Manning's GID by a qualified mental health provider. Accordingly, Manning's allusions to her GID in the April 2010 email to MSgt Adkins are based on her self-diagnosis, not on any professional evaluation. And to further clarify, I speculated only that Manning staged the selfie, not her GID. Since we're discussing making that photo the primary image of our Wikipedia article, it's important to fully explore its original purpose.

Anyhow, that's my understanding. Admittedly, this is a complicated issue. If I've misconstrued the facts, I'd sincerely appreciate your corrections. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work on the timeline, but all you need to do is be more careful about making assertions of negative motivation beyond what the sources say. The timeline of diagnosis doesn't change the fact that even though the "official" diagnoses happened after the photo, the "official" diagnoses was still that GID was present and a factor in the subject's life before she even joined the army. They confirmed both the self-diagnosis and that GID was present before any documentation in a photo (and the "official" diagnosis was obviously based on more than just a photo). The official discovery of the situation doesn't negate its actual long-term existence. Any speculation that it wasn't a motivating factor in seeking therapy is a bit toxic when it's speculation that is directly against what the doctors asserted. A talk page with discretionary sanctions shouldn't be a place for individual editors to openly speculating that the BLP subject's completely unknowable past motivations are probably negative ones. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, where do WP:RS say that Manning sent the selfie to MSgt Adkins seeking therapy rather than as a ploy to trigger psychiatric discharge? You're making an assumption just as I am. JohnValeron (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Chelsea Manning is a living person and discussion is subject to the constraints of WP:BLP - any negative information or opinions must be sourced, even on talk pages. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Awards section

Is there a reason why we need a whole section dedicated to awards won by manning? I gave an example of George S. Patton as an example of a FA rated article to refer to, the awards in that article are presented in the infobox and in the body of the article without giving it's own section as to be WP:UNDUE. The edit was reverted with the edit summary "This is pretty standard for military-connected BLPs" would you mind linking me to some FA articles that have award sections for the people involved? The issue as I said in having a section dedicated to awards falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:ICONDECORATION as they are already present in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Blamey, Frederick Scherger, Jesse L. Brown, how many more do you want? I think this article passed FA with the awards included, am I right in thinking that? Listing awards and decorations in icon form is a common thing to have in military history biographies. You can find more Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The one article you listed that has it in is Jesse L. Brown the other ones you listed though don't have sections with pictures of the awards. In my view it is WP:UNDUE as Manning in this case was dishonorably discharged, the awards are already present in the infobox and can just as easily fit in the article via prose. No this article is a Good article and not a Featured Article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case the images are visually distracting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Every article I listed had a visual awards sections. Some are collapsed. All the articles I listed were featured articles. I stopped listing them because I thought you only asked for "some". (And are you saying a good article is a better standard than a featured article?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid is right about the undue nature of the section. These are ribbons, stripes, and a "combat zone" patch handed out for being in the service and for the few months on the FOB. They are already listed in the infobox and part of the official photo. – S. Rich (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought one of the reasons they were added was that people thought they weren't clear or described in the photo? User:Amducker might remember more than I do on that. The only thing I find in the archives right now, is that you added ribbons because someone was interested in knowing more about them. If they educate curious people about military decorations, they can't be completely undue.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is though as I have said is that the pictures along with the links to the awards given are in the infobox, so if a reader was curious about military decorations all the would need t odo is look at the infobox or find the awards used in prose in the article. To get the other person's point of view it would be like having a section devoted to Manning's discharge and having an image of his discharge papers blown up, the same argument can be made "Well what if the reader wants to know more about how people are discharged in the military and more about why the documents look the way they do? Why does x,y, and z have to sign there?". I am going to remove the section now but that does not mean the information will be gone there are plenty of spots in the article to access it. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a good time to start edit warring, Knowledgekid87. This page still under discretionary sanctions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to continue the discussion feel free, I have already put out a policy based argument as well as a valid reason, another editor has agreed with this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "continuing the discussion" it's making changes before consensus is clear. A single editor agreeing with you isn't a new consensus. I'm not going to edit war, but you should know better.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal by Knowledgekid87 of military awards subsection, which violated WP:WEIGHT by according disproportionate prominence to images and information that are adequately presented in the Infobox. Chelsea Manning is not Audie Murphy, a genuine American military hero whose decorations greatly outnumber and vastly overwhelm Manning's in merit, yet are confined to Murphy's Infobox—except for a standalone photo of the Medal of Honor, America's highest military award. By comparison, Manning's decorations are perfunctory and puny to the point of risibility. JohnValeron (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Infobox standards, infoboxes are summaries. The information they summarize must be in the article. Also, citations do not belong in Infoboxes, because the citation belong in the article supporting the information to be summarized in the Infobox. Information removed from the article should also be removed from the Infobox. Yworo (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you are hung up basing your argument on that then just put the information into prose under the Military service section, no need to include a whole sections of distracting images that violate WP:UNDUE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please wait for the discussion to come to a consensus before making any changes. That's pretty standard. And please refrain from using derogatory phrases like "hung up" when refering to other editor's positions. Yworo (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, the information as I said can just be put into prose in the article body. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in my comment that implies that you are not acting in good faith. Try following your own advice. Yworo (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to your argument you still have not addressed why the info cant be put into prose in the article's body the awards are un-sourced as it is, if sources are found and inserted in prose form into the article would you change your opinion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is your hurry? Give it a day or two for other editors to join the discussion and present their views. I have no opinion yet on that and am waiting for input from other editors, as you should be. Yworo (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification. An editor states above that "citations do not belong in Infoboxes, because the citation[s] belong in the article supporting the information to be summarized in the Infobox." Yet as Knowledgekid87 observes, the five awards listed in Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning Infobox are not footnoted with citations. Neither do the same awards, or three additional decorations, listed in subsection 2.6 carry citations. Please explain what is meant here. Thank you. I apologize for seeking clarification of something fairly obvious, and withdraw my request. JohnValeron (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

They should be cited. Standard policy. And in a properly constructed article, there should generally not be any citation in the Infobox. I'd think that all that would be fairly obvious. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Im in no hurry you put down an oppose argument that can be fixed with editing so im wondering why you would oppose it is all. if you wish this will be my last comment addressed to you I will add the sources for the awards in the article's body meeting your original concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, in my opinion, it's bad form to attempt to pump editors for clarification. I said what I said and I am waiting for other editors to have their say. I prefer discussions like this not get long and hairy due to back and forth unnecessary queries from the OP. Sit back and wait for a consensus. These discussions don't need to be real-time arguments. Good night. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't post a support or oppose opinion but make it into a comment instead as editors response to the former quicker. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't act like there is some kind of deadline. My supporting or opposing does not mean that I am open to being swayed by additional argumentation. And I shouldn't have to contunue to discuss once I register my opinion. You expect too much. Calm down. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Data in infoboxes need not be in the text of the article. Per the lede of MOS:INFOBOX "An infobox template is a panel, ... that summarizes key features of the page's subject." Once the data is in the infobox, it is part of the article and need not be a repetition of the text. (BTW, I've had some discussions on this topic on the MOS talk page.) In Manning's case, we can add a line of text that says "Manning received the ASR, NDSM, etc." Again, as I said above, ..... – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand what "summarize" means? It must be in the article to be summarized. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Quote from Help:Infobox: "Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox. In particular, if infobox templates hide long columns of data inside collapsing tables, then readers using assistive technology may miss their presence entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Painting a horse does not make a zebra

Chelsea is a male, not a female, therefore the proper pronoun is "they" with accompanying cases. From wikt:she: "A female person or animal." From Female: "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)." Chelsea, by all accounts, does not meet this definition. In fact, by all accounts, according to the human sex-determination system, Chelsea is physiologically a male, regardless of any mutilations. Physiological differences between men and women is more than their reproductive parts and a handful of chemicals (hormones). It is, literally, in our genes, with particular reference to the Y chromosome. Even if there is doubt about the physiological gender of Chelsea, the pronoun wikt:he "Refers to a person whose gender is unknown."

If this topic is validly an issue which belongs in the article as content, such as whether or not such terms are properly based upon physiological or personal identities, Wikipedia should not being using either term, and instead use a NPOV wording, such as singular they or something, which, while non-standard, is proper in this particular case. I have not followed previous discussions, so I start one anew here and now, and I reject any assertions that any previously determined consensus is permanent. I also reject that a disagreement in the sources and references must be contentious; it is enough that there is valid disagreement, and that they are significant viewpoints, in sources and references about facts to make them POV. Int21h (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)