Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Section 5.9 needs to be re-worded

The line "as Daniel Domscheit-Berg had previously done" seems to suggest that CM stated this line she die not and is totally separate and hardly relevant as DDB is not a USA citizen, is not in the US and was not subpoenaed, an international request and immunity for prosecution agreement does not constitute anything close to the same thing. Needs to be deleted immediately2404:4408:205A:4B00:4D43:12DF:80AE:4C08 (talk)

 Done. The preceding request was submitted on 25 May 2019. As of 17 Dec 2019, "as Daniel Domscheit-Berg had previously done" does not appear in the article. This request should therefore be considered completed. NedFausa (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery is relevant to article

On October 20, 2018, User:Rab V reverted my addition of Chelsea Manning's announcement that she had, after years of fighting for it, finally undergone surgery. In his edit summary, Rab V made two points. First, it was "not directly stated in tweet what the surgery is." Any fair reading of Chelsea Manning would confirm that Manning has fought for only one type of surgery: Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Second, Rab V contends that "without secondary source it is difficult to establish how relevant a surgery would be to rest of article." Again, one need merely read this BLP, which mentions SRS four times, to establish that editorial consensus has long recognized the relevance of said surgery to Chelsea Manning. I request renewed discussion to affirm that this latest development is, obviously, about SRS and that it is, just as obviously, relevant to the BLP. KalHolmann (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Still if it's not immediately obvious the exact nature of the surgery we shouldn't be making assumptions or we could run into OR issues. The surgery may be related to being trans and not be sexual reassignment surgery, for example orchiectomy or breast augmentation. My tendency is to be cautious around BLP issues for people's medical history as well. If it is very notable, it will probably show up in secondary sources that could also clarify the exact surgery since Manning is still often in the news. Might as well wait til then. PS I am not a man and we probably shouldn't gender wikipedia editors as if they are :) Rab V (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The quote can be run after being led into by a reference to this story from earlier this month that she was to receive "gender transition surgery". Under MOS:LWQ, we can and should skip the wikilink in the quote itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@NatGertler: The Reuters story to which you link is more than two years old (Sep 14, 2016). As such, it is unrelated to this latest development and ought not to be added. KalHolmann (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, the Google News results were listing that as an October 8, 2018 story for some reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I also reject your reading of MOS:LWQ, which states: "…when linking within quotations, link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." I submit that Manning's intended meaning is clear: she's alluding to sex reassignment surgery. KalHolmann (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain which surgery she is referring to exactlty so we are still at an impasse. It seems related to her status as trans but that still could imply several different possible surgeries. My understanding with regards to notability of surgery within the article, the issue that made it notable and widely discussed in the news was the legal fight the DoD had with her. That fight ended when she left their custody so isn't an issue now. My preference would still be for a reliable secondary source to clear up what surgery she had and help us make sure we aren't wading into BLP issues around someone's medical history. Rab V (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rab v: See These. She received SRS. --Sharouser (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. New subsection 8.7 2018 has been added with citations to reliable sources to support this important development in Manning's gender transition, which did not end with her May 2017 release from military prison and that she herself chose to publicize in 2018. NedFausa (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add to the page ...

See also

• List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States
  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IP address (talk) date (UTC)

 Done NedFausa (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--2604:2000:E010:1100:E918:9D3D:D206:8875 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Chelsea Manning has had long hair for the last three years; it's her usual appearance rather than the short-haired pic in the infobox. As a result, I'd suggest replacing it with one where her hair is longer, such as File:Chelsea Manning.jpg. Thoughts? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The photo you suggest depicts Chelsea Manning interviewed at the Wired Next Festival in Milan, Italy, on 27 May 2018. Just hours later, she tweeted "im sorry" with a selfie showing her perched barefoot precariously on a ledge several stories above a deserted late-night street. I submit that changing our current Infobox image—professionally posed and shared by Chelsea herself on the happy occasion of having been freed from military prison after seven years—with a less flattering shot closely presaging her suicidal gesture, would be brutally insensitive. NedFausa (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: My apologies, I didn't know the context behind that photo at all. I'll keep the suggestion of in general using a photo with long hair as it's more accurate, but given the context behind the specific one I linked to, I now agree it wouldn't be a good idea to use that one in particular. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Update picture

The current picture is quite outdated at this point and there's much nicer more recent pictures of her.

A few suggestions include the pictures from

 - https://wamu.org/story/18/02/02/will-protect-chelsea-manning-u-s-senate-run-maryland/
 - https://www.dailywire.com/news/chelsea-manning-released-from-prison-after-judge-dissolves-julian-assange-grand-jury (could not find original source, attributed to Win McNamee via Getty Images)
 - https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/443053-chelsea-manning-released-from-jail (this one is also attributed to Getty Images, couldn't find photographer's name)

Unlike the previous post, these are taken by professional photographers, much like the current infobox, and are on from happy occasions / taken for the purpose of having a nice picture.

--Dominikasokolov (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dominikasokolov, Wikipedia cannot just use random photos from the internet. Please see our WP:IUP, whose gist is: we can only use freely liscensed photos. The most recent free photo we have of her is File:Chelsea_Manning_on_21_April_2020.jpg, but I don't think thats very high quality. I think the current photo is pretty good to be honest, professionally taken, well composed, and while a few years old, isn't outdated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

At the end of section 'Parents' divorce, move to Wales':

This period of Manning's life was dramatised by [Price] in National Theatre Wales' highly acclaimed The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, which received the 2013 James Tait Black Prize for Drama. Ymaherenawrnow (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Ymaherenawrnow. Seagull123 Φ 12:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg scheduled for POTD

See POTD template for 17 December.

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 17, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-12-17. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As we celebrate her birthday with a POTD, it's worth remembering that (at last report) Chelsea Manning hates her Wikipedia bio. So there's that. NedFausa (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ned and wonder how good the article is. The last time it got re-assessed for GA was in 2013, and its been a busy time since then for her. As the discussion you've linked notes, there seems to be some questionable material in the article. The last GA was 35 KB prose shorter, and was before she had even transitioned [1]. I think perhaps a thorough review of the coverage since then might be warranted.

• Like, why do we include her height and weight in the body? Is that a notable fact?
• Should we really be using Manning's primary statements in her Jan 29, 2013 court document? Can't we find that covered in secondary sources?
• Do we really need a casual photo from 2009?

And that's just at a glance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the photo of Manning in September 2009 adds little value, and would not object to its removal.
• Her height and weight, however, should stay. In context, they relate to the Navy psychiatrist noting signs of fetal alcohol syndrome, symptoms of which include short height and low body weight, and to court testimony that she was fed only milk and baby food until the age of two. These are significant factors in childhood development.
• References to "PFC Manning's statement redacted" (January 29, 2013), which we cite 10 times, should also remain. We list that document as a key article in the Bibliography section for a reason: it is indispensable. Here is the policy stated by WP:PSTS: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I double-checked each of the 10 inline citations, and we do not interpret any descriptive statements of facts.

NedFausa (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol syndrome

There's been some edit warring lately by editors who seem to place their views above what the reliable sources say, and it needs to stop. This regards a claim by a Navy psychiatrist about Manning's physiognomy showing signs of fetal alcohol syndrome. The first removal was accompanied by the summary "This sentence was untrue and linked to a fake reference". However the psychiatrist did make the statement, and it was linked to a reliable source, so I reverted and added an archive-url (is the 404 what was meant by "fake reference"?). The content was then removed again, saying, "That is not exactly what the quote says, and I'm not seeing how a psychiatrist could make a determination like that. if this is only in one source, then it seems UNDUE" and another editor properly reverted this. Had the material not been restored, I would have restored it again, and added five new references along with a summary saying that my addition was WP:CITECLUTTER and should be pared down to one.

Let's be clear about one thing: Wikipedia editors are not in the business about deciding whether Manning does, or doesn't have F.A.S., or whether psychiatrists are or are not able to make diagnoses in absentia. We *are* in the business about deciding what reliable sources are saying, and trying to summarize them in proportion to their appearance in reliable, secondary sources. There is a possible argument to be made that the content should be excluded per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Exactly how to word the content can be discussed here, as well, but I think it's been covered sufficiently in sources to merit a mention. However, removals based on what you think Manning's condition really is, or whether you think psychiatrists are qualified to make pronouncements on people they haven't treated, are out of bounds here. If you want the content removed, please make a policy-based argument that supports your view. Also, please keep WP:BRD in mind: the original content has been removed and restored twice now; editors still wishing to remove it, should make their case here first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Mathglot, is WP:ONUS policy-based enough? I have no opinion about the topic, but I saw the edit dispute and wondered what happened to that central policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:BLPs, we don't just summarize what reliable sources say. We do have certain standards that are not always shared by those we use as sources, and are reluctant to include gossip and conjecture unless that gossip or conjecture has an impact on the subject at hand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I'm confused by your mention of "gossip and conjecture." This BLP twice mentions that a Navy forensic psychiatrist detected in Chelsea Manning signs of fetal alcohol syndrome. The first reference cites The Washington Post and the second cites The New York Times. Thus we have separate, reliably sourced descriptions of what the psychiatrist said. I believe we should include this in Manning's BLP because two symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome are short height and low body weight, both of which are manifested by Manning and, more importantly, have contributed to social factors such as bullying and ridicule that have plagued her all her life. To omit this information on the grounds of "gossip and conjecture" is preposterous. NedFausa (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: The NYT reported he said she had "traits" of FAS; the Atlantic "symptoms", the Guardian "characteristics". None of these is an actual diagnosis. If I had a broken leg, that could be a trait, symptom, or characteristic of having been in a car accident, but none of those mean that I was actually in a car accident. Not all short, light people have FAS. If we want to say that she is short and light, we can say that directly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we do not simply repeat any information in sources when it comes to BLPs, and I think that more than one citation would be beneficial for that kind of claim. It would also be nice to get a ping when being referenced in the future, Mathglot. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, ONUS is of course a worthy measure: since there are endless reliable sources that report this (I stopped after five but you could keep going) I think that bar is easily met. I also agree that we do not not simply repeat any information in sources when it comes to BLPs, but when there are multiple, reliable sources, then the only question I see is DUE. Personally, I think the shrink is a presumptuous idiot, but I'll keep that for my private blog; here, we need to just follow what the sources say, and they all quote him directly or indirectly. I'm open to a DUE-based argument that this should be removed, but haven't seen one so will reserve judgement on that. I think BLP-based arguments fail, here; we don't keep anything that's derogatory or offensive out of BLPs simply *because* they are derogatory or offensive, you remove it because it's not reliably sourced. (Well, because it's a BLP, one could, in good faith, preemptively remove it based on WP:BLPSOURCES, if you believed, as I think the first editor did, that the reference was "fake". But after it was restored and the reference shown to be reliable, I think removing it the second time is skating on thin ice.)

About the word "diagnosis": if that isn't supported, we should just remove it and use one of the other words. We could also just quote one of the sources directly and provide in text attribution.

I think readers understand that controversial public figures often attract commentary positive and negative, some of it unwarranted. It's not our place to decide which is which; just to report it if reliably sourced. The readers can decide what's true on their own. Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: We do not use the word "diagnosis". Here's what the BLP says:

• Captain David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, told the court that Manning's facial features showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome.
• David Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist who saw Manning after the arrest, said Manning had narcissistic traits, and showed signs of both fetal alcohol syndrome and Asperger syndrome.

As for quoting Dr. Moulton directly, here is what he said at Manning's court-martial on day three of the defense's sentencing case. Please make allowances for misgendering, since this was before Manning announced her transition to female.

• "Diagnostically, he has gender dysphoria, otherwise known as gender identity disorder. And he had some symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome, as well as symptoms of Asperger's. He fell short of a diagnosis there."

NedFausa (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying that she had "signs of" something that she has not been diagnosed with is reporting a conjecture. "Hey, maybe it's FAS!" basically. That seems like the sort of thing we avoid in BLPs, as I said before. Unless we can show "because the psychiatrist made this conjecture, this vital thing happened", then we probably shouldn't be including it. This is particularly true of the "early life" section uses, where we're using the testimony of someone who was not there for Manning's early life and treating it as directly relevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Credibility in such matters depends on who is engaging in "conjecture." Dr. David Moulton, a licensed psychiatrist, interviewed PFC Manning seven times, for a total of 21 hours, six months after the soldier's transfer from Marine Corps Brig, Quantico to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. When, in the course of his testimony under oath at a military trial, Dr. Moulton stated that PFC Manning "had some symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome," it constituted professionally informed opinion, not mere conjecture. NedFausa (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It is in the article to suggest that Manning actually has FAS, which is not a claim even Moulton is making. His conjecture that it could be FAS should not be included. It being reliable that something is a reasonable conjecture does not make the suggestion beyond BLP concerns. Much as we steer away from including that someone's been suspected to accused of a crime unless there is a conviction, we should seek to avoid connecting someone to a specific damaging syndrome unless there's a diagnosis. I can see an argument for some sort of inclusion in the coverage of the trial if this was a piece of testimony that particularly steered the result, but the inclusion in the "early life" section of a long-later suggestion by a military employee in a case that the military was bringing agains Manning seems well beyond the pale. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Moulton testified for the defense, not for the government. NedFausa (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problematic aspect common in military trials. Now, what is the logic having the suggestion of a disease that Manning has not been diagnosed with in the "early life" section? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The logic of having "Captain David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, told the court that Manning's facial features showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome" in the Early Life subsection is that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder occurs in a person whose mother drank alcohol during pregnancy. Manning's mother drank alcohol during her pregnancy with Chelsea, which can reasonably be considered part of Chelsea's early life. The symptoms of short height and low body weight likewise first manifested during Chelsea's early life. NedFausa (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know that Manning had FAS, it is not a diagnosis we have a record of. If we want to say "Manning's mother drank" and "Manning was short and light", we can do that without trying to stick a derogatory non-diagnosis onto it, So again, what is the goal of including this non-diagnosis in terms of serving Wikipedia's goals, and in particular given that this is a WP:BLP and thus caution is called for? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

To me, "showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome" also seems to be different than "had some symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome" but "fell short of a diagnosis". Our article implies that Manning could have been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, when the person we are citing for that information said the opposite. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Remove the d in front of "dactivist" at the beginning of the first paragraph/ Change "dactivist" to activist. J tommasi88 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@J tommasi88:  Done GreenComputer (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"running jumps at walls"?

Under the heading "Background: Parents' divorce, move to Wales", the final part of the third paragraph states that Manning"...started taking running jumps at walls..." Perhaps this is a colloquialism in some part of the world, but I suspect to most English-speakers, it's confusing. One might intentionally "run into walls", but "running jumps"? What would adding a jump do? If the goal is self-harm, it would likely decrease the likelihood of that, since it would divert momentum from a perpendicular approach to one that dissipates energy upwards. Can anyone make sense of this? Unless someone can support the claim that "jumps" were involved, or can articulate why the word should be retained, I propose it be rephrased as "...attempted to harm herself by running head-long into a wall", or some such. Bricology (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have revised that paragraph. In rereading the cited source, it seems to me that Manning was acting out her frustration but not attempting self-harm. Thanks for raising this matter. NedFausa (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Singer/Songwriter/Rapper Saul Williams dedicated the song "Think Like They Book Say" to Chelsea Manning.

This is an obscure fact that might fall under "cultural impact", but wanted to add it to the discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfVIPqcF9I&t=13sRAMEADE (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

Remove "Bradley Edward Manning" from Born section, her deadname is nobody's business. 193.115.83.240 (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. per MOS:DEADNAME. - Daveout(talk) 07:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote that explains deadnaming?

I fully agree with the policy at WP:DEADNAME (even as a trans-questioning person myself). However, I don't think the readers knows very much on the topic of deadnaming, and thus could lead to confusion at a glance. Similarly, those in the know of trans subjects might see it as disrespectful or confusing. So I suggest introducing a hatnote clarifying it, that only the current name is to be used. I don't see that as POVing or censoring content, but just instructing the reader about how to use the person's name. Since we uncontroversially use {{family name hatnote}}, we already provide reader guidance on how subjects' names should be used and handled. I think deadnames are equally important to explain.

I created a hatnote template as a suggestion: {{deadname}}

Seeking consensus or lack thereof. Gaioa (T C L) 15:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, but I am barely literate in template syntax. If you want input from experienced editors who are literate in the issues, you might ask around at WikiProject LGBT. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gaioa: here's the existing Template:Editnotices/Page/Chelsea Manning text:

This article on Chelsea Manning uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. Additionally, MOS:DEADNAME specifies that a trans person's deadname may be included if they were sufficiently notable under said name. See the talk page for further discussion. Many thanks.

Please explain why we need a new, secondary hatnote, instead of just revising the existing hatnote's text to satisfy your concerns. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Because it's for the reader, not the editor. The reader can equally well misunderstand deadnames, but they never see editnotices. Gaioa (T C L) 17:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case I'm not even sure what you're trying to clarify with the hatnote. What could the reader possibly think other than "Oh, they're referring to her by the name she currently uses"? And how would the hatnote change that? Nardog (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a ridiculous idea, but I think it would be an uphill battle to get consensus for this. I think I would stand weakly in opposition to this as not particularly conveying any new information to the reader worth the extra verbiage and the pain of maintenance. The comparison with {{family name hatnote}} is compelling because that template doesn't actually tell you anything more than what you can get from reading the article, which will show you how to refer to the person in formal contexts (generally by surname), and this hatnote wouldn't either. But those naming conventions seem much more complicated and here I think the most oblivious person would read an article referring to a person by one name and set of pronouns throughout (even if it mentions other names/genders) and find it most natural to use the same name/pronouns, which would be correct. In contrast, someone not familiar with varied naming conventions may by default assume everyone to use the same naming conventions as them (for me, that would be assuming the last word only is the surname). Another template often slapped at the top of an article even though its information becomes apparent by reading the article is {{Algebraic notation}} (in chess). As this isn't Manning-specific, I think we should move this discussion elsewhere (rather than just linking to it elsewhere). — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: There already is WT:LGBT#Suggestion about transpeople's deadnames, so I suggest moving your comment there. I'm not sure about moving the entire discussion but I won't object to it. Nardog (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I oppose saddling this overlong BLP with a distracting, margin-to-margin page-top banner reiterating what is already explained in the fourth sentence of the lead: A trans woman, Manning stated in 2013 that she had a female gender identity since childhood and wanted to be known as Chelsea Manning. That sentence sufficiently informs the reader that this bio involves a person who prefers to no longer be known by her original name. Moreover, Manning's previous notability by her deadname is obvious even to the most casual reader, who can see at a glance how much of our article describes Chelsea's life prior to 2013. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We already have "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning^[3] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" as the opening sentence. Readers interested in the article already know something about Manning. And just as Basketcase2022 says the material in the lede explains everything, without deadnaming. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that as POVing or censoring content, but just instructing the reader about how to use the person's name. It is not our job to tell readers how to use a person's name. We are not an instruction manual, we are not here to control the reader's lives. If we say that a person changed their name, and then discuss them by their current name, it's obvious that we are using the new name. We are an example of using the name properly, and I have zero objection to someone seeing what we do and being moved by it, but the moment we start advocating in text for a certain way to refer to people, we are not being NPOV, we are being advocates with how-to information, which is not the goal of this project, and certainly not the goal of any one trans person's pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Deadname

Although she was indeed known by it, is it not at least mildly rude to mention her deadname? RooinMahmood07 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a good question. The policy that applies here is MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, which says that if someone is widely notable under the previous name, then it should be included in the lead. In fact, Chelsea Manning is used as an example on the policy page itself.--MattMauler (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good question, but during the entire time that Manning was in the Army, leaking classified documents, getting courtmartialed and imprisoned, Manning was a man named Bradley. While that is now a "dead" name, it was by the name "Bradley" that Manning was infamously known, and to remove that name completely from the article would likely cause a good deal of confusion as well as to serve to some extent to separate Chelsea Manning from the crimes committed by Bradley Manning. As I read the article, the only place the name "Bradley" is mentioned is in the very beginning where it states correctly that manning was formerly known as Bradley. Throughout the article, even referring to all the events during the time Manning went by Bradley, the name Chelsea is used, and the pronouns "she" and "her" are used, even though Manning was identified as a man at the time. One mention of the former name, under which Manning became notorious, does not seem rude but rather simply and succinctly stating a fact. GlassBones (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, has Manning officially done a name change to Chelsea? If not, the article should be titled Bradley Manning, and that name used throughout. GlassBones (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@GlassBones: She has, but even if she hadn't, legal name is not the most important name. Calling this article Bradley Manning would be as silly as calling the article on David Bowie "David Jones". Irtapil (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

As our article Chelsea Manning states: In April 2014, the Kansas District Court granted a petition from Manning for a legal name change. Those who object to Manning's deadname, however, will never be satisfied until "Bradley" is completely expunged from the record. I've even seen some fanatics argue that publications such as The Guardian ought to go back and sanitize all their news stories from May 2010 onward to eliminate every last vestige of Bradley. It's historical revisionism on the order of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Where is Winston Smith (6079 Smith W) now that we need him? NedFausa (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is Winston Smith? Well, if you're looking for someone who was tortured for standing up to their government, one woman comes to mind... WanderingWanda (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

She is currently known as Chelsea by all reliable sources that refer to her. It WAS an official name change in this case, but using her current name in the article does not require that it be a legal/official change, only that she be called that name consistently by RS. See MOS:NAMES: "Article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known" (although previous names can be included in the lead if she was a notable person under the previous name, which she was in this case).--MattMauler (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, these questions are all already addressed in the FAQ at the top of this talk page (see Qs 2, 3, and 4).--MattMauler (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's funny, because if a television show has long been off the air, the policy is still to say it IS a TV show, because it still exits, even if it's no longer airing. We don't call it a "dead show." Trying to say Bradley Manning is a "deadname," when it's the name the subject used at the time he was doing what he did to merit an article in the first place, seems a bit contradictory. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME and MOS:GENDERID represent widely discussed community consensus (per WP:CONLEVEL) that override the opinions of editors on this page. According to those guidelines (1) we refer to the article's subject using their current identity and pronouns, and (2) we mention the deadname once or twice for the edification of the reader and according to the WP:ASTONISH principle, but (3) we do not mention the deadname more than necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

in any case, she was not "born as" Bradley - that name was assigned to her by her parents. 2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:F13D:665A:E95:7F84 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

besides, "deadname" is not a real thing. It is made up by activists, and there is no reason for the rest of the world to do as they want. 142.163.194.97 (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "Administrative Segregation" to "Solitary Confinement" for all instances of the term

"Administrative segregation" is a synonymous euphemism for the practice of solitary confinement. The use of this term (In general, not only within its current placement in the article) is intended to soften and obfuscate the nature of Manning's treatment. Juan Mendez, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, has argued emphatically that solitary confinement is torture in publicly available documents such as this. The term "administrative segregation" is less widely known by the public than the term "solitary confinement" and thus is politically coded language that makes all uses of the term in the article less clear. Whenever you have two exactly synonymous terms, the only sensible course of action is to use the more widely understood term. The only argument that could possibly be made for using the lesser known of two identical terms is to present information in such a way which obscures the true nature of events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4600:86b0:dd0a:3a7c:7a59:a73b (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The prononouns/resume

Is there a rule why the pronoun "she" should be used to cover all the time before his/her transition? I mean, the common courtesy aside, in case of military personel this is relevant. It would make way more sense to refer to Manning as "him" until the official announcement of the transition and only henceforth as "her". Because surely the military authorities who hired him were not in a position to hire her etc.--Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ID says not to do that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, the rules are pretty clear then, thanks. Nothing to dispute there, even tho I personally may disagree, well I gotta obey. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek

Date of arrest

This BLP states: Manning was arrested by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command,[171] on May 27, 2010, and transferred four days later to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.[172]

• Reference 171 (June 6, 2010) reports, "At their second meeting with Lamo on May 27, FBI agents from the Oakland Field Office told the hacker that Manning had been arrested the day before [i.e., May 26] in Iraq by Army CID investigators."
• Reference 172 (June 16, 2010) says the soldier was arrested "at the end of May" but gives no exact date.

Thus, neither of the cited sources supports Wikipedia's arrest date of May 27, 2010.

In a story that we cite in reference to Manning's altercation with an intelligence analyst, The Guardian reports (May 27, 2011) "Manning's arrest on 29 May 2010."

In a story that we don't cite, CNN reports (July 29, 2013) that "Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 27, 2010."

Similarly, Rutgers University professor of English Richard E. Miller writes in his book On the End of Privacy: Dissolving Boundaries in a Screen-Centric World (University of Pittsburgh Press; 2019), "Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010."

Finally, in a primary source that I suppose we cannot cite but which I offer here strictly for information, the U.S. government's Second Superseding Indictment (June 24, 2020) of Julian Assange asserts (p. 9), "Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010."

As a newbie editor, I am at a loss as to how to properly document the arrest date with inline citations that clarify yet do not contradict the existing references. Please advise. Portewfik (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with Grimes

It's been reported recently that Chelsea Manning is now in a relationship with Grimes. This is mentioned in Grimes' infobox and article, but is not mentioned in this article at all. 150.107.175.208 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an earlier edit comment, we should wait for a more reliable source than Page Six before adding this. Funcrunch (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

Pictures of Chelsea prior to transition were added, for example "Manning in 2009", this file also has the name "Bradley Manning", it's difficult to parse which edit added a non text entry (for me), but I believe that change could have been motivated by transphobia and ought to be removed, and similar photos questioned 2601:602:A000:7580:C98B:B26E:ED53:E3BF (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Photos are placed in appropriate placed, WP:Consensus would be required to remove these. Terasail^[✉️] 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the transition section really needed

Honestly, it just seems a little voyeuristic and non-notable. I'd like to hear other people's perspectives on this (especially trans people I guess; being trans myself it just seems really weird to include a battery of medical procedures and personal statements.)

Hmm... I think it could be edited into one succinct section discussing systemic treatment, cultural impact, and the like. But a year-by-year breakdown of everything that happened (especially in that format) seems excessive

2600:1700:9480:5D10:C51E:2AF5:1264:CD51 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) anonymous blowhard

Deadname

Including the name Chelsea was born with is unnecessary and highly disrespectful. Please remove it. 142.186.56.28 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is explained at MOS:DEADNAME. In fact, Manning is used as an example of when to include the birth name. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Image

Should we start a discussion on what's the best image for Chelsea? I am of the opinion that the 2017 image is too old, and that the 2021 image is more flattering, from a better angle, and more representative of how she looks today (See the notable difference in hairstyle.) I'd be willing to come to a consensus for the image if that's the case. Thank you! rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage. I suppose it's somewhat subjective, but I think the older photograph (2017) is better:
1) It is higher definition, 2) the lighting is better, 3) the background is shallower/less busy. Also, it's not a selfie (although I don't know how important that is).--MattMauler (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

entry to Canada April 12 2022.

Add new info regarding denial to Canadian entry. 24.222.242.194 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Added. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal description

Shouldn't "convincted spy" be added to her description? It would balance the "whistleblower" which seems to be more of an opinion. Saxophool (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Saxophool, do any reliable sources refer to her as a "spy"? Plenty refer to her as a "whistleblower". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point. Everywhere she is called a whistleblower but she was also convincted of espionage. Those who are convincted of espionage are called spies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxophool (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Not so. We even have an entire section on "non-spies" arrested for espionage. See Espionage#Use against non-spies. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Obama

Wikipedia needs to edit the information about Chelsea Manning to include that it was Barack Hussein Obama who commuted Chelsea Manning sentence by 28 years because for some reason they left that information out... Dawn Mauro (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

it's right there in the introduction: "On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to nearly seven years of confinement". --Qcomp (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Twitch Career

Chelsea's Twitch career, while insignificant compared to other acts of hers, isn't insignificant as a Twitch career - is it worth being included somewhere on this page, especially with collaborations with streamers such as Keffals? If nothing else, should she have the Twitch Streamer infobox included? Inkublu ❤ (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional note - I believe she has also streamed with AOC and Ilhan Omar, which adds notability (22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkublu (talk • contribs)

Lead descriptor

Should Manning be described as a "whistleblower" or a "leaker"? Pinging @BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL and Newimpartial, who've been involved in back-and-forth editing about the descriptor. I'm leaning toward 'whisteblower', which I know to be ubiquitous in sources, and I'm leaning against BO's "legal definition of whistleblower" argument, though I'd be glad to hear more about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

First off, thank you for bequething to me the nickname "BO" :). I will try to do an objective dive into the label use and will present here, after I have some time to do this. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I probably should have thought that one through a bit more. 'BCO' might be a little less problematic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Guardian interview

The recent article:

Brockes, Emma (22 October 2022). "Chelsea Manning: 'I struggle with the so-called free world compared with life in prison'". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 October 2022.

says, quoting Manning:

... there are a number of diagnoses on her Wikipedia page that are misidentified PTSD. “Gender dysphoria’s not on the radar any more; it’s been treated, or some would go so far as to say ‘cured’. All the other diagnoses were just untreated, unidentified, complex post traumatic stress syndrome. That is my sole diagnosis.”

I'm not clear to what in the article this refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, not quite sure what to do with that. Someone could always try asking her on Twitter? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

misgendering-ish

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

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

Covid 19 -- irrelevant section

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

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

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