Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 3

Chelsea Manning/Archive 3
Scientific classification

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

→

Upper time limit on detention before trial

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

When he enlisted, he signed up for 8 years. The time after his active duty term would normally be served in the Reserves and it would be/will be a simple matter to extend his active duty term of enlistment. In any event, the military legally retains jurisdiction over him if criminal charges are pending. Once convicted by courts-martial, should that occur, he gets reduced to the lowest enlisted rank, forfeits all pay and allowances, receives a dishonorable discharge, but remains under military control (jurisdiction) while his sentence is served. This is technical stuff and does not need or merit explanation much less mention in the encyclopedia.--S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

British (?Welsh?) - again...

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

An immigration expert quoted in The Guardian says that Manning is British. "Bradley was born in the US and is thus a US citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1981 anyone born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 who has a mother who is a UK citizen by birth is themself British by descent. "Nationality is like an elastic band: it stretches to one generation born outside the UK to a British parent. And that makes Bradley Manning British," said Alison Harvey, head of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association in London."" I saw this came up before, but just wondered if this changes anything? SmartSE (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, now that we have an informed source cited by an independent mainstream news organization, and Amnesty calling for intervention. WikiLaurent added a link to the article, [1] and I've added what it said. [2] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

His lawyer (Mr. Coombs) says Manning is not a dual citizen. See: [3] --S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean it can't belong here.

Boneheaded legal theories are illustrative of deception and corruption. That makes them part of the story.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tidying

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

WP:SYNTH

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Detainment without charge

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Pic placement

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Problems

Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

Subheads, images and image placement, white space

Hi, there have been some odd edits recently; e.g. adding white space around the images on purpose; wanting to uploaded a second image of him that violates the image policy; and now wanting to remove the subheads, which would be unusual. Could Victor and Gregcaletta explain what the aim is? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:50, 16 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)

I agree with SV. The section headings with subsections allow the reader to focus on two phases of BM's life: pre-Army and pre-arrest. "Background" works well to describe the pre-Army days as we learn about that time period. As a term to be used in this article, "Background" is a good as any other (and I have considered things like "development", "parentage", "upbringing", etc.). The chats, arrest, and charges are all part of the disclosure in that once he was arrested the disclosures stopped. The reader can then move on to the big bug-a-boo of the article, the conditions of his residency in the brig. Let's leave this format as is and await further developments. --S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

His being in the the military is not "background". It is central to the events that make him notable, i.e. that as an army intelligence analyst he leaked documents. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there are more than two options here. You can try to come up with headings that take into account both your concerns and mine, rather than merely stick to the current headings without taking into account my objections. For example, you said it's good to have a section for "pre-army" but his enlistment in the army is currently included in the "background" section. I'll try something else and you can see what you think. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add some material to this shortly, and I'll be restoring the headers, because of course they're needed, and as the article expands, more will be needed. See the MoS. The current background section gives the background to his life before the leaking of the material. Bear in mind that this is not a traditional bio, because he has no notability beyond what he's accused of doing. So we have biographical material (early education, entry to army) in a background-to-the-story section. And then we have a section explaining what happened (the chats and leaks, the investigation, the arrest and charges). And thereafter the current consequences (detention, responses). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Greg, the headers were fine as they were. The leaking was not part of his career, and there was no necessary connection between his joining the army and doing that. They are separate issues, except in the sense that the former permitted the latter. But the leaking was not a career move.

Joining the army was part of his education and training, and it belongs with the rest of his education in the background section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... Does anyone else agree with this? I don't believe the headings were "fine as they were" and you have refused to address my concerns. The headings I have chosen most recently address my concerns as well as the concerns of the other two editors above. Do you see how I am working towards consensus though compromise? You should try it. "Career" simply refers to the chronological period from the beginning of employment to the end of employment, which is a sensible division of the article: "pre-employment in the army", "employment in the army" and "post-emplyment in the army". If you object to the word "career" you can change it to "employment". Gregcaletta (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you have done. That's acceptable for me, but I would prefer "Employment in the US Army" to "Intelligence Analyst in the U.S. Army. Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it is interesting that you say "Bear in mind that this is not a traditional bio, because he has no notability beyond what he's accused of doing. So we have biographical material (early education, entry to army) in a background-to-the-story section". This is because the article was moved here in violation of WP:BLP1E. That policy exists to avoid the kind of tabloid gossip WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH violations ("he lived in his car for a while"; "he was upset with his boyfriend" etc.) that make up the "Background" section of this article. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not what BLP1E exists for; it addresses whether articles should exist, not their contents once they do exist. All we do here is publish what the best sources have published. Where was the article moved from? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Writing

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)

As I said in my edit summary, "being a U.S. Army soldier is not an "education" ". ^walk victor falk^talk 06:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then remove "and education." These are minor points. The structural point is (1) Before disaster; (2) Disaster; (3) After disaster. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence problem

Victor, regarding the sentence you want to change:

The article says: "The New York Times wrote in December 2010 that the U.S. government was trying to discover whether Assange had encouraged or helped Manning extract the files; if he did, the Times wrote, Assange could be charged with conspiracy, rather than being viewed as a passive recipient and publisher."

You're changing this to: "The New York Times wrote in December 2010 that the U.S. government was trying to discover whether Assange was merely a passive recipient and publisher or if he had encouraged or helped Manning extract the files, in order to charge him with conspiracy."

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)

Encyclopedic style sould be short and concise. Even terse. I have split it in two separate sentences: "The New York Times wrote in December 2010 that the U.S. government was trying to discover whether Assange was a passive recipient and publisher or had encouraged or helped Manning extract the files. If he did, the Times wrote, he could be charged with conspiracy." ^walk victor falk^talk 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

(emphasis added) "According to ABC News, he was reprimanded for assaulting another soldier, demoted from Specialist to Private First Class, and sent to a chaplain after officers noticed what ABC called "odd behaviors."

Source ABC News; see here around 3:12 mins.

Victor changed this to: "According to ABC News, he was reprimanded for assaulting another soldier, demoted from Specialist to Private First Class, and sent to a chaplain."

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)

I have removed the part with chaplain entirely, if this causes confusion. I object to "odd behaviors" because it is an off-the-cuff statement from a TV news commentator without any reference whatsoever what those might be in the referenced clip. I think wp:blp tells us to avoid this kind of things. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it was an off-the-cuff statement? ABC News reporters spoke to the army and that's what they were told, and it's not for us to decide they didn't do their jobs properly. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Please restore it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was a quote from the chaplain, it could be included. Also if that clip contained any information specifiying what they might be. As it is, it is merely hanging in the air. And it is our job to decide what can or cannot be included, less we have to slavishly include every titillating tidbit written by gossipy journalists. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You're engaged in OR. ABC News is a high-quality journalistic source. It told us what officers said about this. We don't question that or second-guess it. We just tell readers that's what ABC News said. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What OR? I not trying to guess what they meant and I couldn't care less what they meant. In polite company, "odd behaviour" means "completely bonkers". ^walk victor falk^talk 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That Manning had behavioral issues is not in question; he acknowledged it himself, and it's likely to be his salvation. Here we have an explanation as to why officers sent him to the chaplain. They didn't use a psychiatric term, but an ordinary phrase that expressed their concern. By placing yourself above ABC News and those officers, you're saying you know better, and that's an NOR violation.

The bottom line is that these arguments are a waste of time, because we have policies in place and they're clear. They mean we don't have to reinvent the wheel on every article's talk page. It would be good to get the article to FA status, because there will be lots of opportunities over the coming months to get it on the main page. I don't know whether you've taken an article through FAC before; it's demanding, and articles have to be more or less 100 percent policy-compliant. It's not going to get through the process with no subheads, white spaces around images, non-free images without a proper rationale, syntax that changes the meaning of sentences, spelling mistakes (not your doing), and editors deciding they know better than the sources. It would be great if we could work together to keep the quality high, rather than have all this reverting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Officers said nothing about "odd behavior". I would not object to "after officers noticed what ABC called "emotional distress."", or "after officers noticed what ABC called "aggressive tendencies.", or "after officers noticed what ABC called "inexplicable euphoria."" Those are descriptive and factual statements. "Odd behaviors" is far, far, into "nudg, nudge, know what I mean" territory and is unbecoming of wikipedia. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that the officers didn't use that phrase? ABC said: "... sent to a chaplain when superiors noted odd behaviors." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Because then he would have said"... sent to a chaplain when superiors noted [what they called] odd behaviors." If he was doing his job properly. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you should apply to ABC News for a job. In the meantime, we'll have to trust Terry Moran, [4] and if you listen to him, he pauses before "odd behaviors" in a way that makes clear he is quoting, as does use of the word "noted." But even if that were not the case, the source would still be good enough. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's a thought. Would you care to write a letter of recommendation? ^walk victor falk^talk 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If we can get this article to FAC, then yes, enthusiastically. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

controversial

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

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)

"Controversial" is not a weasel word because all it does is noting the fact that there is controversy, with is a fact. Weasel words are words that do not make any claim while changing the implication. The word I added doesn't really change any implications, but adds the information that the video is controversial. I appreciate how someone has finally came to discuss, but I would prefer more solid reasons. Thanks, 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in adding "controversial". The video was leaked, by a soldier, from an American military database; it was published by Wikileaks; they called it Collateral Murder. Those three things jointly signal that it was controversial. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically it's not a weasel word, but it's one of those bland over-used one. Be creative. ^walk victor falk^talk 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh, lots of things are leaked from a military database on Wikileaks with similar names, no harm in mentioning that this one's not the average Wikileakspam, unless you actually think there's something wrong with it. And yes, I guess it would be nice if a different word is found for it, although since I'm not that fluent with English, maybe you can think of one? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an extra word; we need to show, not tell. And anyway, the other things listed were just as controversial, if not more so. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We arn't doing a good job of showing yet, so might as well tell for now. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That video was no more controversial that a lot of the other stuff that was leaked; and in fact less so than some of it. So you're just adding your own opinion here. The word itself is not informative. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Well said. Controversy re "Controversial" closed. --S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I ever say this was the most controversial on Wikileaks? No. Just because a person isn't the tallest person on earth doesn't mean you can't say he is tall. This video was controversial. More people commented on it than those who saw other random articles on Wikileaks. We're talking about the puny pointless random things on Wikileaks. Wikileaks doesn't hold only controversial information like this, it accepts anything that anyone tried to hide. We need at least some information to tell readers that this video is not one of those stubby noteings such as "secret test flight of a Boeing 727 by Boeing" leaks. The way the article displays this now, really does make it appear as one of those Wikileakspam. But if more of you wants to keep it like that, go ahead. I don't know why neither of you listened, but I'm not going to waste my hours on this one single word in a long article if you're all staying adamant. Maybe your correct, maybe there was a reason you didn't say that was right, I'll stop trying if I'ma being the lone side off such a 1-word debate. Nice talking to you all 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a point there; what do you think of this change? ^walk victor falk^talk 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it works well, I'd say it's good for improvement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's better not to add commentary to the lead, especially not in a way that's actually misleading. The diplomatic cable releases generated considerably more response than the video. If you read the latest Guardian book about this (Leigh and Harding), they make the point that the video's presentation was somewhat one-sided and that's why there was a relatively muted response to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Parents and aunt name listings in infobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

How Manning found Lamo

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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)

We follow the reliable sources, and they have referred to the Wired profile of Lamo being followed by Manning contacting him, which would certainly make sense. We also include that Lamo said those two events were not connected (though how would Lamo known this?). But we include it because reliable sources mentioned what Lamo said. You seem to want to single out Lamo's view, and remove any other. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please refer me to a single reliable source that states Manning contacted Lamo after reading his Wired profile. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources for that are in the article, and include the Glenn Greenwald article you cited yourself. We report that view, and we report Lamo's view that it was the tweet about WikiLeaks that sparked it, though as Greenwald writes, that doesn't explain why Manning picked out that one tweet above all others. The fact is, no one knows why Manning contacted Lamo, because he has not explained, so it's guesswork. We just explain what the various guesses are. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see that's been finally added, but it's clear from what you've just written that you're trying to push your own opinion of events. Why? Also, what relevance is it to Bradley Manning that Adrien Lamo has Asperger's? Or that Poulsen used Lamo as a source? More attempts at pushing a link you believe exists? It's far more relevant that Lamo is a convicted hacker, as it's possibly why Manning trusted him. But you don't like that, so it's gone. And speaking of trust, what about the openly revealed reasons why Manning confided in Lamo? Somewhat relevant, no? The promises Lamo said he made to Manning regarding his anonymity. Somewhat relevant at that point in the timeline, don't you think? But no, you didn't like that stuff, so it was reverted, without editing, without discussion, by you. You keep saying "we", but as far as I'm concerned, this feels like your page, and whatever you like or dislike is what gets placed on it. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The section offers both views (contact triggered by profile, and contact triggered by tweet), and it's the same as it was when you were complaining about it. It's not for us to judge what's relevant. These are the issues the best sources have highlighted, so we do the same. The journalist-source promise can be restored if the source is good, but I recall that it wasn't very clear.

If I'm trying to push my own opinion of events, what is my own opinion, as you see it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Striped naked every night

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've add the update from the New York Times. [5] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding but shouldn't we also add some of the criticism that describe this as cruel, unsual & degrading treatment? IQinn (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We already have Amnesty saying that in general; in fact the section is framed that way, so I think we need to be careful not to over-egg the pudding. If a body like that comes out and criticizes this new rule, we could certainly think about extending it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Image of Pentagon lawyer

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel, visited Quantico in February 2011 to examine the conditions of Manning's detention. A Pentagon spokesman subsequently declared them appropriate.^[3]

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)

As per the reasons already stated in the related edit summary. "Remove kind of POV interpretation of the source - in addition no strong reason for the inclusion of the image that it is not fully NPOV and does not significantly help the reader understand the related section" IQinn (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't understand what you wrote, which is why I'm asking here. The Pentagon sent him to inspect. He reported there were no issues, and we have a free image of him in a section with no images. I've also requested a free image of Manning's lawyer for that section. What's the problem with using them? SlimVirgin test account (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The source: only verifies that he visited the brig. Nothing else. Morrell expressed his own views of the visit for example that he did not even talked to Manning. To say that Jeh Johnson reported that there were no issues is not given in the source. Not even that he was sent with the mission to inspect the condition.

People focus on images and to highlight one site is not NPOV. Want to include a image of Geoff S. Morrell?

You have newly added the image of Jeh Johnson but you have not given us a single reason for that and why that would significantly help the reader understand the related section that has many views? IQinn (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Morrell is the formal spokesman. He was speaking on behalf of those who visited, and the cutline said he declared the conditions appropriate, which is what the source said. Why aren't you objecting to the other images? None of them really help in the way you're insisting this one must. I'm going to restore it, unless you come up with an actual argument against it.

Look, we have to tell both sides of this story. There's no point in people continually objecting when the side they disagree with is given an airing. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I've requested a free of Manning's lawyer too, and I'm about to start looking for one of David House. So the Pentagon lawyer won't be the only image in that section. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The image and related text does not balance the section. I does the opposite. Your are threatening and edit war? And you are not answering my questions. The reasons against inclusion are given and the fact is: You have newly added the image of Jeh Johnson but you have not given us a single reason for that and why that would significantly help the reader understand the related section that has many views? Please do so.

How does showing an image of one side adds up to NPOV? The section explains the many views from both sides. Want to clutter the whole section with the images the numerous people who expressed there views on the detention condition? That is after all the BLP of Bradley Manning. Why do we need to high lite one single view with an image. That would need some strong reasons but you have not given us a single reason.

No he is not speaking on the behalf of Jeh Johnson. E.G " I came away enormously impressed by the professionalism of the brig staff and reassured that the manner in which they are housing and treating him is appropriate," Morrell said. You might provide some quotes from the source that would support your position. Thank you

-IQinn (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We use images to show readers what people look like. Same reason we have an image of Bradley Manning, but you're not objecting to that one. It won't be an image of just one side, because as I've told you I will be adding other images there too. If you don't like the second part of the cutline, then remove or edit it, but stop the blinding reverting. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your account was created four days ago. If you're a new editor, you may want to know that I'm trying to get the page up to featured article status (an increasingly forlorn hope, but a faint spark remains), which would mean it could be featured on the main page. To do that, the article has to be very neutral. That section as it stands is arguably not neutral (I say "arguably" because in fact I think we do accurately reflect the balance of sources, but it's a difficult thing to judge). Adding an image from the opposing side helps to highlight that there is an opposing side, because it's currently buried. And once the other images are added, assuming I can get releases for them, that highlighting will be further dimmed anyway. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin you are one of our oldest and most sophisticated WP editors. My account created four days ago? What brought you to this false believe? It is false. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm very sorry for that mistake. What happened is that I've having trouble with my SlimVirgin account -- something in my preferences causing a technical issue -- so I created this new account with default preferences to see if it helps. But with SlimVirgin I normally see 1,000 contribs when I look at an editor's history. With this one, I saw just back to March 5 or whenever, and forgot my preferences were different. My apologies! SlimVirgin test account (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I is obviously that it is you who is blindly reverted without answering the questions and engaging in a constructive debate. We do not need this POV image added to the section to show how people look like and it is biased until you add images of the other site that may not even available and all these images would end up anyway in cluttered large collection of dozens of images of people who have somehow weak connection or made some comments? That is the BLP of Bradly Manning and the image of Jeh Johnson and others can be easily found in their BLP's. You have not given us a single reason why the image of Jeh Johnson would significantly help the reader understand the related section that has so many views? Please do so. Thank you. (Addition to the additional comments by SlimVirgin: These opposing views are already in the text of the section and nothing is buried and the text could be edited.) IQinn (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So if Manning's lawyer gives us an image are you going to remove that one too? Please tell me before he goes to the trouble of organizing one. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"too" Uuuuh... i think that has not much to do with the things we discuss here. Does his lawyer has his own WP article? In what section do you want to add this image? After all he is his lawyer. :) As said i do not think that it would be helpful for our readers to clutter the "Detention" section with images of dozens of people who have expressed their views on that topic as it does not significantly help the reader to understand the section that explains all the different views in the text in context. IQinn (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My intention was to add photographs of both lawyers to the detention section -- from Manning's side, his own lawyer; and from the jail's side, the lawyer for the Dept of Defense who inspected the detention conditions. Or if I can't get Manning's lawyer to release one, then an image of David House, who has spoken about the detention. So are you going to object to all of those, because if you are, please say so, and I can withdraw the requests. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed their seems to be no statements made from Jeh Johnson concerning the detention conditions not in the given source. So we could only add the picture "Jeh Johnson visited the brig". On the other site we have tons of statements made by his lawyer. Not only concerning the "strip" naked, sleep and stand naked in front of the other prisoners story. As said not an absolute need for me to include the images of lawyers and no need to include Jeh Johnson's image. There will be many lawyers in this not even started high profile trials. The article has only one image of Manning so far and it should be our priority to add more images of Bradley Manning as this is the BLP about him. No need for a collection of images of other peoples, no head and tail their the articles are not about them the text presents their views and most of them have WP articles where people can see their images. The images of these people do not significantly improve the readers understanding of this section and Bradley Manning the subject of this BLP. It is obviously that many other people will then add other images as well. For example Dennis Kucinich who is an U.S. House of Representatives who came just out on national tv and compares the mistreatment of Bradley Manning with the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. IQinn (talk) 06:51, 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)

Former MI6 Boss says leaks led to Egyptian Revolution

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Manning.org link

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

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)

Any links from this article to http://www.manning.org/ would be completely inappropriate and should be removed. However, that does not seem to be what you are referring to. Apparently you are objecting to a link to a page on the site http://www.bradleymanning.org/ ("Bradley Manning Support Network"). I cannot think of a source more likely to have correct and up-to-date information about the members of the advisory board of an organisation than the organisation's website. Can you?

Your interpretation of ELNO is not correct. ELNO only overrides our rules for sourcing when that makes sense. It is well established that self-published sources such as organisation websites are normally reliable sources for uncontroversial information about the organisation. If you know of any reason to suspect that the Bradley Manning Support Network is lying about its own advisory board, then you must tell us about it.

But that's not the only reason this edit of yours looks like POV pushing. The drive-by-tagging has already been reverted. Without a rationale on the talk page one can easily suspect that you object to the existence of the organisation rather than to the way it is portrayed in the section. Hans Adler 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the drive-by-linking is appreciated. But the section, by its' very title, is POV pushing. True, several groups have developed to support Manning (manning.org, bradleymanning.org, couragetoresist.org, facebook, twibbon.com, etc.). But why is this particular group given prominence in the article? At the same time, where is there mention of the groups who consider him a traitor (facebook traitor page, texasgopvote.com)? Shall we give them a section as well?? Also, ELNO does apply here -- if there was an article about "Manning Support Network", then using their website as a source would be correct. But this is an encyclopedic article about Manning, not his supporters and adding a separate section (using them and their website as the source) for this group is POV. I've tagged the section as unbalanced & citation needed for the first two sentences.--S. Rich (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

S Rich, you were honest enough to note your COI on this issue on your user page. You should perhaps recuse from editing in this area. --John (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see what the objection to this is. This is an article about Manning's arrest and imprisonment, because he had no notability until that happened. A support group with prominent members has sprung up. It seems entirely appropriate to me to explain its existence in its own section, which would include linking to it. The citation needed tags are inappropriate, because the cites are in the footnote at the end of the paragraph. Or rather they were. I see now that someone removed one of them, so I'll restore it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

S Rich, is your objection that the names of the advisory board need a secondary source? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding John's comment -- There is no COI in this issue. I am a retired Judge Advocate and have no official capacity in the military. For comparative purposes I note that Mr. David Edward Coombs, is in fact, still serving as a Reserve Judge Advocate officer and acting as Manning's civilian defense counsel. Moreover, my JAG career also entailed serving as a Defense Counsel and Chief of Legal Assistance. (In those roles I advocated for soldiers and their families.) In any event, each of my edits is subject to the scrutiny of all other interested editors. So I hope and ask that my thoughts and actions be examined for their merit and not be dismissed by ad hominem fallacious argument. --S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To note an apparent conflict of interest is not per se an ad hominem argument but a comment relating to the credibility of a particular editor's contributions in a certain area. I agree with Slim here, that the support website is notable; I'm not sure that it automatically should have an external link as a result. I do think though, S Rich, that you should consider the impression you are making with your background and the edits you are making. It doesn't look neutral. --John (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the supportnetwork section: I note that bradleymanning.org contains a "Sign the Petition" link (http://www.standwithbrad.org/). Again I ask how does the Primary Source inclusion of this website comply with WP:ELNO Nos. 4 & 19? It does not come within WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. On the other hand, here is a cite that tells us that Manning friend David House helped established the Support Network: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_military1276_12_22.asp . Shall we include this as a reference? Perhaps doing so would balance out the section with an "anti-support" subsection. The inclusion of either is a can of worms, which should remained closed. --S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I would agree about not mentioning this if it were just a Facebook group or similar, but it has some very prominent members and has been written about by reliable secondary sources, so it would seem obtuse of us not to refer to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are okay so long as they're not saying anything contentious or providing analysis, but we're not relying on this as a source of anything, except its own advisory board and who started it. I agree that the support network should not be used as a source. If the advisory board membership is the issue, we can look for secondary sources instead.

If you want, we could have a "public reception" section, which would include as one subsection the support network, and as another the negative public responses. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed (and thank you!), we used to have such info without a separate section. In any event, we should use the secondary sources. (Also thank you for pointing out how my cn tags were not needed. I apologize for the trouble caused.) --S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-sourced everything to secondary sources, but have left one link in the footnote to the group's website, though it's not being used as a source, at least not directly (clearly, secondary sources are relying on it for information, but that's okay for our purposes). See the edit here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Srich, the POV tag is still on this section. Does that mean you think it should remain, or can it be removed? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:15, 5 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)

Thanks. If you want the tag to remain, you'll have to explain what edits you were prevented from making (edits that are actionable within the policies), and how their absence is affecting neutrality. If you want to add other material (what you call "anti-support), you're welcome to do so, but as you haven't done it, and no one has removed it, it's premature to tag. See WP:NPOV dispute. Tags should be used as a last resort.

As for whether the network is effective, that's a separate matter. Lots of reliable sources have written about it, so we do the same. We don't consider whether it's effective, or anything else.

Regarding linking to it in a footnote, ELNO doesn't cover that. But even if it did, I can't see which part of ELNO would apply here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with S. Rich here, the section reeks of solicitation. Indeed, this article has become something of a tribute page rather then a biography. V7-sport (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You and S Rich are welcome to add more material to that section, offering a different perspective on the public reaction. No one has prevented that from happening, so it's premature to tag it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the tag. --John (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, I have not prevailed :-( . That's fine. Several weeks ago I removed some of the nasty and inflammatory remarks being made by politicians seeking to show for the nightly news how tough they were. That is, how they wanted to hang/firing squad Manning. I was hoping that WP would not be used as a soap box by either side. But now it looks like the EL camel has gotten its nose under the WP tent with the support network link -- so I've gotten behind the camel and given it a push! Now the camel's eyes and ears are under the tent flap. (And I have, in fact, actually pushed a camel in the past.) So, will the entire camel get into the tent? (After all, if the nose is acceptable, why not the eyes & ears? And then the legs, etc.) In terms of article balance, allowing footnote ELs to some of the nasty headline-grabbing comments by the anti-supporter might be appropriate. But since my background (e.g., supposed COI) is suspect I will defer to others. Besides, the camel did not like it when I gave its' rear a good push! I am steering clear of that end!! --S. Rich (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't really see the point of adding all the related links. SlimVirgin test account (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Camel's nose under the footnote tent was the EL to the Manning Support Network website. (Again, I cannot find any exception for it in the EL policy, not as a footnote nor when an EL is not used as a RS.) But since the nose of this particular EL camel is in the article, the other parts of the camel should be allowed in too, correct? How can we keep them out? These other ELs are just as "legitimate" as any other. For example, my latest addition was Amnesty International's petition to Robert Gates and President Obama regarding the conditions of his imprisonment. Indeed, AI is much more well established as an organization compared to the Support Network. So if the Support Network gets its EL in the article, then AI should as well. And if AI gets its EL in, then others should too.--S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've managed to find two more organizations that are supporting Manning. (It's not hard at all.) And like Amnesty International, these supporting organizations have WP articles. So like Manning Support Network (MSN) and AI, those ELs are now in the footnote section. If my point about including the MSN EL from the beginning as being the camel's nose is not appreciated, I guess the next step is a WP:ELN submission. To avoid that bit of work, I ask that all of these organization ELs be removed.--S. Rich (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've posted this issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an objection on the EL noticeboard to this article containing a link to the Bradley Manning Support Network, in case anyone wants to comment. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have concluded my remarks on the EL Notice board with the following comment: "This edit [6], which less "clearly serves to direct readers to the organization's website" is fine in that it complies with the guidance given in ELNO. The website is SPS, but the listing of the advisory board members is not unduly self-serving in and of itself. Presumably, now, if we find a secondary source (such as this one: [7]) we can use it to describe the advisory board. However, including a link to the support network itself as an ==External links listing would be objectionable in that the Manning article in not about the BMSN. This said, I think we can conclude the discussion. (Most interesting! I thank all who participated and contributed.)" I think the line of discussion here can conclude as well. --S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We're now back where we were 10 days ago. That was a bit of a waste of time. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Lamo as convicted felon

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Agree notable two words people should know, often mentioned by the sources. IQinn (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What Joep01 says may be true, but I have deleted the reference (e.g., mention of Lamo's felony conviction) that he added. Reason: how is Lamo's conviction relevant to the Manning saga? Did Manning contact Lamo because of the felony conviction? Did he even know about the conviction? Lamo's motivations are relevant to his BLP, but I find it hard to understand how the felony conviction, as a possible motivation, is relevant here. --S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So the reference, while sourced and in my belief appropriate, has been deleted. I would welcome input from some other editor(s) so as to confirm/refute that I'm off-base in believing the fact that Manning was denounced by a convicted felon is relevant. I believe that the detail is salient for understanding that Manning's alleged activities very well may not have come to the attention of the government if he had chosen to confide in someone who wasn't a convicted felon and disclosed them to him instead of Lamo. It's not something relevant in the sense of wanting to discredit Lamo or excuse Manning or argue that what Manning did is somehow ok and someone else might not have turned him in. However, my understanding is that Lamo turned-in Manning because he didn't want trouble from the government, which he very well may have had as a convicted felon (if he'd violated the conditions of his plea bargain by not informing the government of his knowledge of alleged-criminal activities).Joep01 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note the edit was restored here: [8] --S. Rich (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks.Joep01 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also noted that it was again deleted. I've restored the reference and the citations as no attempt was made to explain why it was not relevant or to justify deleting the information.Joep01 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We explain in the section about the chat logs that Lamo was convicted for accessing the NYT's network without permission. It would be a violation of our BLP policy to label him as a convicted "felon" in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please support the claim that the verifiable, sourced and factual detail of Lamo's felonious status is a violation of BLP policy, as I disagree.Joep01 (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about him, and this information (properly unpacked) is already in the article, yet you want to repeat it in the lead. It gives us no additional information about him. It doesn't affect anything else in the article, and seems to function only as an attempt to poison the well against him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The mention that Lamo "was convicted in 2004" is a bit vague. If we do not say he was convicted of a felony, we should at least say he was convicted of criminal computer hacking. But, again, I ask -- how does Lamo's criminal conviction pertain to Manning? --S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an anti-Lamo thread on the Web that implies he shouldn't be trusted, in part because he's been convicted of hacking; another argument is that he felt more inclined to go to the authorities because worried about getting into trouble again. Whatever the point is, it's poisoning the well. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ellsberg

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

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)

SlimVirgin, He is an independent commentator who speaks out for Mannings and Assange because of his own experience with the pentagon papers. Your ref does not verify that he is involved in the work of Wikileaks. He is not involved in the work of Wikileaks. Speaking out for something does not make someone involved. IQinn (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The ref I gave does confirm that he's involved with their work. What makes you say it doesn't? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope the ref simply does not confirm that. IQinn (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What does the ref say about him and WikiLeaks, e.g. on pp. vii, 47, or 164? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not confirm that he is directly involved in the work of Wikipedia. You might provide a quote from the ref if you think that is not true. IQinn (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What does it say on p. 47, just to humour me? :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

? IQinn (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I'm going to have to give you a spank, because you removed this twice without checking the source. :) The source (Leigh and Harding, WikiLeaks: The Inside Story), lists him as a WikiLeaks person on p. vii. On p. 47, it explains that Assange invited him to be a public face of WikiLeaks. On p. 164, it explains that it was Ellsberg who handed over the diplomatic cables to the NYT. And there are press releases from WikiLeaks available on the Web, released by Ellsberg among others, e.g. [9] It's very clear that he's been a volunteer for some time. Nothing wrong with that, but it's important to point it out alongside his statements, because he's not coming from this from the outside. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely wrong i checked the source and i stand to what i said. The ref does not verify that he is directly involved in the work of WikiLeaks. I think we are going to spank you if you do not come up with compelling quotes that would prove your point. Secondly the press release is a press release of Ellsberg where he defends WikiLeaks. As said speaking out for something does not make someone involved. So you better provides us with an compelling quote instead of OR like this press release that is one by Ellsberg. To say he is a volunteer for WikiLeaks is misleading. IQinn (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gogulski citizenship

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Thanks, Mike. Maybe we could just say you're an American living in Slovakia, rather than mentioning citizenship. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian Manning on his Son

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Thanks for that link, Trente. I'm watching the video now. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Middle name

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know what the E. stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.24.216 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG He's gay, he must be a terrorist

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Leavenworth prisons

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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)

USDB handles min to max prisoners. They are all part of the same institution, e.g., the "Military Correctional Complex". Article on the "new" facility needs work. In any event, Manning is "goin to Kansas City" (so to speak)--S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources including the networks and the army now say the medium security correctional facility. Manning has not been convicted of anything and he's not accused of being violent. Usual army policy would put him in the less secure facility. Earlier there had been a lot of sources referring to the USDB. Leavenworth is not Kansas City. Americasroof (talk) 04:06, 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)

True. He probably won't see Kansas City International Airport. Instead, he's likely to land/have landed at Sherman Army Airfield, which is 11 miles away as the C-21A flies!--S. Rich (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the sources said he was moved on April 20, Slowking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Defense Department said Tuesday it would transfer the Army private accused of providing classified documents to WikiLeaks to a new detention facility at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas from the brig at Quantico, Va....Pfc. Manning will be moved to Leavenworth on Wednesday, an official said." [13] sorry to get snippy, but important not to read into ref what it does not say Slowking4 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The later refs do give the transfer date, so I've added one of those instead of the earlier one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hacker versus Cracker

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

The sources have been using the term "hacker," so we've done the same. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Cracker" is general parlance does not refer to cracking code but rather is a disparaging term for a rural caucasian. Since Manning was originally born in Oklahoma that could cause confusion.Walterego (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

David House

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Respect for self-professed gender identity

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Bradley's Dual Citizenship

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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)

I'm going to remove this again, and I'd appreciate if people wouldn't continue to restore it. He is American. He spent by all accounts a miserable three years in Wales when he was a teenager, being bullied because he was gay and American.

Through his mother, he is entitled to British citizenship by descent if he wants it, but he has made no request for a British passport, or British protection, or a visit from any British official. It is his mother who has been making these requests, not him, and we deal with that in the article. He made it clear through his lawyer that his nationality is American, and we can't state otherwise in the infobox where it sits without context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the infobox needs to be unambiguous.

His enlistment must have stated American citizenship. To make this claim now would imply he committed perjury when he swore the oath. That means it's probably a BLP violation if we include it. A lot of readers see the infobox but don't get to the explanation.

Granted, perjury isn't the worst accusation against him, but BLP is BLP.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points -- his own lawyer, David Coombs, has said dual citizenship is not an issue -- he is an American. Two, dual citizens and resident aliens (e.g., non-citizens) are welcome to join the US military. Doing so does not change their citizenship status vis-a-vis the US or their home country. (In fact, US military non-citizen servicemembers are entitled to accelerated processing of their applications to become US citizens.) So enlisting in the military would not deprive him of his dual citizenship -- if he had such citizenship. With these factors in mind, SlimVirgin is correct.--S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of British Nationality Law is that he is a British citizen by decent - ie, he does not have to make application for citizenship by descent as (for example) Australians do. He may well have never applied for a British passport but unless he has renounced his British citizenship I believe the British will consider him a citizen. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want to note here that each nation-state is responsible for defining who its citizens are and it is quite common for a person to be considered a citizen of a state even if they don't acknowledged it. A state may force a person to fulfill obligations of citizenship (like military service) against their will and some states (like Iran I believe) don't even have the concept of renunciation of citizenship. Even in states that do it is an application to renounce and nations can and do refuse applications for renunciation. Unless evidence of a successful renunciation is produced I believe the onus of proof lies with those who claim he is not a British citizen since British Nationality Law is quite clear on this point Robert Brockway (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that he lived in the UK for three years. Unless he was resident under a visa issued in his US passport it would appear that he was invoking one of the rights of his British citizenship and as such has acknowledged it (even though this isn't really necessary as I noted above). The argument that he isn't a British citizen is looking pretty thin to me regardless of how much he may have disliked his time in the UK. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not likely. What you're sugggesting is that he had knowingly invoked British citizenship, voluntarily making him a dual-citizen.

While it's true that dual citizens may join the U.S. Army, they can't be given a security clearance. In other words, he'd have to have lied when enlisting, and then again when getting his TS clearance.

I'm with SlimVirgin on this.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You really need to go and reread what I wrote. Your response suggests you fundamentally misunderstood what I said. I don't really have anything else to say. You can choose to disbelieve the evidence if you want but British Nationality Law is clear - he was a British citizen at birth and continues to be unless he formally renounced it. Robert Brockway (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wales

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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 Wales referenced is indeed in the UK.♥GlamRock♥ 11:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I just snatch the prize for confusion? Thanks for answering ♥GlamRock♥ ^-^ Manytexts (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Friends and supporters

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

"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)

Wow, you fellas are speedy. Nevermind! 70.75.92.198 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Transgender

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Citizenship question

Latest comment: 12 years ago62 comments10 people in discussion

(Retrieved first subsection from the archives)

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)

I'm going to remove this again, and I'd appreciate if people wouldn't continue to restore it. He is American. He spent by all accounts a miserable three years in Wales when he was a teenager, being bullied because he was gay and American.

Through his mother, he is entitled to British citizenship by descent if he wants it, but he has made no request for a British passport, or British protection, or a visit from any British official. It is his mother who has been making these requests, not him, and we deal with that in the article. He made it clear through his lawyer that his nationality is American, and we can't state otherwise in the infobox where it sits without context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the infobox needs to be unambiguous.

His enlistment must have stated American citizenship. To make this claim now would imply he committed perjury when he swore the oath. That means it's probably a BLP violation if we include it. A lot of readers see the infobox but don't get to the explanation.

Granted, perjury isn't the worst accusation against him, but BLP is BLP.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points -- his own lawyer, David Coombs, has said dual citizenship is not an issue -- he is an American. Two, dual citizens and resident aliens (e.g., non-citizens) are welcome to join the US military. Doing so does not change their citizenship status vis-a-vis the US or their home country. (In fact, US military non-citizen servicemembers are entitled to accelerated processing of their applications to become US citizens.) So enlisting in the military would not deprive him of his dual citizenship -- if he had such citizenship. With these factors in mind, SlimVirgin is correct.--S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of British Nationality Law is that he is a British citizen by decent - ie, he does not have to make application for citizenship by descent as (for example) Australians do. He may well have never applied for a British passport but unless he has renounced his British citizenship I believe the British will consider him a citizen. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want to note here that each nation-state is responsible for defining who its citizens are and it is quite common for a person to be considered a citizen of a state even if they don't acknowledged it. A state may force a person to fulfill obligations of citizenship (like military service) against their will and some states (like Iran I believe) don't even have the concept of renunciation of citizenship. Even in states that do it is an application to renounce and nations can and do refuse applications for renunciation. Unless evidence of a successful renunciation is produced I believe the onus of proof lies with those who claim he is not a British citizen since British Nationality Law is quite clear on this point Robert Brockway (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that he lived in the UK for three years. Unless he was resident under a visa issued in his US passport it would appear that he was invoking one of the rights of his British citizenship and as such has acknowledged it (even though this isn't really necessary as I noted above). The argument that he isn't a British citizen is looking pretty thin to me regardless of how much he may have disliked his time in the UK. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not likely. What you're sugggesting is that he had knowingly invoked British citizenship, voluntarily making him a dual-citizen.

While it's true that dual citizens may join the U.S. Army, they can't be given a security clearance. In other words, he'd have to have lied when enlisting, and then again when getting his TS clearance.

I'm with SlimVirgin on this.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You really need to go and reread what I wrote. Your response suggests you fundamentally misunderstood what I said. I don't really have anything else to say. You can choose to disbelieve the evidence if you want but British Nationality Law is clear - he was a British citizen at birth and continues to be unless he formally renounced it. Robert Brockway (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning's dual citizenship

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.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning/Archive_3#Bradley.27s_Dual_Citizenship

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)

Your sources aren't sufficient. The Guardian article says Amnesty is making this claim, not that the British government has agreed to it, or that it's true.

The legislation piece is more compelling but it's not a secondary source, as is (oddly, imo) required by Wikipedia guidelines. From my point of view, it should be in the article, but not the infobox.

Personally, I'd like for it to be true. It would be nice to have the British share the blame for his (alleged) treason, just as I'm sure many Norwegians would feel a bit better if Anders Breivik was a dual citizen as well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 11:48, 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:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110404/debtext/110404-0004.htm#11040438000002

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

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367746/WikiLeaks-soldier-Bradley-Mannings-freedom-speech-row-Julian-Assange-UK.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)

Since we are at an impasse I have referred the matter here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bradley_Manning. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As others have explained, we ought to stick to "American" for the nationality/citizenship in Wikipedia's voice, whether in the infobox or elsewhere in the article. The article does discuss the British rules about citizenship using secondary sources, where we explain the British perspective.

Manning was born and raised in America, which makes him American, and he self-identifies only as American. He fits British government rules for British citizenship by descent, because his mother was born in Wales, but Manning's lawyer has explicitly said Manning does not want this: "There has been some discussion regarding PFC Bradley Manning's citizenship. PFC Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen. He is an American, and is proud to be serving in the United States Army. His current confinement conditions are troubling to many both here in the United States and abroad. This concern, however, is not a citizenship issue." [14]

That a particular government's rules would make that person a citizen if they wanted to be one, doesn't mean Wikipedia can say that person is such a citizen as a matter of fact—where he rejects it and it plays no role in his life—just as a group of religious leaders can't force a religion on someone just because that person fits their rules for "who is an X".

Also, Auerfeld, you wrote that you were spearheading a campaign about this in the UK, so it would be best if you didn't edit that aspect of the article, per COI. Ditto with anyone else involved in the campaign, though by all means make suggestions here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm changing my mind now that Auerfeld added more links.

I'm not yet taking a firm position on whether it should be listed in the infobox, but if the British government explicitly says he's a dual-citizen, and if that makes them show an official interest in his treatment, then he is a dual-citizen for our purposes.

There are refs from U.S. and U.K. papers. That should be good enough.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article, Randy. We're talking only about the infobox here. He does not want to be a British citizen. He has never asked them to intervene. They have barely intervened, and have been criticized by the British campaign for their failure to intervene. For reasons I don't understand there is a group in the UK that is campaigning over this. Auerfeld is leading it, and she wants that POV to be in the infobox in Wikipedia's voice. It is inappropriate. If Jewish law says someone is Jewish, we don't add that to the infobox over the subject's objections. Ditto with nationality and anything similar. It has to be uncontested by the subject, and clearly part of his life before Wikipedia can place it in the project's voice (which is what the infobox is). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where information in the infobox is described as being "in the project's voice"? I would think that, prima facie, that is quite difficult to assess in most situations.

The Wikipedia Help page for infoboxes says that: "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles. For instance, all animals have a scientific classification (species, family and so on), as well as a conservation status. Adding a

to articles on animals therefore makes it easier to quickly find such information and to compare it with that of other articles.

"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."

Unless I am missing something fundamental, Bradley's British citizenship, as a verified fact which is significant enough to be noted in the main text, qualifies for inclusion here. It's not just me saying this. Auerfeld (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy. That's great to hear. My position is that the infobox should just reflect verifiable truth. Robert Brockway (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, same here. I've updated the infobox as per the compromise solution reached here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bradley_Manning I'd be delighted if that could be my last intervention on the matter, believe me!

Auerfeld (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Break

Hi SlimVirgin. As I've noted before, acceptance of the status is not a requirement for citizenship. You've conceded that British nationality laws make him a British citizen but state that he doesn't want to be. The way automatically conferred citizenship like this works is that if he qualifies he is a citizen unless he applies to renounce it and the renunciation is accepted. No one has made any assertion that he has attempted renunciation at any point. I've already covered this in posts I've made previously. It's my understanding that all of the people involved in this discussion have accepted that he fits the legal definition of British citizenship by descent. Surely that is enough for us to state it in the article and infobox. Robert Brockway (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, that's the British government's point of view. It's not Manning's, and it can't be presented in Wikipedia's voice as uncontested fact. We take a neutral, global perspective, not a British government one. And the point of view that matters most in issues like this is the subject's; see my post below about calling someone a Jew in an infobox just because Jewish law says he is. The idea that someone must formally renounce a religion or citizenship (or anything) just because an outside institution that he has otherwise no connection with says so is really quite offensive; I realize that people mean well in this case, but that's not the point.

Manning was born and raised in the United States, and regards himself as only an American citizen, so that's what we say in the infobox. This seems to be an important point for him, because his lawyer specifically addressed it, [15] and he has never asked the British government to intervene. Others have requested it, but he has not. The details along with sources are discussed in the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim, the requirement for self-affirmation in reporting nationality/citizenship does not seem to present in Wikipedia guidelines, so what you are saying above falls into the category of independent judgement about what should and should not be included in WP articles. This seems a bit dodgy from a NPOV / NOR point of view. The guidelines of biographies of living persons give a requirement for self-affirmation for the inclusion of religion and sexuality categorisations in biographies of living people - but not citizenship which is, after all, fundamentally a legal question. The Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies is quite clear that such questions are to be determined "according to each nationality law of the countries". Full references are included in my responses towards the bottom of this page. Auerfeld (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk)

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.

I am happy with the compromise and have no desire to work further on this provided that compromise is maintained.

Auerfeld (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't say he is British in Wikipedia's voice, because he does not accept it. It is just one point of view. It's appropriate for the article, but not for the infobox.

Auerfeld, if I were to discover that your grandmother had been born as a Jew, and you were notable enough for me to write an article about you, you are saying I should be able to add "Jewish" to your infobox, because according to Jewish law, that made you Jewish. And that I should do this even though you did not regard yourself as a Jew, and in fact explicitly rejected it.

Also, you've violated the 3RR policy, including after being told about it on your talk page, so if the reverting continues, it's likely to be reported. Also please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The British Government has intervened on Bradley's behalf, on the basis of his being a British citizen. It's more than a point of view and is backed up by numerous press sources. You are citing a statement by Bradley's lawyer which is explicitly discussed in some of those sources and assessed as making no difference to the fact that Bradley holds UK citizenship. In addition, as Robert points out above, there has been no suggestion that Bradley has renounced his UK citizenship, which is what "explicitly rejected" would entail.

I'm happy (happier in fact) for someone else to make the appropriate changes, but the changes do need to be made.

Auerfeld (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm -- do I see language in the Nationality Act that say the person must apply for registration as a British citizen? And that an oath must be taken in order to complete the registration process? Do that language apply here? If so, were the newspapers picking up on a theme that had no actual legal foundation? Hmmmm? --S. Rich (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not in regards to citizenship by descent under the terms of Article 2, no. 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Auerfeld, see my post above to Robert, and please take the point that outside institutions can't announce: "You are Jewish according to Jewish law, and until you formally renounce it," and ask Wikipedia to add that in Wikipedia's voice. That's not how our policies work, and with respect it's a very oppressive idea.

There is a campaign in the UK to have him regarded as a British citizen by descent, which he is entitled to under British law because of his mother's birthplace. It is sourced and is discussed in the article. But trying to force it into the infobox violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It isn't acceptable for you to try to involve Wikipedia in your offwiki campaign. I realize you mean well, but it's for Manning alone to decide whether he wants to choose a second nationality (or religion, or anything else), or to ask another government to intervene, and he has done neither. If he ever accepts that he is a British citizen, we can certainly add it to the infobox. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument here is that Bradley Manning *has* been recognised as a British citizen by descent, as has been stated in numerous sources. It's a fact that exists independently of whether Bradley decides to assert his status or not - but the fact that it has resulted in newsworthy developments in the case means it is of some significance. I am confused as to what would make it worthy of inclusion in the article, but not the infobox. Obviously, I'm happy to abide by whatever the Wikipedia rules are here, but I'd appreciate it if you could show me what they are. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to get another opinion on this. Auerfeld (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But HE has not recognized it, and that's what counts, because without that recognition from him it plays no part in his life. Please address the issue I asked about before. If I discovered your grandmother was born a Jew, should I be able to add to your infobox that you are Jewish because Jewish law says so—and newspapers reported that Jewish law says so, because I started a campaign to have you made Jewish—even though you explicitly say you are not Jewish, and don't want to be Jewish?

As for our rules about this, please read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the rules and they don't back up your contention that self-identification is "what counts" where nationality and citizenship is concerned. As another editor just below has noted, your metaphor is based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes law - and Wikipedia itself is careful to make the distinction. The Style Manual for biographies is actually quite explicit that what matters is "the nationality laws of the countries concerned." I've included full references to both points at the end of this thread and I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Auerfeld (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I want to add that it isn't fair on Wikipedians to make Wikipedia part of your offwiki campaign. Please see WP:NOT, specifically WP:SOAPBOX. You're causing several of us to have to spend our volunteer time explaining the issue repeatedly, while you engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continue reverting, including possibly while logged out. Whether the infobox says he is British or not will have zero effect on anything you are doing, so this is a waste of time from every perspective. As I said before, I realize your intentions are good, and I respect that, but that's not the only thing that matters here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Comments about Jewish law. This is a misleading comparison, and betrays a crucial misunderstanding of what is at issue here. "Jewish Law" describes largely scriptural norms adhered to as part of religious and cultural observance by discrete communities of people. These rules - where they make prescriptions about whether or not an individual is Jewish or otherwise - carry weight only with reference to other people who subscribe to them. Anyone who disagrees with these prescriptions is entirely free to do so. This isn't law, for the present purposes.

On the other hand, when the UK parliament enacts legislation, that becomes the law of the land. Citizens of the UK are not free to disagree with the law of the UK - that is the nature of the law. If Bradley Manning is a citizen by descent, pursuant to the Act of 1981, and it seems clear that he is, he is not free to pretend otherwise. It is worth remembering that UK courts retain the prerogative for deciding when UK law applies and when it does not, too. The discretion as to whether he is a citizen by descent is entirely out of his hands. He is empowered, by law, to renounce his UK citizenship, but failing that he retains UK citizenship along with his US citizenship. Fionnmatthew (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the references to the wikipedia guidance, which make the bounds of what we are debating a lot clearer. I do think that seeking to ensure that a Wikipedia article includes verified and significant facts about its subject is a worthwhile endeavour.

Let's go through this carefully. You refer me to the guidance on Due and Undue weight. I have provided you with at least six reputable secondary sources - many of which (the Guardian, Washington Post) do recognise some of the points you have raised, for instance Coombs' statement, and carefully weigh up those considerations. These sources are themselves balanced, and you should note that both come to the conclusion that Bradley is a UK citizen. Moreover, what you are arguing - that nationality/citizenship details that are presented in an infobox needs to be self-affirmed - does seem to be an independent judgement of yours that is not supported in the guidance you have shown me.

You refer me to the guidelines on biographies of living persons. The guidelines talk about possibly contentious material needing to be referenced properly - which I believe I have done. I also found the passage which I think you were referring to above:

Categories, lists and navigation templates

Policy shortcut:

WP:BLPCAT

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation.

Link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates

The citizenship of Bradley Manning has nothing to do with either "religious beliefs or sexual orientation" - and this is where your oft-repeated relgious metaphor falls down. Unless you feel that being identified as a British citizen is tantamount to suggesting that Bradley Manning has a poor reputation, whether he has "publicly self-identified" as such is not relevant. According to the guidelines, all that matters for the purposes of the infobox is that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." Bradley Manning's British citizenship status is borne out by multiple sources and is of sufficient significance to be mentioned in the main body text of the article. It should therefore be included in the infobox, certainly if you are including his American citizenship there. I hope this now resolves the issue. Auerfeld (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As an additional note on Wikipedia guidelines for listing citizenship, the Manual of Style for Biographies (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29) gives the following guidance for reporting on contextual information in the first paragraph of a biographical article:

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.

This is very clear as to the place of self-affirmation in the Wikipedia policy on reporting citizenship. Auerfeld (talk) 12:44, 29 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)

Hi Ukexpat. My concern here is the truth. I consider the statement that Manning has British citizenship to be fairly innocuous. It is supported by ample evidence from numerous sources and yet it is being kept out of the article. This troubles me, which is why I haven't let this go. I don't really have anything to add to the discussion at this point - along with other people I've presented objective evidence, but that apparently isn't enough. Robert Brockway (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ukexpat, Bradley's citizenship has resulted in official action being taken on his behalf. Even if you do take the position that some basic, verifiable and well-supported biographical facts do not belong in a subject's wikipedia article (which I find difficult, I must say), this particular fact certainly meets the significance / notability test. Auerfeld (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

British government response

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)

It seems to me there are very few crucial points. What does the UK law on citizenship say? It says that "A person born outside the United Kingdom [...] 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." (British Nationality Act of 1981)

Was Manning born after commencement of this statute? It commenced in 1981. He was born in 1987. Yes, then. he was.

Was Manning's mother a British citizen at the time of his birth, otherwise than by descent. Yes, his mother was and remains a British citizen by birth.

Manning is, then, a British citizen, unless he can be shown to have formally renounced his citizenship, and had that formal renunciation registered by the UK Secretary of State, pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Everything else is irrelevant. It is irrelevant what he thinks, because this is the law. It is irrelevant what the court-martial says, because it is not within the jurisdiction of the court martial to rule on the application of a UK statute. It is irrelevant what Hague said, because he is not an impartial source but a political actor: he is trying desperately to avoid being obliged to make politically inconvenient overtures to an allied government. It is irrelevant whether there are secondary or primary sources available for this fact, because it is logically implied by the facts we all agree on. Given the law, which is unambiguous, and a few facts about Manning, which are uncontested, it is logically necessitated that he holds UK citizenship. Everyone seems to accept what the law says. Everyone seems to accept the facts. Everyone should therefore accept the implication.

There should be a strong presumption that Manning is a UK citizen. The burden of proof is on those who would claim that he is not. Certain things would support that case. Evidence that he has been registered as having revoked his citizenship would count. Failing the provision of that, it ought to be conceded that he is a UK citizen, and the infobox ought to reflect this. Fionnmatthew (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the careful way Manning's lawyer phrased it, there's nothing firm in that statement. He left plenty of wiggle room in case he decides to make a claim later on.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some pertinent questions and answers: Is there evidence that Manning registered as a UK citizen? No, there is no evidence that he ever registered. If he did not register, I would think there is nothing to renounce. But, Does a UK citizen remain a UK citizen (unless the citizenship is renounced) even if the person never registered as a UK citizen? That question has not been answered by anyone. If Manning was not registered, did the UK government have any formal concern or standing to raise questions with the US government? I don't think so, but they seem to have done something along that line. Even if Manning was registered as a UK citizen, would it have mattered? Absolutely not.

This is a tempest in a teapot -- stirred up in order to have international pressure brought upon the US government when Manning's confinement conditions were -- shall we say -- unpleasant. More questions and answers: What did the British government do? They asked "Are you treating Manning properly?" And what did the US government say in response? "Why, yes, we are." (And that was the end of it.) As for the court-martial, it does not matter if he is a UK citizen registered, unregistered, renounced or non-renounced. He is subject to the jurisdiction of US military law and his UK (or any other) citizenship will not deprive him of equal protection under the law. (E.g., UK citizens who serve in the US military do not get any special treatment.) The most reliable source regarding the legal question of Manning's citizenship status is his lawyer -- he has the training, experience, and motivation to make the analysis and to give a proper opinion on the issue. By contrast, there were speeches in the House of Commons and there were articles written by newspaper reporters. What legal training or experience do those people have? Finally, I wonder about the "there should be a strong presumption" statement? Do strong presumptions fulfill WP:V? --S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Under the 1981 act, and following the commencement of that act, children born to at least one citizen of the UK other than by (edit:) descent automatically acquire citizenship at birth. Citizenship by application to register is necessary only in circumstances where an individual enjoys a status making them eligible for British citizenship, but where they do not yet enjoy said citizenship. Manning was a British citizen at birth.

This is a binary matter. Manning is either a UK citizen or he is not. A strong presumption is created by the law at hand in concert with the facts at hand, by modus ponens. I am saying that, prima facie, given the facts at hand, a staunch burden of proof rests with those who would claim otherwise. By contrast, you are taking a strong presumption that Manning is not a British citizen, apparently contrary to the facts at hand, or the law at hand, or in anticipation of some new evidence. Does your strong presumption fulfill WP:V?

I fail to see what relevance the diplomatic conversation between the UK and US governments in the matter of Manning's treatment has for the isolated matter of his citizenship. You appear to be bringing it up because 'it wouldn't have mattered for his case if he was.' I fail to see why that form of reasoning should have any traction when the objective is factual accuracy and not political expediency. If Manning is indeed a British citizen, as I believe he is, and as I believe the facts at hand show him to be, it ought to be immaterial to any of us what difference it makes to his trial. The prospect that Wikipedia would state otherwise than the truth, however - you say - minor, ought not to be a hospitable one.

As I have already stated, the public statements of Coombs - whether or not they indeed provide weight for your assertion, which I hold they do not - are immaterial. If you have read the law of 1981 and believe it to correctly state the law of the UK, and if you hold, as do we all, that Manning is born of a Welsh mother, you are compelled to accept that he was a British citizen at birth. Fionnmatthew (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

-

(EC) Perhaps I missed it but I don't see any where his lawyer has given a legal analysis of the citizenship issue. He has said that Manning doesn't have a British passport and does not consider himself a British citizen and and doesn't consider the citizenship issue relevant which is a rather different thing. In any case, I have doubts his lawyer has much experience or knowledge of British law so even if he had carried out a legal analysis, it should be considered with care. However I do agree British nationality doesn't belong in the infobox if Manning doesn't consider himself a British citizen, regardless of whether or not he technically is one. Also all this legal analysis and intepretation of British or any other law by wikipedians should stop since it's completely OT (and has gone on for long enough) Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't take it that way at all. I see it as the lawyer wanting Manning to feign some level of patriotism now while leaving an option open for later. Manning could renounce British citizenship if he wanted to. He hasn't done so.

I agree with S. Rich where he says, "This is a tempest in a teapot -- stirred up in order to have international pressure brought upon the US government when Manning's confinement conditions were -- shall we say -- unpleasant."

They will whip up that international pressure when it suits them. It could be important to them in sentencing, and more important still if this could change into a death penalty case.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even without any legal analysis by Wikipedians there are ample third party sources claiming he holds British citizenship. The continued blocking of this information in the face of so many citations is coming across to me like suppression of facts. If this can be kept out of Wikipedia despite so much supporting evidence then what else can be kept out? I think this sort of problem threatens the integrity of the project. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, none of those questions are particularly pertinent - and, although the response below about automatic acquisition is correct in all factual repects, that is not the reason why those questions are not pertinent. What is pertinent is that Bradley's status as a UK citizen has been reported by numerous reputable sources, on the basis of the law and a statement in Parliament. Most of those sources take David Coombs' statement into account in their analysis and give it its proper weight. This is not a minority position, nor is it expressing a partial point of view. It is also not the case that Bradley Manning needs to self-affirm his citizenship status in order for it to be included in an infobox (see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates) That's all that actually matters for Wikipedia purposes. Auerfeld (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see that you've started to seek out the references,although you have missed the most important one The statement from William Hague you cite dates from 16 March 2011 - this was the first time Bradley's case was brought up in Parliament, at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Hansard link is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/03.htm This wasn't picked up by international press, to the best of my knowledge.

Bradley's case was then raised by Ann Clwyd MP again at Business Questions the following day, formally requesting that a full debate be held. The third time Bradley's name was brought up in Parliament was in the adjournment debate that Ann Clwyd asked for, which took place on the evening of 4th April. This is the critical point at which the FCO acknowledged Bradley's citizenship status (note the italics!):

I know that there will be many who feel that we should do more in the light of reports of Private Manning's links to the UK. The UK Government have a duty to protect his privacy and as such it would not be appropriate to discuss his nationality without his consent. I note that his lawyer wrote on his blog on 2 February:

   :"Private... Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen".

Therefore, it is clear that he neither is asking for our help, nor considering himself to be British. Although I have said that we do not normally discuss a person's nationality without their consent, I will say that the right hon. Lady's understanding of the British Nationality Act 1981 is accurate. Any person born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 whose mother is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent.

Hansard: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/

As noted in my initial submission to this Talk page, this debate - in which it was also confirmed that the British Government would be making a second representation to the US State Department - was reported in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html) and The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/bradley-manning-british-government-concern) among other papers. The fact that British Government acknowledgement of Bradley Manning's citizenship has been reported by reputable sources should be sufficient for Wikipedia purposes - so I agree we don't need to go in to detail about the law here.

I have also demonstrated above, that - under the Wikipedia guidance on infoboxes in biographies of living persons (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates), nationality or citizenship is not one of those categories that needs to be "publicly self-affirmed". It is neither germane to Bradley's religious or sexual identity, nor does it put him in a bad light. If there is debate about the meaning of the guidelines, then the sensible route forward is to find a third party who can help us decide on that. Auerfeld (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(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)

(Copy of response on North8000's talk page)Hi North8000

Thanks very much for your comments. I note what you say about nationality conveying a difference sense to citizenship - this is not the way I see things, but if others do, I take that on board. Perhaps the solution here is to indicate somehow that what is being referred to as nationality in the infobox is not the same as citizenship - either to link the reference to the discussion in the main body text or, alternatively to leave it out altogether as you suggest. I think that, as long as it does not appear that Wikipedia is making a judgement that Bradley is 'not' a UK citizen, then the basic demands of accuracy are fulfilled.

I'll also post this to the article talk page - thanks again.

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another analogy

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)

Hi SlimVirgin. I seem to recall that you mentioned somewhere that the article body said he held British citizenship. I can't seem to find that, could you point it out to me? This discussion isn't necessarily about the infobox; If the article said he was a British citizen I may be satisfied even if the infobox didn't. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I got an edit conflict replying to this, then you removed it, so I hope you don't mind that I restore it with the response in case anyone else asks. It's in this section, third paragraph. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. Thanks. I actually removed it because I found the reference. I've changed British national to British citizen as I believe this is the correct term in British law. I actually didn't realise that the infobox was held to a higher standard than the rest of the article (ie, undisputed information). I'd consider leaving the infobox as is, as long as the article did make it clear that he is a British citizen under British law (based on citations). This could be considered a compromise solution :) Robert Brockway (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has said that for several months, so I'm glad you're fine with it. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says that the British Government made a diplomatic representation to the United States in late March on the basis of a request by Amnesty, which understates the situation. It would help if it was clear that the British Government had acknowledged, in the House of Commons, that Bradley was a citizen and made a second diplomatic approach to the State Department in early April on that basis. This was widely reported at the time and I've supplied three links above. Auerfeld (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is another very poor analogy - citizenship of a democratic country is in no way akin to forced marriage. You might also bear in mind that you are relying heavily on a statement issued while its subject was in military detention in the United States, a statement that doesn't actually deny the underlying situation - if you read it carefully. Auerfeld (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

WP:IBX says KISS. I'm with SV. --S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

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)

Hi Robert, Thanks for all your help here. I think that as long as the British Government's acknowledgement of Bradley's status as a citizen and their second diplomatic approach to the State Department is included in the body text of the article, we're fine. I've provided quite a few references for this above. Maybe SlimVirgin could let us know if he thinks this is OK? Auerfeld (talk) 12:44, 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)

Sounds good. But if there is some info that is clear-cut, relevant & reliably sourced, someone should not have to run a gauntlet to get it into the article. Auerfeld could argue that saying simply / only "American" is contested and so shouldn't be in the info box, so we need to make sure that they don't have to run a gauntlet just to get to the middle ground. (BTW, I think he is simply American, so this is not based on my POV.) North8000 (talk) 16:01, 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)

Any court date set?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Bradley Manning is transgender -- POV Check

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

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.

^[4]

(edit conflict) Where are the clear refs that he considers himself transgender? ...and accusing people who are following policies of being transphobic? ...that isn't too bright...why would you make that leap?

In any event, you need consensus amongst other editors on this talk page before you attempt to assert the pronoun changes as they are potentially controversial. Where are the reliable sources which state that he considers himself a transgender?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Apology accepted...don't worry about it. To me this is Wiki business; I'm following our policies...and so far, you've made a very, very weak case that looks more like original research and synthesis. I'd suggest that you find more sources to shore up your arguments. Fair enough?

Btw, one's preference about what they want to be called doesn't trump reality to me regardless of circumstances (but that is neither here nor there).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:21, 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)

WP strives to use WP:Gender-neutral language and the WP:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language guidance is "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Using plural personal pronouns such as "They" and "Their", even if intended to be gender-neutral, fails to meet this standard. (We are WP editors -- not great authors.) At present there is no generally accepted English pronoun for someone who has or is undergoing gender realignment (for lack of a better term).

Compare the etymology of Ms. -- while the term had been around for a long time, it was not until the 1960's that it because acceptable. But "Ms." does not have the problem of being comparable or the equivalent of another widely accepted word. So, until He (PFC Manning) undergoes Sex reassignment surgery and/or clearly tells the world he is transgender, the only WP:NPOV way to describe him -- with natural syntax -- is to use third person singular personal pronouns. (Also, Manning's chats are somewhat vague. "as [a] boy" could easily refer to his young appearance. Please don't seek to WP:RGW by reading too much into the chat. WP is not the place for such struggles.)--S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, look at how "they" and "their" makes portions of the article confusing. Does "they" refer to both Bradley and his sister in the early life and education section? Did both siblings enlist in the Army? (The paragraph immediately preceding suggests both were miserable so it is logical to read it that way. Then, if both Mannings enlisted, did they both get into trouble for hitting an officer? X-mass, your edit is highly disruptive. Please do not persist in this -- Wikipedia does not exist for you to use to make a point.

Finally, if you think that using the plural third person pronoun is really the proper way to describe Manning, why aren't you using the plural first person pronoun to describe yourself?--S. Rich (talk) 00:45, 29 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)

I agree on keeping the gender as the public records say.

We're going to get a lot more legal documentation as the case goes to trial. They will all refer to him as a male.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If there were some commonly accepted English language pronouns that described Manning's gender in the context of Manning's self-concept, that would be one thing. "She" does not work because Manning has not undergone gender reassignment and labeling Manning as a "she" has been done in earlier POV motivated edits as a pejorative slur. "They", "Their" and other plural pronouns do not work because these terms are not a commonly accepted usage for a single person.

I hope we have a WP:CONSENSUS. If so, I'd like to WP:CLOSE this discussion and edit the article to clean up the confusing use of plural third person pronouns.--S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One other editor (IP) has reverted some of the improper pronoun usage. The entire article is now aligned with correct (non-POV) pronouns. With this I have removed the POV Check banner and am closing the discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2011 (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.

Public statement

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

When can we expect a court date?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

File:Bradley Manning Protest 2011 Shankbone.JPG Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

What should I do?

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.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

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)

Manning and GID - article as stands violates MOS:IDENTITY

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

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:

The source seems pretty clear, and a bit of scouting around seems to verify this.
The chat logs from Adriam Lamo (not a reputable source) credit Manning as having described a male identity becoming famous in the media as an extremely bad thing. It is... on the verge of abusive to leave the article as it is; even if we admit uncertainty it's not worth the risk to not change things.

Con immediate change:

MOS:IDENTITY states "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.". However, it's not clear that Manning has **publically** expressed a self-identification.

Suggestion:

Move Bradley Manning to Corporal Manning ASAP, leaving a redirect from Bradley Manning and Breanna Manning. This would be compatible with Chastity Bono being a redirect to Chaz Bono, and could be updated later.

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.)

A new article on Manning would not be appropriate. WP:NAMES gives guidance how we use the names of individuals. He is "Bradley Manning". His rank, presently Private First Class, is not part of his name. (Nor would "Corporal" be appropriate for his name, much less article title.) Moreover, this is simply an Article 32 hearing, much like a grand jury hearing. It will be interesting to see if this defense is asserted in trial.

In other words, hold on to your horses. There is no urgency that raises this question to an "ASAP" status.--S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Further MOS:IDENTITY isn't policy, it is just a guideline which in this case I would IAR as it is poorly derived. Quite frankly, I don't care what he prefers...that is his conflict; not ours (he is the one who is confused). The courts shall be using "he" - so should we. He might also decide that he is royalty and prefer styling such as "Royal Highness" but that too would be succinctly ignored.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter: Frankly, I don't care if you care what Manning prefers. Wikipedia has a style guide which precludes transphobia.

I'll hold off making any drastic changes at the moment, but might start cleaning up the pronouns where it's possible to do so. 7daysahead (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You lack consensus. I'm not transphobic and I don't mind calling Chaz Bono a "he".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to over-eagerly assume bad faith, but to me the original comment smacks of transphobia. It is quite a leap to call a trans-identified individual "confused," and any inconsistencies between the current article and the subject's gender identification most certain are our problem. In addition to violating good style, it provides a misrepresentation of the subject on what is an evolving news story of increasing prominence. I may not be as versed in policy as some, but it seems the most appropriate and tactful direction to take would be un-gendering the article (moving the article to "B. Manning with both Breanna Manning and Bradley Manning redirecting, using gender neutral language, etc) and adding a subsection about her current GID defense. As the story evolves, the article could be changed to reflect that evolution. But, as the story stands, it would be prudent to remove what current evidence suggests is a complete misgendering of the articles subject. Also, for someone who just cited IAR, it seems strange to demand consensus. Mr. G. Williams (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, prudence would dictate waiting as S. Rich has stated. With a discussion going on here, it would be disruptive if 7days flew in the face of it and attempted to enforce his will on everyone else. And no, we can throw out nearly everything you have said (it is your bad faith). It is his attorneys who have stated that he is gender-confused, "The alleged WikiLeaker's lawyers argue that the Army should never have given an emotionally unstable, gender-confused soldier access to state secrets" (Yahoo news), and "His defence lawyer, David Coombs, highlighted emails his client had sent to a superior officer explaining that confusion about his gender identity was impacting on his ability to do his job." (from BBC). Since they also indicate that he is emotionally unstable, confused and prepping an insanity plea then no, we don't need to placate him.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the real concern here is maintaining NPOV in an increasingly controversial story rather than placating Manning. While the circumstances surrounding the release of information regarding Manning's gender identity are dubious at best, a number of the sources (some fairly credible) fairly clearly show Manning preferring female identification. The way the media handles Manning's gender identity is very rapidly becoming news itself. I feel like by continuing the use of male identification we are-- inadvertently-- taking a side. An article that avoids gendered language wouldn't be incorrect or poor style in either circumstance, whether it turns out that Manning's gender identification issues have been misrepresented by the defense or not. A gender neutral article is neither politicized nor misleading: it is simply careful. Edit: Also, I recognize my first comment was unfairly aggressive. Sorry.Mr. G. Williams (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We are taking a side - ours. We have a policy of using what is stated in reliable sources and policies generally trump guidelines. Since mainstream sources are using "he" then that is what we should continue to use. If & when usage of "she" predominates in mainstream sources then we can revisit this argument. NPOV is using what is stated in reliable sources. (Btw, neither of your links above were working so I've adjusted them in good faith...and apology accepted (no problem :).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues to consider: 1. Has a formal psychiatric diagnosis of gender identity disorder been made? If not, it's probably inappropriate for us to launch into a "he vs she"/"his vs her" pronoun debate. 2. Has Manning declared gender one way or the other? Again, if no declaration it's inappropriate to change the existing pronoun usage. 3. Even if he actually has the disorder, is it appropriate to make changes absent some declaration from Manning?

Seems to me that the purported defense (at this stage) is simply a trial balloon. (There is a lot of evidence showing that he released the info improperly.) So if it works, then fine. At that point, when Manning comes out, we can change the pronouns in the article.--S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Manning has made it clear on a number of occasions that she's a trans woman, In the 2010 chats with Lamo she said she doesn't want to be known as a boy, and now a number of respected media outlets have reported that her defense has identified her as "Breanna" to the court, here and here. Also, the talk of needing a "diagnosis" could come across quite offensively. Cisgendered people don't need a "diagnosis" of their gender, because your gender isn't a disease that needs diagnosis.Redchiron (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are trying too hard to make/assist Manning with the gender transformation. The two articles you linked do not have his defense referring or identifying Manning as Breanna. The Twitter name was a handle/username/alternate name. Lots of people have alter-egos, fantasy life, etc. The defense has raised the disorder as a defense -- they may be pushing for a "diminished capacity" or "insanity defense". None of this means Manning has actually transformed or declared as transformation. So it's premature for us to change pronouns, much less create a new article.--S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(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)

Again, we use what the mainstream reliable sources use. I suggest we let this discussion roll for at least a week to allow time for other editors to comment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it should be so. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but I do ask that you apologise for misgendering me. 7daysahead (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've informed him that you are female, Berean Hunter knows not to call you a "he" again. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to rapidly be moving into the "too cranky to function" territory. It's probably best for everyone to step back and wait for either more viewpoints or for more news to be released. Also, in the event that Manning were to make a public statement or a court statement (I assume statements are given in an article 32; I don't know much about the actual proceedings of courts martial) affirming a female identity, how are we planning to move from there? It might be best to have a consensus before the fact so that edits can be made quickly to keep the article up to date. Since Manning would still hold the legal name "Bradley" and would also be publicly known as such, the article could probably reasonably stay at its current location while female pronouns could be used throughout the article. Perhaps change the lead to "Breanna Manning (born Bradley Manning on December 17, 1987)..." Of course, this is all acting on the presumption that an on-record statement by Manning is sufficient grounds for altering the article's gender-usage-- I would take such as event as hard evidence of a changed gender identity and consequently grounds for altering the article. Mr. G. Williams (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush; this is going to take time. Our policy concerning common names mandates that Wikipedia follow what is prevalent in reliable sources. It would be interesting to see what the mainstream media do if & when all this comes to light. If they trend in the direction of using gender-neutral or female pronouns then there is reason to consider changing the WP article; if they don't change their use of the "he" pronoun then there is no reason to do so here regardless of Manning's declarations (that he hasn't made yet). We use these policies so that we avoid advocacy issues and people trying to right great wrongs.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You're saying we got to wait for the news media to respect trans rights to stop misgendering Manning by changing the article's heading and pronouns... Practically, you are saying that wikipedia will never refer to Breanna as she clearly prefers. 108.64.133.132 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Breanna hasn't publicly said she wants to be identified as a woman. The online discussion with Lamo refered to in the wiki article on her makes it quite slear that she wished to be identified as female 18 months ago.

"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)

Don't read too much into his/her comments w/ Llamo. Was s/he saying "boy vs. man" or "boy vs. girl" or "boy vs. woman" or what? (IOW, the statement is unclear.)

Whether or not mainstream media is correct in its' commentary or view is not the point. We are Wikipedians, and we strive for a NPOV and encyclopedic perspective. We use the news a a Reliable Source. We do not undertake our own synthesis to figure out what is going on with the defense that Manning is presenting. This is particularly true in that we do not put our perspective/synthesis into the article.

Keep in mind that news reports indicate that Manning's defense is merely alluding to GID. (They may be laying out the ground-work for presentation at court-martial.) My guess (not to be incorporated into this article) is they think a sort of diminished capacity would mitigate the penalty upon conviction. Still, the defense would have to present expert testimony to prove this up. (Moreover, a jury of Manning's peers -- fellow soldiers -- would not have much sympathy with this defense so it's hard to figure out what they are doing!)

What do we do for now? It's easy -- sit tight! If or when Manning comes out and says the proper gender is female, then we can start switching pronouns. But first let's get something explicit from her/him.

And here is something else to chew on. If Manning said his/her gender is no longer male, then the jailers would have to isolate Manning from the male inmate population. And are there confinement facilities for female military detainees? If there are, the female inmates would likely object to the female/male gender ID'd/confused/wishful/transformed Manning being put into their midst. (That would be a miserable solitary confinement of his/her own making.) What about the issues of intersex, transgender, third gender, etc.? The military has enough on its' hands defending the nation: e.g, their focus on fighting war (a fairly serious subject) is difficult enough!

Again, give this issue some time. It will work itself out.--S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)06:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a well known issue that criminals that are gender variant present a problem for justice systems; I think that's wandering into discussing the situation rather than discussing the article. I also don't see any such ambiguity - Manning was plainly referring to 'boy vs girl' in the chat log.

I think a useful way for Wikipedians to think of this is to remember that when discussing a person's gender, there is one reliable source - the person themself. We currently have conflicting information (unverified chat logs and defense statements, both of which are from Manning almost direct but are ambiguous, versus 'reliable' media with endemic misgendering of trans* subjects) and the article choses very strongly to gender Manning male. The article has made a choice which is unjustified based on the reliability of the sources available. In fact, the tertiary sources contradict themselves - they state that Manning says "Manning is not unambiguously male" and then they go on to state "Manning is unambiguously male".

And BLP means we should strive for accuracy sooner rather than later. 7daysahead (talk) 13:12, 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)

^ "Bradley Manning and Mohamed Bouazizi". Juan Cole. Retrieved 26 January 2011.
^ Savage, Charles (25 January 2011). "Dispute Over Confinement of WikiLeaks Suspect Echoes Guantánamo Chaplain Case". New York Time. Retrieved 26 January 2011.
^ Cite error: The named reference NakashimaMarch52011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ http://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/index4.html

[1] "Bradley Manning and Mohamed Bouazizi". Juan Cole. Retrieved 26 January 2011.

[2] Savage, Charles (25 January 2011). "Dispute Over Confinement of WikiLeaks Suspect Echoes Guantánamo Chaplain Case". New York Time. Retrieved 26 January 2011.

[NakashimaMarch52011-3] Cite error: The named reference NakashimaMarch52011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] ttp://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/index4.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 3

Upper time limit on detention before trial

See Also

British (?Welsh?) - again...

Tidying

WP:SYNTH

Detainment without charge

Pic placement

Problems

Subheads, images and image placement, white space

Writing

Sentence problem

Removing sourced material

controversial

Parents and aunt name listings in infobox

How Manning found Lamo

Striped naked every night

Image of Pentagon lawyer

Former MI6 Boss says leaks led to Egyptian Revolution

Manning.org link

Reference to Lamo as convicted felon

Ellsberg

Gogulski citizenship

Brian Manning on his Son

Middle name

OMG He's gay, he must be a terrorist

Leavenworth prisons

Hacker versus Cracker

David House

Respect for self-professed gender identity

Bradley's Dual Citizenship

Wales

Friends and supporters

Transgender

Citizenship question

Bradley Manning's dual citizenship

Break

British government response

Another analogy

Infobox guidelines

Consensus?

Any court date set?

Bradley Manning is transgender -- POV Check

Public statement

When can we expect a court date?

File:Bradley Manning Protest 2011 Shankbone.JPG Nominated for Deletion

Edit request on 5 December 2011

Manning and GID - article as stands violates MOS:IDENTITY