Talk:Chelsea Manning

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

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. 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. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

i second this 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. KingcCake (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I second this 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. 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. FamAD123 (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2022 (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 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. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

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)

 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)

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)

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)

Is it not, soi disant, unreliable anyway? 86.17.194.20 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

misgendering-ish

shouldn't we change it from son to daughter and he/him to she/her? even when talking about her pre-transition and pre-coming out. whether she was out or not at the time that's being spoken about, shouldn't we get the gender stuff right? KingcCake (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Where specifically are you seeing these misgenderings? Are they inside direct quotes? Funcrunch (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Covid 19 -- irrelevant section

Suggest deleting the Covid-19 section, which at this time reads in full "On September 14, 2021, Manning tested positive for COVID-19. She reportedly exhibited mild symptoms and would be quarantining until October 1, 2021. Manning, who had previously been vaccinated, issued a statement that "vaccines work, masks work, testing works, healthcare is a right, and we all need to support each other."

I have no idea why someone thought this was worth mentioning. 69.251.120.211 (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the section. At this point, many people have gotten COVID-19, maybe more than haven't. COVID infection should not be in anyone's Wikipedia biography unless there are significant reasons for it (like, it had a major impact on their life in some way). – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Political prisoner

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)

@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)

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)

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)