Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Source/Footnotes Quotes

I have comments/suggestions about this article.

1. First paragraph

The article currently states, "From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity disorder while in the Army.[6]"

As I was reading this article, I (and I know what assuming means) assumed that he had been previously diagnosed before the leaks took place. So, I read the article linked with footnote [6], which states, "Dr. David Moulton, the forensic psychologist assigned to review Manning’s case, said that Manning was suffering from gender identity disorder, a diagnosis supported by a military sanity board."

I take this to mean that the Doctor was appointed by the court to review Manning's case, therefore, it was not a pre-leak diagnoses. Perhaps the sentence could be changed to something like, "From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity during her trial.[6]"

2. Parents' divorce, move to Wales

"He also said that Manning excelled at the saxophone, science, and computers, creating her first website at the age of ten. Manning taught herself how to use PowerPoint, won the grand prize three years in a row at the local science fair, and in sixth grade, took top prize at a statewide quiz bowl.[19]"

The actual direct quote from footnote [19] is, "He would create his own websites. His first website I think he did when he was, like, 10 years old, where I had to go out and actually buy an advanced HTML manual...."

I understand, and have read all the arguments for/against the he/she debate, the sentence, the way it is currently written, infers that the father stated she instead of he. Therefore, you are misrepresenting his comments on the subject. I suggest either directly quoting the father, or removing the sentence.

3. Parents' divorce, move to Wales

"A childhood friend of Manning's, speaking about a conversation they had when Manning was 13, said "he told me he was gay." The friend also stated that Manning's home life was not good and that her father was very controlling. Around this time, Manning's parents divorced, and she and her mother Susan moved out of the house to a rented apartment in Crescent, Oklahoma.[20]"

Again, this statement is inferring that Jordan Davis is using the word "her" and he doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "A childhood friend of Manning's, speaking about a conversation they had when Manning was 13, said, "He told me he was gay." The friend also stated when asked about Manning's home life, "...that it wasn't good, and that his dad is very controlling of him.." Around this time, Manning's parents divorced, and she and her mother Susan moved out of the house to a rented apartment in Crescent, Oklahoma.[20]"

4. Parents' divorce, move to Wales

"her aunt told The Washington Post that Manning awoke to an empty camp one morning, after everyone else packed up their tents and left without her.[24]"

Again, this statement is inferring that his aunt, Sharon Staples, is using the word "her" and she doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "Once on a camping trip with friends, she (Manning's Aunt) said, “he woke up, and all the tents around him were gone. They left while he was sleeping.”

5. Return to the United States

"took several low-paid jobs"

This should really be "low-paying jobs."

6. Enlistment in the Army

"She told her Army supervisor later that she had also hoped joining such a masculine environment would resolve her gender identity disorder.[29]"

The quote from footnote [29] is, "In an April 24, 2010 email to his supervisor at the time, Master Sgt. Paul Adkins, Manning confessed he was transgender, and that he joined the Army, basically, to 'get rid of it.'"

I would delete this all together. It is covered in the first paragraph of "Email to supervisor, recommended discharge" And takes place 3 years after the previous sentence.

7. Contact with gender counselor

"The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine in 2011 that it was clear Manning was in crisis, partly because of her gender concerns, but also because she was opposed to the kind of war in which she found herself involved.[39]"

The quote from footnote [39] is, "About that time, Manning later ­explained, 'everything started slipping.' Manning, it turned out, wasn't built for this kind of war. 'I was a part of something … i was actively involved in something that i was completely against.'"

Again, this statement is inferring that his counselor, Sharon Staples, is using the word "her" and she doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine in 2011 that it was clear Manning was in crisis, and that Manning had explained, 'I was actively involved in something that i was completely against.'"

8. Contact with gender counselor

"Because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (known as DADT and in effect until September 20, 2011)"

I was in the military during this time, and was one of the people in charge of training troops of the new policy. Never did anyone ever refer to it as DADT. I would just remove that part.

9. Release of material to WikiLeaks

"After her arrest, her former partner, Tyler Watkins, told Wired that Manning had said during the visit that she had found some sensitive information and was considering leaking it.[50]"

The quote from footnote [50] is, "In January, while on leave in the United States, Manning visited a close friend in Boston and confessed he’d gotten his hands on unspecified sensitive information, and was weighing leaking it, according to the friend. “He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”

Again, this statement is inferring that her former partner, Tyler Watkins, is using the word "she" and he doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "After her arrest, her former partner told Wired that Manning had gotten her hands on unspecified sensitive information, and was weighing leaking it, according to the friend. “He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”

10. Awards and decorations

The star on her Iraqi Campaign Medal should be in the middle/center of the ribbon. http://rlv.zcache.com/iraq_campaign_medal_ribbon_1_battle_star_sticker_bumper_sticker-r93c182f3a8044d94b83957f34f513ee1_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg

11. Awards and decorations

One service stripe look like this http://media.cdn.usamilitarymedals.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/6/5/6596_us_army_service_1_stripe_female_size_1.jpg

12. Chelsea Manning

"On 21 June Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had not been given access to her.[100]"

The quote from footnote [100] is, "Assange said WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had been granted no access to him. Manning has instead been assigned US military counsel."

Again, this statement is inferring that Julian Assange, is using the word "her" and he doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "On 21 June Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning, but that they had been granted no access to him. Manning has instead been assigned US military counsel."

I can keep going through this thing, but the fact of the matter remains, if you're going to willy-nilly change the word "him" to "her", or "he" to "she", then then you need to change your footnotes. Whenever you say in this article....XXXX says she, instead of XXXX says he, you are not taking into consideration that you are altering the sources quote, and therefore the validity of the quote.

Robertvincentswain (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In response: 1. Manning was diagnosed by at least two different army doctors, one before the trial, the other before the leaks, both while Manning was in the Army (as she still is). The trial doctor was assessing and reaffirming previous diagnoses. 2., 3., 4., 6., 7., 9., 12. are all attempts to write "she" out of most of the article. All of these instances have extensive discussions hammering out wording. If it's not part of the direct quote, we go with Mos:Identity. Replacing all pre-trial pronouns with some variation of "Manning" was discussed and I doubt there is a consensus to remove all or most pronouns that are not part of a direct quote. Again, if it is not part of a direct quote, then it is "she" and "her" and we can't write her whole history in direct quotes; we have to use pronouns sometime. 5. looks like a good suggestion. 8. Whatever it was called at the time by some of the people who implemented it, DADT is what it is commonly called and referenced as now, up to the legislative level. 10. and 11. should be looked at by an editor with more military experience (maybe someone can help find a single stripe image, on Commons, and address the layout business with the star. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Manning was diagnosed by at least two different army doctors, one before the trial, the other before the leaks, both while Manning was in the Army (as she still is)."
Footnote [6] does not mention anything about 2 doctors diagnosing him. I suggest a new footnote be added that references the fact that he was diagnosed prior to the leaks.
In so far as Mos:Identity,
"Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions."
It seems to me that this article was written purposely to include she/her, instead of having direct quotes, thereby skirting the rules. It is my contention that if the statement is..."Joe told the reporter that she did it." As opposed to, "While talking to the reporter, Joe said, 'He did it,'" that it is a misquote. It seems that the author purposely did not directly quote the sources in the footnotes so that they could include the she/her into the article. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it seems purposefully biased in the feminine favor.
And I do agree with you, Manning is in the Army until she serves her sentence, therefore all statements of "while in the Army" should be removed>Robertvincentswain (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The article was written purposely to include some pronouns. It's better than having a lot of "Manning did this, and Manning did that on Manning's birthday with Manning's family". At one point someone tried it with no pronouns and it looked unreadable. The article is a mix of direct and indirect quotes, like most articles. (And really, the article still has a direct quote that says "He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side." so there are clearly direct quotes with people using masculine terms. Even your third point has a direct quote that uses "he" in the direct quote, "he told me he was gay".) At this point the article's about her, so it's not a misquote to refer to her as her (outside of direct quotation), and the article is harder to read if it's all direct quotes, or if it's "Manning Manning Manning". __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In regards to number ten, I think that is more of a website issue than somebody ignorant of the proper placement of the star putting it in the wrong spot. If I view the ICM on my computer the star is towards the bottom of the ribbon but if I look at it on my phone the star is centered like it is supposed to be. In regards to 11, I added Manning's service stripe to that section but Wikimedia didn't have individual service stripes like they have individual Overseas Service Bars. If I'm not mistaken no outside linked images are allowed and pictures have to be uploaded to Wikimedia first, which is why I put the picture showing four. Manning isn't the only person to use that photo for service stripes, if you look at Sergeant Major of the Army Chandler's page it uses the same service stripe photo in his awards section even though the SMA has way more than four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amducker (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
After having taken the better part of 2 hours to read through the archives on for this article (and I'm still not half way through yet), I see now that there has been considerable debate about the Title, and noun/pronouns. I withdraw all comments until such time as I have finished reading the rest of the archives, and will resubmit anything that was not previously discussed, one comment at a time. Robertvincentswain (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Manning writes opinion piece for New York Times

FYI

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/chelsea-manning-the-us-militarys-campaign-against-media-freedom.html?_r=1

Robertvincentswain (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic info about WP in the article

We have the following recently added to the article:

"Wikipedia publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ Sampson, Tim (August 23, 2013). "Wikipedia battle rages over Chelsea Manning's gender identity". The Daily Dot. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
  2. ^ Wadewitz, Wadewitz; Ayers, Phoebe (September 3, 2013). "The struggle over gender on Wikipedia: the case of Chelsea Manning". HASTAC Blog. HASTAC. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
  3. ^ Hern, Alex (September 4, 2013). "Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia". New Statesman. Retrieved July 24, 2014.

I submit that the material here is not about Manning, but is off-topic. We have the {{press}} posting above, which is the proper place for such material. Including it in the article space is akin to saying there was a debate about Manning at the local Elks Lodge. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. If there were a debate about Manning at some Elks Lodge that received widespread news coverage, surely that would be notable too, and just as relevant to this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two cents here, I'd weak oppose the material in question. This is pretty clearly navel gazing and I wouldn't characterize the coverage as "widespread", or at least not as widespread as the coverage is for Manning's leaking activity. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I like Nick's comment very much. Re the Elks, I'm trying to come up with a good analogy as to why the material is off topic for Wikipedia. Considering that we have the press section above, the material is redundant. My next problem is with the text. Did we "struggle"? Isn't everything we do "public"? Does the sentence imply that we produced a new standardized pronoun usage as a result of the discussions? If a news organization looks at this thread and writes a story, is the new story proper for the article? (Does WP:CIRCULAR help in any sense?) – S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia, a free-access Internet encyclopedia with more than 4.5 million articles, 21.8 million registered users, and a worldwide audience reaching into the hundreds of millions, is hardly "the local Elks Lodge." According to Alexa, wikipedia.org is the sixth most popular website in the United States and globally. If it would help editors reach consensus, here are 15 other citations to reliable sources—in English, French, or German—that reported contemporaneously on Wikipedia's public, protracted and very messy struggle over Manning's gender identity.

JohnValeron (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I submit the best and proper place for this info is Wikipedia:Press coverage, not the WP:ARTICLE. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
And I'll try a modified analogy. Two patrons at the local bar get into an argument over "Bradley v. Chelsea". They fight and get arrested for brawling. The news story says "Two arrested for disturbing the peace during argument over Chelsea/Bradley Manning". Is that story noteworthy in terms of this article? How about if one murders the other? – S. Rich (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your analogies are strained, feeble and unpersuasive. Please try a different approach. JohnValeron (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron: - re "strained, feeble and unpersuasive" - Lolz......
The only really mainstream, "high quality" source you've offered is Time, which doesn't cover the actual "struggle", but only briefly mentions the fact that WP was using Chelsea Manning.
I'm not sure. This still feels like navel gazing. Interesting navel gazing, granted, but navel gazing none the less. I don't think it ultimately offers much to a reader seeking to learn about Manning. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You carp, "I don't think it ultimately offers much to a reader seeking to learn about Manning." Yet the disputed sentence is part of a paragraph describing the media's response to Manning's highly public announcement read on NBC's Today show. If a reader is truly seeking to learn about Manning, it is potentially helpful to be informed about the controversy ignited by the soldier's requested name change and pronoun reassignment. You are arguing that we should provide the reader less information, not more, about how Wikipedia—the encyclopedia where said reader has sought information—contributed to that heated controversy. If you are trying to spare Wikipedia the embarrassment of not acting decisively, I'm afraid that train has already left the station. JohnValeron (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron: - If you were there, you might have noticed that wikipedia acted a little too decisively. Trying to switch the names before anyone else had. Luckily some clearer minded folks pointed out that Wikipedia follows RS's. It does not lead RS's.
Regardless, I think consensus is against you here. If you want to push this, I'd set up an RfC to reach a wider audience. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You are way off base in proclaiming consensus here. Exactly four editors have weighed in.
  • S. Rich opposes including the disputed sentence
  • Psychonaut indicates the sentence is notable and relevant to this article
  • I am obviously in favor of retaining the disputed sentence
  • You first said you'd "weak oppose" keeping it, later said "I'm not sure," but apparently now oppose it more forcefully

That's two in favor, two opposed. Proclaiming consensus is, at this point, premature and—strictly on the numbers (2 ayes, 2 nays)—unwarranted. JohnValeron (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I admit my analogies are crude, but I don't want their lacking to obscure the fact WP policies at play. Mainly, because this is a BLP we must exercise the greatest care. Items about what Wikipedia did or did not do with regard to the Manning article are not about Manning. Thus, the listing can be (and should be) removed. Once it is, the WP:BURDEN shifts to JohnValeron to include it. A two-to-two !vote does not meet the burden. BTW, the "notability" of the news stories is not the criteria. WP:Noteworthiness is the proper term. In this regard, the news stories are not noteworthy because they are not about the article about Manning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
What "listing" are you talking about? On July 25, I added a single sentence—not a list—to Chelsea Manning. The sentence was accompanied by three citations to reliable sources. Your contention that those news stories are not about Wikipedia's Manning article is absurd. That is precisely what they're about. And I remind you, the topic of the paragraph to which I added a sentence is "Reaction to Manning's request by the news media." Are you suggesting that entire paragraph should be removed because it is "not about" Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There are 3 listings. I'm concerned about the list of 3 items as references in the sentence. Then there is the press listing on this page and the third list is the references you promised. I am saying the sentence should be removed. It does not talk about a reaction about Mannings request in the news media – it talks about how the news media reported on a discussion regarding Wikipedia's editing practices. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Your fixation on "listings" is inexplicable. I added a single sentence—not a list—to Chelsea Manning. That sentence was referenced by three properly footnoted citations to reliable sources. I have never proposed adding any "listings" to the article in question. JohnValeron (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I strongly oppose adding the sentence because, I don't think that any of the 14 pages of notes (as it stands now), should be any part of this article. It has nothing to do with it at all. I can't think of a single page that I've gone to on here that references its' own notes page in the article. I also don't like editors reporting about the editing process in articles. $0.02. Robertvincentswain (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Added....On the "What Wikipedia is not" page, it states, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." If this whole debacle had taken place 30 years ago, The Encyclopedia Britannica would not have had a sentence in their book saying, "The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations." Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "the 14 pages of notes." Where are you seeing that in the article Chelsea Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse my wording...I meant 14 pages of archives.Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about. What 14 pages of archives? Where are you seeing that in the article Chelsea Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
He's talking about the one sentence in the article that regards the media attention from over 14 pages of our talk page activity. He's not being particularly unclear here. I think it was understandable the first time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Now I have no idea what either of you are talking about. Please, please provide a link to the section in Chelsea Manning that contains the material you object to. Then tell me how the paragraph in question begins so I can spot it. Thanks for your assistance. JohnValeron (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's the same sentence we've been discussing in this section, ""Wikipedia publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations."Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand you object to the sentence "Wikipedia publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting 'Chelsea' and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations." What baffles me is where in the article Chelsea Manning you see 14 pages of notes or 14 pages of archives or 14 pages of anything, actually. I see only one page. JohnValeron (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the top section of the talk page, past pages are archived. Right now there are 14 archived pages that date back to when this article was first created. The sentence you added is referencing most of those archived pages. Most of those archived pages discuss the very topic of the sentence you added. So when the above comments are talking about "navel gazing" and "WP:CIRCULAR" this is what they mean. Your very own comment of ,"...the topic of the paragraph to which I added a sentence is 'Reaction to Manning's request by the news media.'" Wikipedia is not news media. I don't know if you've read all of the archives or not, (I have), but it's my opinion that no one should be adding any content on this page other than a typo fix without an in depth discussion on what is being added. Robertvincentswain (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That was like pulling teeth. Thank you for a coherent statement at last. JohnValeron (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Please set aside the snark. It looked understandable the first time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And, piggybacking off of what S.Rich said, Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source states, "If the article is about Wikipedia itself, please add it to Wikipedia:Press coverage, rather than (the article)." I agree that it would be best to put it there. My current count is with the addition of ELAQUEATE and myself, the tally is now 4 oppose, 2 keeps.Robertvincentswain (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done By popular demand, I removed the disputed sentence from the article Chelsea Manning. Thanks to everyone for their input. JohnValeron (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well done, JohnValeron. May I also suggest you take up the honor of completing the listing of news in the {{press}} section above. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. If you mean Wikipedia:Press coverage, the three references included with the disputed sentence, and the 15 citations I posted on this page at 15:11, 25 July 2014, are already there. That's where I found them in the first place. JohnValeron (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And so they are. When I did my search (ctrl F) to match the names, I did so in the non-edit view. As a result the names in the box above did not popup. (This is a lazy man's method of reading.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender Transition

Article currently states, "In July 2014, the Federal Bureau of Prisons rejected a request by the Army to transfer Manning from the USDB to a civilian facility for treatment of her gender dysphoria. Instead, the Army will keep Manning in military custody and begin rudimentary gender treatment, which could include allowing her to wear female undergarments and possibly receive hormone treatments. No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be transferred from the all-male USDB to a female facility.[140]"

It may just be me, but I'm not liking the could in this statement. This feels like a crystal ball to me. But, it is a well sourced crystal ball, mainly because all the sources I found used the same AP article as in source [140]. I'm also not liking the inclusion of, "No decision was announced..." I guess an analogy could be, "No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be elected Pope by the College of Cardinals." No news is no news, I don't see why it's in here.
I would rewrite it as, "In July 2014, the Federal Bureau of Prisons rejected a request by the Army to transfer Manning from the USDB to a civilian facility for treatment of her gender dysphoria. Instead, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army’s recommendation to keep Manning in military custody and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment."
I'm not going to war over it, it's just something that stuck out to me. Discuss amongst yourselves.Robertvincentswain (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia requires making choices, primarily based on the limited space available. There is much reported that we do not include. However, in this instance, readers can be expected to be curious about the practical arrangements of an Army private, confined to an all-male maximum security prison, who is transitioning to living as a woman. If we follow your advice and remove the reliably sourced detail that the Army has not decided whether or not to transfer Manning to a female facility, we deprive readers of pertinent data. Why force readers to leave Wikipedia and search for that information elsewhere? Your analogy about Manning being elected Pope is nonsensical. Everyone knows there is zero chance of that happening. But the question of where a feminized Manning will serve her sentence is real and deserves an answer—even if that answer is, "We don't yet know." JohnValeron (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That's nice but you do not speak for every reader here. "No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be transferred from the all-male USDB to a female facility" sounds like a try statement to me can you try to pick up a pencil? The answer is going to be yes or no. The statement offers nothing for the article other than to say Manning may or may not be transferred we just don't know yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
While in normal situations this particular comment may not have a place in an article, the whole situation with this article's subject is unique since Manning isn't an incarcerated civilian and is an active duty servicemember who is confined. Considering that Manning is probably the first inmate at the USDB to identify as a woman while confined it seems notable due to the fact that it will make people wonder whether or not they will move Manning to the military's female facility at Miramar while being allowed to transition. Obviously, this situation is something new for the Army to deal with since in normal situations they would just discharge you if you came out as transgender but Manning can't be discharged while an inmate. One option might be to simply write the second sentence as "Instead, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army’s recommendation to keep Manning in military custody at the USDB and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment." so it is clear that Manning isn't being moved while receiving the treatment. Amducker (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would read much better.Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can't claim to be super familiar with all of this, but it seems like that changes the meaning. There is a difference between "she won't be sent to a civilian facility but she might be moved to a female facility" (which is the implication of what it says now), and "the army announced they are keeping her at USDB" (what you propose). Also, WP:CRYSTALBALL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So I think this discussion is a bit off base. If the AP says that treatments could include allowing her to wear female undergarments then it's perfectly appropriate, even perhaps helpful, for us to relay that to readers.

That being said, the AP article doesn't actually say that no announcement was made about whether to move her, it just says that Mr Hagel's comments "raise the question" of whether she would be moved. I think that unless there is some reliable source that specifically discusses the question of whether she will be moved (which I don't know, since like I said I'm not that familiar) that the sentence is not that accurate. It seems better to say something like "press accounts questioned whether Mr Hagel's the Army's decision would require Ms Manning to be moved to a female facility." AgnosticAphid talk 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What?? Speculating about what any BLP subject is wearing under their clothes is just freaky and wrong, even if the AP said it. And I don't think they would, frankly. Even if it's in a reliable source, it would still be speculation, and grossly invasive of something that's highly personal. So let's be careful here, per WP:BLP - Alison ❤ 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If this were a country with stricter morals (thinking Islamic) the same things you said about underwear could be said about shoes, but in what is the greatest thing about the internet we don't have to live by their morals, or yours. If WP:RS consider it notable, we should at least be allowed to discuss it without the WP:BLP/morals police freaking out. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
"And I don't think they would, frankly" If you bothered to read the reference we are discussing, you'll find that it clearly says "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army's recommendation to keep Manning in military custody and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment, a defense official said Thursday. The initial gender treatments could include allowing Manning to wear some female undergarments and also possibly provide some hormone treatments." As I said above, the policy about speculation in articles explicitly allows for discussion of future developments where reliably sourced. So I think to say that including this is "freaky" kind of demonstrates a lack of awareness. AgnosticAphid talk 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Alias as title?

This has been discussed extensively and consensus is posted in the FAQ section. Closing thread as unnecessary (and disruptive due to IP personal interaction). – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Did you not see the faq at the top of this very page or are you just being a tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.61.205 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This user has been blocked multiple times in the recent past for disruptive edits, and, most likely, will be blocked again. At least this time it's a talk page and not an article.LaMona (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
How is raising a legitimate point about an article title violating Wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME considered something to be blocked over? 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Because you're being transphobic! 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You work in the House of Representatives, don't you have something better to do? https://twitter.com/congressedits --75.92.165.95 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is an extremely well-trodden path. Let's not go through it again. AABoyles (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prisoner vs. Inmate vs. Soldier – post-sentencing

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

What is the point of all this original research? Per Wikipedia:No original research it cannot be used in the article. Please confine yourself to citing reliable sources. JohnValeron (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You will note that I made no changes that included information about promulgating orders or the RCM or UCMJ. And I think my changes are proper WP:SUMMARYSTYLE renditions of the RS. At the same time I am a subject matter expert and soFacepalm Facepalm I'd like to see is an accurate story that is properly sourced. Hence my explanation (above) which hopefully will serve as fodder for future changes. Original research does come into play when editors say Manning is a soldier. They are presuming that because she's confined for X years that she remains as a member of the Army. – S. Rich (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
We have nothing but your own word to establish that you are a "subject matter expert." That is useless for purposes of editing Chelsea Manning. Please cite to a reliable, 3rd-party published source reporting that Manning is no longer a solider. Until then, your opinion is unsubstantiated. JohnValeron (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile you may be interested in this Associated Press report published in the MilitaryTimes two days after Manning was sentenced to reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and allowances, confinement for 35 years and a dishonorable discharge. It refers to Manning, directly or indirectly, as a soldier eight times. JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. The day after sentence is announced by the judge the press is using the term soldier to describe Manning. The press is correct to a certain extent. Sentence was announced and the media wrote about it. I'm not trying to get the press to revise the story, but I do point out that once the convening authority promulgates the order her status changes. But it is unlikely that the news media will pick up on this, so we will be stuck with the inaccurate news stories. Not a big deal – I just wish there was a good way to find and institute "the truth", based on RS, and get this BLP right. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140812/NEWS/308120071/Attorney-Manning-not-receiving-hormone-therapy The last sentence from this Army Times article states, "...Manning can't be discharged from the service while serving her prison sentence." $0.02 Robertvincentswain (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. That's what it says. Too bad the Army Times doesn't do a better job of vetting the stories it gets from the Associated Press. Sooner or later a more authoritative reliable source will get the story right. Until then I'll have to live with what it says. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is fascinating and all, but maybe it just points to a greater need in bulking up the associated articles dealing with the topic. We have articles on things like United States Army Corrections Command and United States Disciplinary Barracks, but the material on the various issues surrounding Courts-Martial seem to be thin on the ground. Even historically, I was having trouble finding something like Category:Military trials. Maybe not a discussion for here, but it doesn't seem like this is an issue that is unique to this page. But basically, if the general articles backed up your understanding with sources, then it wouldn't seem like OR for this one edit.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
For the instant case, we do not need additional or bulked-up Wikipedia articles. We simply need S. Rich to submit a single, reliable, third-party published source substantiating each of his claims that (a) servicemembers confined to the USDB are referred to as "prisoners" or "inmates" not as soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines; (b) said prisoners hold no military rank; (c) Chelsea Manning, whose sentence has been reviewed and approved by the convening authority, meaning it goes automatically to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, has already been discharged by the Army and is accordingly a "former" soldier. These assertions are absurd. JohnValeron (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundant categorization.

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

Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 is a non-diffusing subcategory of Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. Just as, in the example given at WP:SUBCAT, not all Film actors are Best Actor Academy Award winners, so too not all Persons charged are convicted. It is uniquely helpful to have a standalone list of all persons charged, whether or not convicted. If you want a list containing the subset of people charged but not convicted, you ought to create a new Category:Persons charged but not convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. As is, you're trying to artificially restrict a more comprehensive parent category for your decidedly subcategorical purpose. JohnValeron (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
All people convicted were also charged. It's redundant to list both on an article. It's not a non-diffusing cat situation. It is more like Category:People indicted for war crimes and Category:People convicted of war crimes. One nests in the other, and it's clear that the members of the smaller cat are logically part of the bigger cat. All people convicted are also obviously charged. The fact that you suggest making a third category for sorting shows that something needlessly complicated is being suggested.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 corresponds to Category:People indicted for war crimes, and Category:Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 corresponds to Category:People convicted of war crimes. In your first comment, you said you want an easy way to see the subset of those charged but not convicted. Where is the subset of those charged with War Crimes but not convicted? JohnValeron (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Catgories in Wikipeida are retarded. A better way exists, though I'm not holding my breath.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I would fully support replacing the outdated Army photo in Wikipedia's lead with this portrait, which is endorsed by Chelsea herself. It is much more dignified than the ugly black-&-white selfie of Manning in cheap blond wig and tacky makeup from four years ago.
JohnValeron (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything undignified in the black&white photo. I think it's arguably become iconic of the subject, and was taken fairly contemporaneously with the time of the leaks. No offence to Alicia Neal but it's very rare to have illustrations as main photos, and the current one is probably still better than an illustration. The black&white one has been used by more reliable sources, more frequently, and with more significant visibility than any other single picture ever taken of the subject though. I don't think Wikipedia's broken if it doesn't change, but it doesn't seem to match how much coverage that photo got in all other sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, can you point me to a single Wikipedia article where a selfie illustrates the lead? Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Update I found one myself. Not sure this is a very auspicious precedent, however. Do you really want Manning paired in the annals of Wikipedia with a monkey? JohnValeron (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Be serious, what a juvenile thing to link this discussion to. I can probably find ten other serious articles with self-taken photos and you could too; there's nothing necessarily wrong with a self-taken photo. This photo was considered fine for illustrating articles in the Washington Post, NYT etc. If you don't prefer this specific photo from your individual perspective, that's fine, but it shouldn't really matter who took it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
OPPOSED I oppose replacing the dignified April 2012 U.S. Army photo—which the Chelsea Manning Support Network identifies as Manning's "preferred photo image"—with the deliberately garish selfie taken two years earlier in a desperate, futile attempt to get Manning's supervisor to recommend kicking her out of the service. JohnValeron (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Re "can you point me to a single Wikipedia article where a selfie illustrates the lead?": can you point to an article where a drawing illustrates the lead despite a photograph being available? -sche (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seeing the current image used is preferred by Manning, the army photo is also of higher quality than the other image taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On a similar note, we should think about changing the article back to Bradley Manning. Almost every source that has claimed to use Chelsea seems to use language like "Bradley Manning (now Chelsea)" to the point that the flawed consensus from the past rename discussion is obvious.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Two kinds of pork: Pork I agree if the number of reliable sources are in it's favor but it would most likely get shot down because of other's emotions here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Ideally we try to exclude emotion. The cognitive dissonance caused by this article is legion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention Passive-aggressive behavior. Just saying. AnonNep (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that reliable sources have changed back to "Bradley". More of them are using Chelsea than a year ago, and more of them have stories without using "Chelsea (formerly Bradley)" and just a standalone "Chelsea Manning". It's possible the cognitive dissonance you sense is your own. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup, agree. I did a quick check looking at usage in WP:RS and the majority appear to be consistently using Chelsea in headline, lede and body text of article. There may be a qualifier mentioning previous name but that's about it. AnonNep (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well as long as a majority of RS are using Chelsea per WP:COMMONNAME it should remain as such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Funny that, from the recent sources I've seen, they have lead with Bradley and qualified with Chelsea. I wouldn't have thought twice about this except these sources made a point to explain their policy and seemingly don't follow it. I'm not interested however, to collate the usage. Others may find this a good use of their time, but not me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

  • According to the summary section of that file's Wikipedia page, "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): The subject's (Manning's) gender." The summary goes on to declare that the image will have "Minimal use: The file will only be used in the section detailing Manning's gender." Clearly, moving the image from that section to the lead would violate this provision.
  • The summary also identifies Chelsea Manning as author or copyright owner. Do we have her permission to illustrate Wikipedia's lead with this unbecoming selfie to replace what the Chelsea Manning Support Network has identified as Manning's "preferred photo image"? Legalisms aside, to do so without her permission would be arrogant and insulting.
  • Finally, please note that her selfie is not one of the 72 Manning images hosted by Wikimedia Commons. That, I believe, is a telling omission. We are not on solid ground here, folks. JohnValeron (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The photo is not a bad one. I don't know why you're so disparaging of it. People use it all of the time[1] without it seeming disrespectful in any way.If you have some direct indication the subject doesn't like it you should pass it on, but I don't think it's somehow unflattering.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What is it you don't understand about the Chelsea Manning Support Network's identification of Manning's April 2012 U.S. Army portrait as her "preferred photo image"? That seems plain enough to me. And why did you evade the licensing issues? JohnValeron (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
But can a support network really know what she prefers? Remember, all sources, even if not directly cited, must be verifiable. KonveyorBelt 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning contain an External Link to the Chelsea Manning Support Network? Why does the same article include a photo of a pro-Manning billboard erected in Washington, D.C., by the same network? I doubt it's because there's a consensus among Wikipedia editors that the Chelsea Manning Support Network does not accurately and conscientiously represent the sentiments of Chelsea Manning. JohnValeron (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not evading anything, I don't think that's a particularly huge issue and like I said, if the picture doesn't change I don't think it's fatal. Since every reliable source has used it as a government-agency-released photo from the trial, I would generally think any copyright concern is not as looming as you're making it sound here. I was asking a real question as I don't see why you have such animosity for a picture that all kinds of people considered sympathetic to Chelsea use all of the time. I find it strange, because I don't think the picture is unflattering.

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

{And that billboard was erected before the trial even began. It should be pretty obvious why they'd have that photo on the billboard, before the b&w photo was even released at the trial.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you believe the Chelsea Manning Support Network is lying about Manning's preferred photo image? Do you also believe the Support Network is lying about having commissioned the artwork "How Chelsea Manning sees herself" by Alicia Neal, in cooperation with Chelsea herself? That was published four months ago—plenty of time for the media to have revealed that it's a fraud, personally disavowed by Manning in favor of a four-year old selfie taken in a desperate bid to compel a psychiatric discharge. If such news reports by reliable sources are out there, I missed them. JohnValeron (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's lying. Settle down. The illustration is obviously from four months ago but most of the website was written much earlier than that, and very unevenly updated or left stale. It's possible your "preferred photo image" text is antique and accidentally still there. I don't have complete confidence that the text on the website is current. If you look at this you'll see their featured posters are completely outdated. A lot of the website was written 2012/2013 and is clearly not completely current. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is lying here. The network should not be considered a direct link to Chelsea, rather, a link to her supporters. Per WP:V, the fact that she wants one picture or another to be what she considers herself MUST be independantly verifiable. Even if this group was contacting Chelsea directly, it is a primary source and requires a secondary source to verify that assertion. KonveyorBelt 22:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And it's weird that you say she took a photo of herself to "compel a psychiatric discharge". I think you're reading into her motives a little there. It's clear from the sources that she had been presenting herself that way in her off-duty time, photo or no. So she wasn't putting on make-up just to get out of the army. That should be clear by now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You claim "it's clear from the sources" that Manning had been presenting herself in wig, makeup and dressed as a woman in her off-duty time prior to emailing the selfie to her supervisor in April 2010. Yet that is not discussed in Wikipedia's article Chelsea Manning. We know from sources not cited in our article that, while stateside on regular mid-tour leave from Iraq during January–February 2010, Manning dressed in drag while traveling from her aunt's house in Maryland to see her boyfriend in Massachusetts. But it's not clear this was normal off-duty behavior. Rather, it appears that Manning staged the selfie for the very specific purpose of emailing it to Master Sergeant Paul Adkins to bolster her self-diagnosis of gender identity disorder. It's entirely reasonable to infer that her motive was to so alarm MSgt Adkins that he would recommend her for a psychiatric discharge. The selfie was photographic reinforcement. JohnValeron (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's becoming pretty clear you don't understand that Chelsea Manning is a trans woman, and she wasn't dressing in "drag". You're reading things into Manning's motivations for taking a photograph that you couldn't possibly know. Please stop with the admitted speculation, it's obviously not about improving the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Are you saying Johnvaleron is wrong to claim she had dressed in women's clothes before the picture was taken? Or just me? Because we both say that happened. I don't think you've read those comments correctly. You're the only one saying now saying it didn't happen, and I have to say you're not making sense. Are you saying Manning didn't dress in women's clothing in 2010, before the picture was taken?__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, on further thought you probably shouldn't have continued adding material to this line of discussion in the first place. That subject only came up because Johnvaleron was using the talk page as a forum to impugn motives to the subject of the BLP. If he believes her gender identity was staged to get out of the army, he should keep it to himself in the future because it's a toxic argument that shouldn't have a place on this page. If it gets repeated again, someone should take it to BLPN or an equivalent.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please let me explain why I referred above to Manning's "self-diagnosis of gender identity disorder." It was a factual statement not intended to impugn her GID, of which I have no doubt. Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning article tells us that, while in Iraq during November 2009, Manning wrote to a civilian gender counselor stateside to say she felt female. The cited source, an article in New York magazine, quotes the counselor as saying "Bradley felt he was female" and that Manning was clearly in crisis—albeit only partly due to her gender struggles; more to her job. New York does not indicate whether or not the counselor, who never met Manning, made a formal diagnosis of GID. But it's safe to presume that client confidentiality would have prevented the counselor from sharing his opinion with the Army.

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

Anyhow, that's my understanding. Admittedly, this is a complicated issue. If I've misconstrued the facts, I'd sincerely appreciate your corrections. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Good work on the timeline, but all you need to do is be more careful about making assertions of negative motivation beyond what the sources say. The timeline of diagnosis doesn't change the fact that even though the "official" diagnoses happened after the photo, the "official" diagnoses was still that GID was present and a factor in the subject's life before she even joined the army. They confirmed both the self-diagnosis and that GID was present before any documentation in a photo (and the "official" diagnosis was obviously based on more than just a photo). The official discovery of the situation doesn't negate its actual long-term existence. Any speculation that it wasn't a motivating factor in seeking therapy is a bit toxic when it's speculation that is directly against what the doctors asserted. A talk page with discretionary sanctions shouldn't be a place for individual editors to openly speculating that the BLP subject's completely unknowable past motivations are probably negative ones. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, where do WP:RS say that Manning sent the selfie to MSgt Adkins seeking therapy rather than as a ploy to trigger psychiatric discharge? You're making an assumption just as I am. JohnValeron (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying I know her motivation, I specifically said a specific motivation was unknowable. You're insinuating the most negative one. That's the difference. This is not a forum to throw dirt at the subject and it doesn't help the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Because Chelsea Manning is a living person and discussion is subject to the constraints of WP:BLP - any negative information or opinions must be sourced, even on talk pages. Yworo (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the question asked? If the information is not in the WP:RS then we cant use it. Are we talking about article improvement or comments on the talkpage? if it is the latter then please bring it up elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hatted comments which are straying off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please refrain from trying to tell me what to do. This is the second time you have done so. Nobody elected you King, Knowledgekid87, and henceforth such comments will be ignored, or perhaps even struck, by me. Yworo (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:SIGCLEAN Yworo, it is getting to be WP:BATTLEGROUNDish namely "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion". never did I say you had to do anything, I do not know why you are going offtopic is all, if you dispute the talkpage comments there are other places to bring your concerns, I never said you had to do anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Painting a horse does not make a zebra

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

If this topic is validly an issue which belongs in the article as content, such as whether or not such terms are properly based upon physiological or personal identities, Wikipedia should not being using either term, and instead use a NPOV wording, such as singular they or something, which, while non-standard, is proper in this particular case. I have not followed previous discussions, so I start one anew here and now, and I reject any assertions that any previously determined consensus is permanent. I also reject that a disagreement in the sources and references must be contentious; it is enough that there is valid disagreement, and that they are significant viewpoints, in sources and references about facts to make them POV. Int21h (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Its an interesting argument but one that would need consensus to make the change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting reply, but we need discussions to have consensus. Int21h (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
We've had considerable discussion about this aspect of WP editing. Please see the FAQs at the top of the page. And for even more discussion, please look at the archives. I think after you do so you will see that the manner in which this article is handling gender issues is reasonable, consensus & policy based, and will not change. – S. Rich (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Plus, in practical terms, in this case the painted horse has long since galloped out of the barn and been hailed as a zebra by politically correct persons all across the savanna. Any further discussion, no matter how interesting, would be futile in the extreme. JohnValeron (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY is the relevant policy. It cannot be overridden on an article-by-article basis, as it is English Wikipedia-wide. You would have to take it to the relevant Manual of Style discussion pages. Yworo (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edited) It is not a policy, it is a guideline, and any guideline or application of a guideline that contravenes WP:NPOV is void ab initio. Int21h (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Except that it doesn't contravene NPOV. Calling a trans-person "they" is not "neutral" either; in fact, it literally denies their gender identity. You really need to review the many discussions that were had before a clear community consensus was established on the issue of Chelsea Manning specifically and MOS:IDENTITY in general. You're not making any new arguments that haven't already been put forth and rejected. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Personal interaction and behavior topic now on the WP:AN/I.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In a recent edit summary, another editor accused User:Int21h of attacking Manning's gender identification because User:Int21h began his comment, "Chelsea is a male, not a female." I disagree with the would-be censor's accusation. Read in context, User:Int21h's assertion is a simple statement of biological fact—not transphobic bigotry. It isn't about Manning's preferred gender ID—it's about his her body. JohnValeron (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Knowingly and deliberately misgendering a transgender person is considered extremely offensive by transgender individuals." (from Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion. Int21 also compared the subject with an animal. This is transphobic hate speech, pure and simple, as also is your deliberate misgendering. Yworo (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If I am guilty of hate speech, then it's your solemn duty as an editor to report me through the proper channels. You have, I believe, considerable experience in that area. JohnValeron (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Please see our extensive article on Transgender for details about the scientific and mainstream point of view as to the reality of transgendered persons. Wikipedia reflects points of view in proportion with their acceptance and credence in reliable sources. The widely-accepted mainstream point of view is that Chelsea Manning is a trans woman. That's pretty much the end of this discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree that he is a trans woman, but that is not what "he" and "she" refers to. But I assert that references to male and female are based on physiology, at the very least, and that the proper threshold that Chelsea is a female has not been met, that is, that it is not beyond question. At least, I argue, is this is the subject of a significant disagreement and as such Wikipedia should take a neutral tone. Int21h (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, they are not the subject of any significant disagreement and the "neutral" tone is the one we have adopted. Please see the FAQs, MOS:IDENTITY and the extensive previous discussions on this page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I would bring up the matter on Talk:MOS:IDENTITY, the dispute was never resolved on how Wikipedia deals with trans-gendered people, a band aid was placed on it and now I feel it is starting to come off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Simple Find 136 people that agree with you to overturn the overwhelming consensus or else quit the disruptive editing.--v/r - TP 01:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow! (Actually the task is not that daunting. We had 41 who opposed the move, so only ±94 are needed.) Given the contentiousness we've seen above it is WP:time to take the dog for a walk. And when our contending editors come back, they may find this discussion closed. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Especially when the latest article about Manning from Fox News calls her a "she". Can't argue when the biggest right-winger news source is using "she".--v/r - TP 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
S. Rich, your reference to Wikipedia:Time to take the dog for a walk in this Talk page section titled "Painting a horse does not make a zebra" is such an egregious example of mixed metaphor that I consider it hate speech. At first light, I shall report you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents &/or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement &/or one of the other venues so commonly used by editors in our midst to rat our their fellow editors. In my report, crammed with diffs dating back to January 2001 to prove you are a repeat offender, I will demand that you be topic banned henceforth from editing or commenting on dogs, walking, horses, zebras, or rats. So there. JohnValeron (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank goodness you did not mention WP:kittens – I appreciate having some leeway. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
just saying but this should have just ended with a "there is no consensus for using the wording he in the article plus WP:RS use the she" and that be it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
TP, just for the record, that RfC was about the article title, not the pronouns in the article. Neutron (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The title of the RFC was about the title of the article. The discussion was about gender identity. The title of the RFC does not limit it's scope.--v/r - TP 03:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The Findings of fact did not address the pronoun issue though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unable to resist another mixed metaphor (or should I say "trans metaphor"?) this is a WP:DUCKSEASON situation. Since the article title is carved in stone with the female given/chosen name, it becomes difficult to use male pronouns. For more guidance, see He Said, She Said. – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The date stamp is the same on both comments, it looks like it was a browser error. -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The lede sums it up Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning), thus born male but living as a woman. To insist to refer to her in the male form, contrary to the chosen gender identity isn't really what i would call a hate speech, however it is not respectful to ignore the gender identity of an individual, especially so when knowing aware of the situation. --prokaryotes (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • ^^ This sums up my feelings on the subject.--v/r - TP 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Q6 of the FAQ

Can anyone update the answer to Q6 of the FAQ at the top of this talk page to make it more consistent with the current (not one-year-old) status of the images of Manning?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

However, the gallery also includes a drawing captioned "How Chelsea Manning sees herself. By Alicia Neal, in cooperation with Chelsea herself, commissioned by the Chelsea Manning Support Network, 23 April 2014." A separate URL contains an image file of sufficient size and quality to illustrate Wikipedia's lead. Moreover, at the bottom of its home page the Support Network declares: "All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated. Link and attribution appreciated." Since no copyright claim is associated with Alicia Neal's drawing anywhere on the several pages where it appears on this website, it's safe to assume the image is indeed in the public domain. I would fully support replacing the outdated Army photo in Wikipedia's lead with this portrait, which is endorsed by Chelsea herself. JohnValeron (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with John, the other image is low quality and not the image Chelsea wants used, this is supported by WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Awards section

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

Thomas Blamey, Frederick Scherger, Jesse L. Brown, how many more do you want? I think this article passed FA with the awards included, am I right in thinking that? Listing awards and decorations in icon form is a common thing to have in military history biographies. You can find more Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The one article you listed that has it in is Jesse L. Brown the other ones you listed though don't have sections with pictures of the awards. In my view it is WP:UNDUE as Manning in this case was dishonorably discharged, the awards are already present in the infobox and can just as easily fit in the article via prose. No this article is a Good article and not a Featured Article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case the images are visually distracting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Every article I listed had a visual awards sections. Some are collapsed. All the articles I listed were featured articles. I stopped listing them because I thought you only asked for "some". (And are you saying a good article is a better standard than a featured article?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid is right about the undue nature of the section. These are ribbons, stripes, and a "combat zone" patch handed out for being in the service and for the few months on the FOB. They are already listed in the infobox and part of the official photo. – S. Rich (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought one of the reasons they were added was that people thought they weren't clear or described in the photo? User:Amducker might remember more than I do on that. The only thing I find in the archives right now, is that you added ribbons because someone was interested in knowing more about them. If they educate curious people about military decorations, they can't be completely undue.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The thing is though as I have said is that the pictures along with the links to the awards given are in the infobox, so if a reader was curious about military decorations all the would need t odo is look at the infobox or find the awards used in prose in the article. To get the other person's point of view it would be like having a section devoted to Manning's discharge and having an image of his discharge papers blown up, the same argument can be made "Well what if the reader wants to know more about how people are discharged in the military and more about why the documents look the way they do? Why does x,y, and z have to sign there?". I am going to remove the section now but that does not mean the information will be gone there are plenty of spots in the article to access it. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a good time to start edit warring, Knowledgekid87. This page still under discretionary sanctions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This isn't about "continuing the discussion" it's making changes before consensus is clear. A single editor agreeing with you isn't a new consensus. I'm not going to edit war, but you should know better.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal by Knowledgekid87 of military awards subsection, which violated WP:WEIGHT by according disproportionate prominence to images and information that are adequately presented in the Infobox. Chelsea Manning is not Audie Murphy, a genuine American military hero whose decorations greatly outnumber and vastly overwhelm Manning's in merit, yet are confined to Murphy's Infobox—except for a standalone photo of the Medal of Honor, America's highest military award. By comparison, Manning's decorations are perfunctory and puny to the point of risibility. JohnValeron (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Infobox standards, infoboxes are summaries. The information they summarize must be in the article. Also, citations do not belong in Infoboxes, because the citation belong in the article supporting the information to be summarized in the Infobox. Information removed from the article should also be removed from the Infobox. Yworo (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are hung up basing your argument on that then just put the information into prose under the Military service section, no need to include a whole sections of distracting images that violate WP:UNDUE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please wait for the discussion to come to a consensus before making any changes. That's pretty standard. And please refrain from using derogatory phrases like "hung up" when refering to other editor's positions. Yworo (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF, the information as I said can just be put into prose in the article body. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing in my comment that implies that you are not acting in good faith. Try following your own advice. Yworo (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Back to your argument you still have not addressed why the info cant be put into prose in the article's body the awards are un-sourced as it is, if sources are found and inserted in prose form into the article would you change your opinion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What the heck is your hurry? Give it a day or two for other editors to join the discussion and present their views. I have no opinion yet on that and am waiting for input from other editors, as you should be. Yworo (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Request for clarification. An editor states above that "citations do not belong in Infoboxes, because the citation[s] belong in the article supporting the information to be summarized in the Infobox." Yet as Knowledgekid87 observes, the five awards listed in Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning Infobox are not footnoted with citations. Neither do the same awards, or three additional decorations, listed in subsection 2.6 carry citations. Please explain what is meant here. Thank you. I apologize for seeking clarification of something fairly obvious, and withdraw my request. JohnValeron (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
They should be cited. Standard policy. And in a properly constructed article, there should generally not be any citation in the Infobox. I'd think that all that would be fairly obvious. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Im in no hurry you put down an oppose argument that can be fixed with editing so im wondering why you would oppose it is all. if you wish this will be my last comment addressed to you I will add the sources for the awards in the article's body meeting your original concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, in my opinion, it's bad form to attempt to pump editors for clarification. I said what I said and I am waiting for other editors to have their say. I prefer discussions like this not get long and hairy due to back and forth unnecessary queries from the OP. Sit back and wait for a consensus. These discussions don't need to be real-time arguments. Good night. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't post a support or oppose opinion but make it into a comment instead as editors response to the former quicker. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't act like there is some kind of deadline. My supporting or opposing does not mean that I am open to being swayed by additional argumentation. And I shouldn't have to contunue to discuss once I register my opinion. You expect too much. Calm down. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Data in infoboxes need not be in the text of the article. Per the lede of MOS:INFOBOX "An infobox template is a panel, ... that summarizes key features of the page's subject." Once the data is in the infobox, it is part of the article and need not be a repetition of the text. (BTW, I've had some discussions on this topic on the MOS talk page.) In Manning's case, we can add a line of text that says "Manning received the ASR, NDSM, etc."[1] Again, as I said above, ..... – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand what "summarize" means? It must be in the article to be summarized. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Quote from Help:Infobox: "Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox. In particular, if infobox templates hide long columns of data inside collapsing tables, then readers using assistive technology may miss their presence entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite the negative press and the 35 year vacation at the USDB, Manning is still a soldier in the U.S. Army. While it isn't something that would break the article if it is removed, I don't see a good reason to remove the awards section. Also, you could also consider the difference between the articles for Private Manning, an inmate confined for crimes against the U.S. and the articles for General Raymond T. Odierno and Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler, the senior commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the Army. All three articles have an award section. However, while GEN Odierno and SMA Chandler should in theory be more well known for their positions it is unlikely anybody who never served in the Army has any idea who they are. More people may know of retired GEN David Petraeus but that's most likely due to his time commanding forces in Iraq during the surge and his controversial resignation from the CIA due to adultery. Manning, on the other hand, is very well known outside of the military community due to the WikiLeaks controversy and being the most famous servicemember to be openly transgender (which in itself has fueled a debate calling for the removal of the restriction of transgender men and women being allowed to serve). While almost anybody looking at the articles of notable military officials would most likely know right away what most of their awards are, almost anybody looking at this article may look at Manning's service jacket and would be totally clueless of what the awards may represent. So having the awards section doesn't really hurt in my opinion since it will let them know what the awards represent. As for people saying that there is no source for what awards are authorized and consider Manning's official Army photo an insufficient source, wearing unauthorized awards is illegal in the military and can get you court-martialed. There is no way Manning would have been allowed to wear unauthorized awards, especially with the spotlight on this trial. In terms of General George S. Patton's awards, his awards are not included on his main page because they were put on his service summary page.

TLDR; keep it if for no other reason than letting people who are ignorant of what awards Manning earned represent will have a link to their respective articles. Amducker (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Amducker's argument that a servicemember's official photo is by itself a reliable source for military awards. When a reader clicks once on Manning's photo in the Infobox, there is information about the photo's origin but no identification of awards. When the reader clicks for "More details about this file on Wikimedia Commons," there is additional information about the file but again no mention of awards. Now, Amducker and other editors may be experts at identifying awards merely by looking at a servicemember's photo. However, that is unacceptable at Wikipedia, since it would violate Wikipedia:No original research. What we need are Wikipedia:RELIABLE sources.

Before editing Chelsea Manning over the past 24 hours, I conducted a diligent search for online reliable sources reporting Manning's military awards. I found a grand total of one: The Wall Street Journal. All other results were blogs, op-eds, or other posts amounting to nothing more than opinion and hearsay, not WP:RS. That left three awards reported by WSJ: National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Army Service Ribbon. These are included in both the text and Infobox of Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning. Accordingly, removing the standalone Military Awards section does not eliminate our article's recognition of Manning's awards, it merely—and correctly per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE—excludes prominently placed unsourced awards. JohnValeron (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Manning's official photo, here is another photo from a news website that shows the same awards as well as the service stripe and Overseas Service Bar that are not visible in the official photo. However, if Wikipedia doesn't consider Manning's official photo or other photos of Manning in uniform as sufficient sources (especially since a person who doesn't know what each award is can verify them by going here or here, or if they wish to take the time read the regulation here) then the only other suggestion I can make is to do a FOIA request with the Army's Human Resources Command since they keep records of every soldier's awards. But if we use the standard that was used to eliminate Manning's award section on every other military article there are going to be a whole lot of other pages we need to delete awards from. Recent leaders would probably be safe because their official biographies on their webpages usually have their awards listed but older leaders from decades ago might end up having their pages scrubbed if there aren't any articles that mention every award they received. While I haven't visited the Chelsea Manning Support Network website, I would assume that while they have the option of listing Manning's awards they are probably more concerned with quality of life and early release matters than the accuracy of Manning's awards. Especially since when a servicemember receives a Dishonorable Discharge they lose the right to ever wear their uniform again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amducker (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum

Original issue has been resolved, WP:NOTAFORUM is at the top of this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This talk page gets too many complains about the statement that Manning is a woman. Please put a "not a forum" banner on top in a way that it will make it clear to everyone who plans to use this talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A {{talkheader}} template is already at the top, which says this a not a forum. Besides, the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, which (IMO) may be applied to editors who edit here in a less than collaborative fashion. – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Correction. Thanks. 21:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean "applied to editors who do not edit here in a less than collaborative fashion"? Moriori (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
To me this seems like it is all about the text. I find the historical usage of the female pronoun jarring: "Manning became the target of bullying at the school because she was the only American and was viewed as effeminate (she was living as a boy at that time). Manning had identified to two friends in Oklahoma as gay..." I am fully willing to accept that Manning is a woman now -- the sticky wicket is claiming that she was a female at the time when Bradley described himself to friends as a boy (and therefore as gay). I think a historical encyclopedic statement should remain true; i.e. "Manning was a boy in Oklahoma", and not require revision based on future reassessment of the person's choice of stated gender. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Gender identity. Georgia guy (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't find myself agreeing with that essay. The individual's internal gender identity might have been different back then, but Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts, and it's the external gender identity that is verifiable. Besides, I doubt that every single transsexual in the world grew up knowing that he/she was the "wrong sex" at age 3 and onward; I'm sure that some discovered their preferred gender identity more gradually. Without more sourcing it's hard to say which is which in Manning's case, but the sentence I quoted above gives me the impression that she was such an individual, since - even revealing his secret feelings to friends - as a boy he chose to call himself gay rather than saying she felt she should be a woman. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Which question do you disagree with?? Did you read the essay carefully?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The essay is full of personal opinions in my view, why cant we base things off of the WP:RS? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Any questions you disagree with the way the essay answers?? Please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously #6 is the one dealing with retroactivity. I don't deny that opinion exists (obviously the article reflects it) but it's not immediately clear that just because this essay exists that it is clearly the consensus. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean, you strongly disagree with it?? What do you think it should be?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a delicate subject, when the essay was constructed it was right after the heated debate of this article's title, WP:COI was running deep at the time by a few editors who had personal relation to what was going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, what do you mean by COI? Is this where you were considering that trans editors shouldn't edit articles about trans subjects? __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I am saying that when the essay was made feelings were still running deep, this combined with the fact that we have users like Sportsfan5000 now indef blocked from Wikipedia that made up chunks of it. The essay should have been written up by editorsw not involved in the Manning dispute as in uninvolved editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's true we all have our prejudices. I suspect there's a certain B-vs-T dynamic here in that some people feel that "gender identity" is really important while others don't feel like it makes such a difference. I mean, to me the whole wig-and-makeup thing on the photo we picture seems like something as foreign, stilted, stereotypical as a niqab; it doesn't seem to define what a person is, just a social phenomenon of "how women should look" that is unfortunately common in a certain culture. So my bias is more to think of men and women as intrinsically similar, therefore to regard the gender identity as something externally defined, and therefore, the identity that Bradley projected in the past as being as meaningful as a gender identity can be. It is possible, of course, that my bias blinds me at least as much as anyone else's. Wnt (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Better to read [2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any directly applicable guidance there. If I adapt it pretty freely, then I take their statement that "gender is a social construct" (emphasis mine) to mean that they would understand why I would think that Manning was a boy named Bradley in her youth; because society as a whole thought of him at the time as a boy. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The top editor, by far, of Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning is User:SlimVirgin. Latest statistics show that SlimVirgin has made 32.5% of all 4,510 edits to this article—more than twice as many as nearest competitor Srich32977. A year ago, SlimVirgin shared with us a personal communication from Manning's lawyer, David Coombs. "Regarding the pronoun," related SlimVirgin, "he wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material." It's a fair presumption that Coombs was conveying his client's preference in this matter. Yet somewhere along the line, Wikipedians chose to ignore Manning's preference and impose female pronouns retroactively—all the way back to Manning's birth. I wonder if anyone knows why. JohnValeron (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not going to be productive re-arbitrating the pronoun issue as if we were back in 2013. That was before Manning was able to even get a single public message out. User:SlimVirgin can confirm that those messages happened when Chelsea was held with very limited communication with her own lawyer. Things have changed since then. Since then she has been able to send out communications directly and said she likes feminine pronouns, she's said she's felt like a woman all her life, and David Coombs is no longer her main active lawyer forced to speak on her behalf without direct communication. The pronouns have a long-standing and stable consensus to follow MOS:Identity. The most recent evidence is that Chelsea Manning considered herself a woman and I don't see anything newer than her prison communications about that. I think people should take Georgia guy's advice and not turn this into a forum as if all of this stuff wasn't hashed out ad nauseum by a huge number of editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Was the historical usage hashed out this clearly? I am not arguing for the whole article to be moved back to Bradley, male pronouns for her presently or any of that, just this one limited point. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, please provide a link to a WP:RS where Manning has, since August 27, 2013, said she prefers female pronouns applied retroactively to her pre-announcement life. I obviously missed that and would like to catch up. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter because the majority of WP:RS are using the female pronouns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
MOS:Identity does not require a subject formally ask Wikipedia for feminine pronouns as the default. It requires clear disavowal of feminine pronouns communicated by the subject. Otherwise we assume that the person's gender identity has remained generally constant through their life, regardless of what they told their elementary school teachers. This is consistent with how better sources describe gender identity. The only word we've heard from Chelsea Manning directly and most recently is that she appreciates feminine pronouns and has felt like a woman all of her life.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is worth following up that per instruction given I see MOS:IDENTITY does weigh in on this point, in language based on an RFC I missed. I might not like this style but it seems for better or worse there was a decision made over it. Wnt (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity expressly states, "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." The question remains: Why has Wikipedia ignored Manning's preference that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material? Please see further discussion on this point below. JohnValeron (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for historical understanding of female pronoun usage

Original issue has been resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The top editor, by far, of Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning is User:SlimVirgin. Latest statistics show that SlimVirgin has made 32.5% 14.9% of all 4,510 edits to this article—more than nearly twice as many as nearest competitor Srich32977. A year ago, SlimVirgin shared with us a personal communication from Manning's lawyer, David Coombs. "Regarding the pronoun," related SlimVirgin, "he wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material."

It's a fair presumption that Coombs was conveying his client's preference in this matter. Yet somewhere along the line, Wikipedians chose to ignore Manning's preference and impose female pronouns retroactively—all the way back to Manning's birth. User:Elaqueate assures us, "those messages happened when Chelsea was held with very limited communication with her own lawyer. Things have changed since then. Since then she has been able to send out communications directly and said she likes feminine pronouns…."

Both as a matter of historical record and to help the rest of us appreciate the deep respect for Chelsea Manning that has gone into this Wikipedia article, would someone please provide a link to a WP:RS where Manning has, since August 27, 2013, said she prefers female pronouns applied retroactively to her pre-announcement life? Obviously I missed that and would like to catch up. Thank you! JohnValeron (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert] There is a slight misunderstanding as to the data presented. SlimVirgin has made 14.9% of the total edits. The 32.5% figure is the percentage of those 670 edits which were minor. No matter what the numbers are, SlimVirigin and I do not "own" the article by any measure. That said, I will defer to SlimVirgin in all respects. SV is an awesome Wikipedian. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction! Yes, indeed, according to the pie chart labeled Top 10 by Edits, User:SlimVirgin is #1 with 14.9% of the edits to Chelsea Manning, and User:Srich32977 is #2 with 7.5%. I'm #6, but with a paltry 1.8% it's like I brought a peanut-butter sandwich to a banquet. JohnValeron (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This was just answered and the thread closed. This is getting a little disruptive. Manning has spoken since that Coombs message. She mentioned she wanted people to change to feminine pronouns. She did not make any exceptions. Mos:Identity is clear. We are not ignoring Manning's preference here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, please don't misunderstand. I'm not being disruptive and have no interest in re-litigating this issue. But why won't you help satisfy my genuine curiosity by providing a link to a WP:RS where Manning expresses a preference contrary to the one her lawyer conveyed to SlimVirgin a year ago? I'm in the Top 10 among editors of this article, and believe that better understanding the respect (or lack thereof) Wikipedians have shown for Chelsea's preference will enable me to make more useful edits. Thanks again for your patience. JohnValeron (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If there is a source out there then it would benefit the article as well . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Have either of you taken the time to search for "pronouns" in the talk page archives? Yworo (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The archives wouldn't have it if she had recently stated that she wanted female pronouns used though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If there is a source out there that supports this then this issue I can see can finally be put to rest and linked in the questions above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Here. It is an interesting bit of history; I just wish it didn't have to get laid out so often. I am happy to satisfy your curiosity this time.

At the time of Coombs communication, Manning was held in solitary confinement, with incredibly limited communication with her lawyer (as explained by the lawyer himself). Coombs advice about pronouns was not "Chelsea wants this..." and you're right that we would have to make a presumption (wrong in this case) that she had anything to do with the advice. She wasn't able to make a statement for herself (that we can verify was her own wishes) until 9 October 2013 where she explicitly stated that her communications with Coombs were extremely limited and only dealt with the court martial and not what people should call her when she was a child, It's clear that we can not consider Coombs as expressing her clear and direct wishes on the subject of pronouns at that time. When you bring up "Coombs said this..." it's from a time Chelsea says not to. Her October statement mentions pronouns by expressing appreciation of anyone who uses feminine ones. There is no direction to ever use masculine ones, and MOS:identity is clear here. This is the only letter we have about pronouns from the subject herself, and it endorses feminine pronouns and asks us not to assume the word of her lawyer at the time as representing a direct communication from her. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, you flatly misstate the historical record. "At the time of Coombs communication," you write, "Manning was held in solitary confinement, with incredibly limited communication with her lawyer…." That is simply false. SlimVirgin shared his communication from David Coombs on August 27, 2013—six days after Manning's court-martial concluded, and five days after Manning arrived at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Kansas, where she joined the general population. She was not held in solitary, was making friends with other prisoners, and was allowed phone contact with her lawyer. Two days after SlimVirgin shared his communication, Coombs blogged an update.
Ordinarily, an inmate is not allowed to have any outside contact during the indoctrination period. The USDB, however, made an exception for Chelsea. … I am happy to report that she is doing very well at the USDB, and has already made several friends who accept her for who she is. Due to going through indoctrination, Chelsea was unaware of the response to her public statement on the Today show. During our conversation, I informed Chelsea of the overwhelming support for her decision. I also told her about how most responsible media have elected to respect her wishes and refer to her by her new name. Chelsea was very happy to hear of these developments. She requested that I relay how grateful that she is for everyone's understanding and continued support.

Elaqueate, you likewise distort the record by linking to Manning's October 7, 2013 Guardian letter without following up with Coombs's October 9 response.

I had a phone call with Chelsea this morning. We discussed the letter that she sent to the Guardian. I reminded her that we spoke about the Sean MacBride Peace Award on three separate occasions…. After being reminded of these conversations, Chelsea indicated that she did, in fact, remember the award and our discussions about it. She told me that she got confused when she recently received mail about the award, and assumed that people were writing to her about a new award. Chelsea told me that she has been feeling isolated and out of touch with the outside world during the indoctrination period at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, which is what led to her confusion over this issue. Due to this confusion, Chelsea said she felt the need to write her letter. She told me that she is sorry if her letter caused any offense to the International Peace Bureau, Col. Wright, or her supporters."

Coombs also said that Chelsea was "reconsidering her position" as to who could legitimately speak for her. "For now," wrote Coombs, "I will continue to provide updates and statements by Chelsea on the issues that impact her and her confinement conditions."

Notwithstanding your distortions, Elaqueate, there is absolutely no indication in any of this that Manning repudiated her earlier preference, conveyed by Coombs to SlimVirgin during the week of Manning's coming-out in August 2013, that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material. JohnValeron (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I don't know how you do math, but maybe you haven't noticed that you're saying it was Two days after SlimVirgin shared his communication that Coombs said Yesterday was my first opportunity to speak with Chelsea since her sentencing. Honestly, do the math. That means Coombs didn't talk with Chelsea post-trial until the day after talking with SlimVirgin. Which means any communication you're assuming happened, happened during the trial, not during indoctrination. Which is what I was talking about and was the last time Manning and Coombs talked, according to Coombs himself. Chelsea has obviously not given full endorsements of the communications that came out of that time, characterising them as good-intentioned miscommunications. It would be bonkers to characterize material from this disputed time as "clear indication of preference".
So there is no actual indication beyond your guess that the so-called "her earlier preference" was ever her earlier preference. You said yourself that was an assumption even before I pointed out the subject's letter calling those communications into further question. You've got nothing. You have one statement by the lawyer that was put under a cloud by the subject herself from a time they didn't communicate, and that's not a clear indication of her preference. You can't point to any other clear indication of a preference for masculine pronouns, and that's what Mos:Identity requires. So stop beating the bones of a long-dead horse. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Now when you quoted the Coombs blog, you only omitted a single sentence, the sentence that showed your statement about the timing was incorrect. I won't say you were misleading, I'll assume good faith that it was an honest mistake. But I think I've otherwise been very patient with the unsupported and erroneous accusations you've sent my way. Maybe you can avoid jumping the gun in the future okay? But according to the sources we've found, and the sources you've provided, there's no way that the lawyer could have had a chat session about pronouns with Chelsea, since by his admission the last time he directly talked to her was before her gender identity announcement, and that makes Coombs's stated preference not at all clearly the same thing as Chelsea's preference. Mos:Identity does not require the subject to actively opt-in, but to clearly and directly opt-out. This is old ground, and the article is based on her most recent, most direct indications about pronouns, and not on older, more unknowably indirect ones.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, please, let's get this straight.

  • August 27: SlimVirgin shares his communication from Coombs

  • August 28: Coombs speaks with Chelsea for first time since her sentencing on August 21

"Which means," you write, "any communication you're assuming happened, happened during the trial."

Of course! During the trial, Manning had daily and unmonitored access to his entire defense team, headed by David Coombs. It was Coombs who hand-carried Manning's letter to the Today show on August 22 proclaiming, for the first time and to all the world, "I am Chelsea Manning."

Do you honestly suppose Manning had not by then fully vetted the contents of this letter and strategized its release with Coombs? It's reasonable to infer that she'd done so, including instructing Coombs as to her pronoun preferences, during the court-martial's three-week sentencing phase (July 31–August 20).

Your insistence, "It would be bonkers to characterize material from this disputed time as 'clear indication of preference'" is utterly without foundation. JohnValeron (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've been pinged a couple of times, so this is just to clarify. I asked David Coombs several questions on 26 August 2013, and he gave permission for his responses to be shared. The questions were about which name, pronoun and photograph Chelsea Manning would prefer we used. Coombs introduced his responses by saying: "Here is what I would recommend in response to your questions"; I understood this to mean these were his views as Manning's representative.

My question about the pronoun was:

Should the female pronoun be used throughout, for all life stages, including childhood? Only for post-announcement material? Or not at all?

Coombs replied:

Female pronouns should be used for only post-announcement material.

This was in August 2013. People used the female pronoun throughout anyway, per MoS. So far as I know neither Manning nor Coombs complained about it, so I wouldn't recommend trying to change it now, unless there's further communication from them. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of making the situation clear enough to avoid further debate, even to anyone who might insist that David Coombs is a better indicator of Chelsea Manning's wishes than Chelsea Manning herself, I'll point out that David Coombs uses "retroactive" feminine pronouns constantly at this point, most recently here with In April of 2010, Chelsea sent her supervisor an email... If you want people to assume he'd only communicate this way after "full strategy" sessions and implicit instruction from Manning, then it's pretty clear he's most currently and overwhelmingly indicating a preference for "retroactive" feminine pronouns, regardless of what he said he'd prefer a year ago. This issue is deader-than-dead. We are grave-digging at this point. Our most current and direct indicators give no indication at all that masculine pronouns are used for earlier stages of life. I don't see any evidence otherwise.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think any awkwardness in the text can be handled with creating writing, rather than feeling we need to change pronouns. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, there are three states of knowledge we could be in right now:
  1. We could know which pronouns Manning preferred be used in reference to pre-announcement events, and know they were masculine pronouns.
  2. We could know which pronouns Manning preferred be used in reference to pre-announcement events, and know they were feminine pronouns.
  3. We could lack definite knowledge of which pronouns Manning preferred be used in reference to pre-announcement events.
MOS:IDENTITY says to use pronouns "that reflect [a] person's latest expressed gender self-identification [...] in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise" (emphasis mine). Manning has not personally indicated a preference otherwise. A lawyer indicated a preference otherwise, in a communication prefaced "I recommend". Some editors assume the lawyer's indication was directed by Manning, but neither Manning's subsequent direct communication nor the lawyer's current practice (if Elaqueate is correct that he uses "her" in reference to pre-announcement events) suggest such an assumption is correct. Based on Manning's own comments about pronouns, I think we could possibly be in state 2... but we are most likely in state 3. State 1 is the only state that would suggest that the article's current use of pronouns should be changed. -sche (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid several editors have misunderstood my purpose in opening this Talk section. I never proposed changing pronouns in Chelsea Manning. I assured Elaqueate that I have no interest in re-litigating the issue. However, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity states: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns … that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." (Emphasis added.) I sought clarification from the community as to why this WP:MOS provision was ignored in light of SlimVirgin's August 27, 2013 revelation of a personal communication from Manning's lawyer, David Coombs. "Regarding the pronoun," related SlimVirgin, "he wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material." Now, more than a year later, SlimVirgin adds, "I understood this to mean these were his views as Manning's representative."

That does not clarify anything. Is SlimVirgin insinuating that Coombs's views were uninformed by and unreflective of the feelings of the lawyer's principal client, Chelsea Manning? If so, SlimVirgin is impugning the professional integrity of an attorney with impeccable credentials, who has worked with unrivaled commitment on behalf of Manning longer than anyone else since the soldier's arrest almost 4½ years ago.

I was also unimpressed by the first WP:RS offered by Elaqueate, Manning's October 2013 letter that, as discussed above, was promptly rebutted by David Coombs's response. Elaqueate's second WP:RS, though, a blog by Coombs dated August 22, 2014, is much more persuasive. Coombs does indeed use female pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns to refer to the pre-announcement phase of Manning's life.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that Wikipedians achieved the proper formulation—although we did so by willfully ignoring the one piece of solid advice we had a year ago, namely Coombs's communication to SlimVirgin. We achieved the right result, but only by disregarding the best evidence then available as to what the subject of this WP:BLP herself preferred. That strikes me as disrespectful to the point of hubris on our part. JohnValeron (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. You're suggesting the biggest disrespect that happened to Chelsea Manning on Wikipedia in September 2013 was that we didn't use enough masculine pronouns, or assume she wanted to be called a man, when she said to call her a woman. Bizarro. You've demanded a lot of people's time to go over some incredibly well-worn ground for your idle curiosity, and not for helping construct a better article. Manning's direct statement was that she'd felt like a women, even from the age of childhood. It's not somehow disrespectful to take her at her word.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, I did not "demand" anything from you or any other editor. I opened a Talk page section. You chose to participate. Thank you for that. JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sure that the discussion can conclude in total now that the OP says they weren't ever suggesting a single change to the article. That is the main reason I was suggesting this thread was a bit nonconstructive. If this was "off-topic", it was off-topic from the start. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, I cannot conceive why you have been so defensive and hostile in this thread. Does Wikipedia policy forbid an editor from asking on a Talk page for an explanation of why the community ignored the preference of the subject of a WP:BLP as to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity? JohnValeron (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not hostile, light-hearted. Your question assumes your own assumptions. The community did not ignore a preference of the subject, as that preference was indirect and open to interpretation among reasonable editors, with no prejudice to the good faith and hard work of David Coombs. (In that case MOS:IDENTITY is clear about what to do if there's unclarity) You made a lot of assumptions with the benefit of hindsight that other editors didn't make at the time, although I'm sure those guesses seem reasonable to you. (Since everyone seems to use "retroactive" pronouns now, it could be argued those who interpreted it as questionable were borne out as correct, but its moot today) If you're satisfied now, that's great, but endlessly second-guessing the actions of a year ago on this talk page with no actual constructive objective seems counter-productive, even if you have the best of motives in doing so. I think editors were generous with you here and I hope you're ultimately satisfied with that as well.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
(after e/c) I hope I don't sound bitey in this comment.
There have been two 500,000-byte move debates, one long Arbitration case, and 4.3 megabytes of talk page discussion about this article. On WT:MOS, there have been at least half a dozen threads about MOS:IDENTITY. The issue of 'consistent' or 'retroactive' pronoun use has come up more times than I care to count. Some of the best resources on writing about transgender people, cited in the threads on WT:MOS, say to use the same pronouns in reference to all phases of a subject's life. I think it is understandable that editors could be frustrated about discussing the issue yet again, particularly if the discussion is purely academic — which this one is, if it's admitted that Wikipedia is doing the right (according to its policies, guidelines, etc) thing now, and the question is just why it didn't do something differently in the past.
As to why Wikipedia didn't do something differently in the past: consider that at this time last year, WP:MOS said only "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.", without any exception for if the subject preferred otherwise. And there were doubts from the start about the degree to which Coombs was able to speak to or for Manning, and hence doubts about whether Coombs' ideas about pronoun usage could be taken to match Manning's, which meant that pronoun usage did not change even after MOS:IDENTITY was amended.
-sche (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone just bring this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and have us all end this debate? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Height and Weight question

Just reading the article and I notice in the early life section where it says "was always small for her age; as an adult she reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed around 105 pounds (47.6 kg)." while I am aware Chelsea Manning now identifies at female would it be possible to explain that these measurements are short by male standards rather than how it currently is as it implies that Chelsea was short by female standards for which her current height is only 2 inches below the average US female (5 ft 4 in) and not considered short. C. 22468 Talk to me 16:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the sources, and neither of them make the specific claim "was always small for her age". They support the other material about her upbringing and infancy, and the simple fact of her adult height without interpretation. I took out the unsupported part.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's the best option as it now makes sense to read.C. 22468 Talk to me 23:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fort Leavenworth

Original issue has been resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From the Wiki page, "The USDB is the U.S. military's only maximum-security facility for males and houses male service members convicted at court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice." clicked on from the link the in article.

"Female prisoners are instead sent to the Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar."

Just bringing up incongruities. Robertvincentswain (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Where the federal government chooses to imprison someone does not dictate that person's gender identity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Robertvincentswain, strictly for the sake of discussion, I'm curious as to how you suggest Wikipedia editors ought to resolve the "incongruity" you have identified. Or are you just being playful? JohnValeron (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking at that paragraph for a good 15 minutes now, and cannot think of a way to edit it. I generally like to make suggestions for something that I see as a problem, but I'm stumped. I'll strike my comments.Robertvincentswain (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender

Manning is, like anyone, free to change their name. Bradley can become Chelsea. But change of sex is another matter. Whether it is biologically possible for a human to change sex is much debated. However Manning has not undergone any sex change procedure, so cannot be considered female even if such a change was possible. In any case, wasn't the proposed treatment for gender identity condition to include 'real life experience' therapy, which presumably have shown him he was a man - medical treatment to change his appearance to the feminine was not proposed. The Army medical specialists who have confirmed that he has gender dysphoria are presumably psychiatrists. A psychiatric condition cannot change a man into a woman, any more than a similar delusion can change him into a dog. Whilst this article should refer to Manning by the name of Chelsea, as that is the legal name, Manning should be referred to using the male pronoun, not female.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME most reliable sources are calling Manning a she and using feminine pronouns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Royalcourtier: I'm guessing you didn't read the big note at the top about MOS:IDENTITY? --NeilN talk to me 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Imprisonment versus confinement

Last year I started making improvements to the article because I was aware many of the other people who were making improvements to the article were knowledgeable with transgender subjects and the WikiLeaks case but were ignorant on U.S. military subjects. In some cases in the article it caused military words and subjects to be incorrect and even had the word "Army" in lower case despite it being a proper noun when when directly referring to the United States Army and not the generic use of the word army.

I originally changed any instances of imprisonment to confinement to match military incarceration terms and to match the United States Disciplinary Barracks article (where Manning is currently held). While there were no changes to it for over a year, recently someone changed it to imprisonment in the opening and when I changed it back to confinement my change was reverted, with the explanation that the source had the word imprisonment, and confinement was changed to imprisonment in another part of the article within five minutes of the the revert.

I'm not trying to get into an editing war and if the source was the reason for the change I can find more accurate sources that will refer to a military prisoner being confined to a military correctional facility (the terms used on the official page for the USDB) versus imprisoned to a military prison. I'm just trying to get an idea if we should ignore the term used for military prisoners and put imprisonment versus putting confinement and linking the first use of the word to military prisons so people don't confuse it with solitary confinement used as punishment in many prisons.

While I'm aware sources may say it one way but sometimes the source may say it that way out of the writer's ignorance especially if they aren't familiar with military terms either. I've seen plenty of articles from professional news sources that have failed to capitalize Army as well when they were talking about the U.S. Army specifically, calling U.S Marines soldiers, and other things that are incorrect in terms of military terms. Amducker (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue to the Talk page. I reverted your revision 631063499 because the cited source repeatedly said Manning was sentenced to military prison. If you substitute a different reliable source using the term "confinement," I won't interfere. However, I urge you not to overly broaden this. "I can find more accurate sources," you write, "that will refer to a military prisoner being confined to a military correctional facility." We are not concerned with a generic prisoner in a generic facility. Our article is, in this instance, specifically about Manning's incarceration at USDB. Any attempt to impose terminology unsupported by WP:RS particular to this case would violate WP:NOR. JohnValeron (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I know I totally worded it wrong and should have been more specific when I mentioned finding a more accurate source. I could find a lot of sources right now that show that inmates in general sent to the USDB are considered confined instead of imprisoned. What I meant to type was that I could look for one that specifically lists Manning as confined. While I could do some looking to see what I could find, it's not really at the top of my list of projects so I may revisit it at a later date and sit back while others submit their improvements to the page based on this subject for the time being. Amducker (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

List of requested moves

The list of requested moves at the top of this page needs updating to link to the archived location of the discussions as they're no longer on this page. I don't have time to do it myself at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think all the links have been updated now. -sche (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update to Main Image

It's a bit jarring that the title of the article is "Chelsea Manning" yet the photograph in the bio box depicts a pre-transition Bradley Manning. The last time this subject was discussed, the only image of Manning as a female was a poor-quality selfie, and the FAQ atop the talk page references guidance from Manning's lawyer in 2013 that "Chelsea is proud of the [current] photograph and would want it to be used until a better one becomes available." Since then, an authorized portrait has become available, and it has been released into the public domain. This image is currently used in the "Gender transition" section of the article.

According to this article about the portrait, no new photographs of Manning will be taken as long as she is in prison; and aside from a quibble about her face looking slimmer now, the authorized portrait is a recent, high quality image depicting Chelsea Manning. I propose swapping the current main image with the one in the "Gender transition" section. The new portrait is a depiction of Chelsea Manning, the subject of the article; whereas the older image of a pre-transition Bradley Manning has more relevance in the section about her gender transition. Joeycastillo (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This same proposal was extensively discussed—and rejected—as recently as September 2014. Please explain what has changed in the past three months that would warrant yet another debate. JohnValeron (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
From the beginning, that discussion was about a different image, a black and white selfie taken in a car; the outcome of that discussion was that the car image (1) was of low quality, and (2) had licensing issues. Neither of those issues apply to the authorized portrait, as it is both high quality and released into the public domain. Having a new discussion about the merits of two high quality images, neither of which have licensing issues, could lead us to a more recent, high quality image at the top that depicts the subject of the article, while retaining the older image in a section where it is more relevant. Joeycastillo (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Joeycastillo, you obviously replied without even reading the discussion to which I linked, where I talk about the artwork "How Chelsea Manning sees herself" by Alicia Neal, created in cooperation with Chelsea herself, published last summer by the Chelsea Manning Support Network. Please stop ignoring consensus and trying to pretend your proposal is anything other than a needless rehash. JohnValeron (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize. I did read the entire discussion and got the sense that it centered around the selfie versus the military portrait, and that mention of the new official portrait did not get formal consideration. You clearly know the rules better than I do and I don't want to step on toes. Ticket closed. Feel free to remove this discussion. Joeycastillo (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Joeycastillo, I think you're being bullied here. Considering the cited earlier discussion started with JohnValeron saying: I would fully support replacing the outdated Army photo in Wikipedia's lead with this portrait, which is endorsed by Chelsea herself. It's not unreasonable to have brought this up to see where current consensus is. The response you received was needlessly hostile and failed to assume good faith. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, please let me ask you the same question I posed to Joeycastillo: What has changed in the past three months that would warrant yet another debate? JohnValeron (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Joeycastillo cited an in-depth article purely about the image that was published a month after we had that last discussion. It looks like you didn't read their link before you upbraided them for not reading your link. I don't think a new discussion is likely to go far with the attitudes expressed here, but telling editors to stop pretending they weren't trying to waste people's time is a basic failure of AGF. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out on August 31, the drawing captioned "How Chelsea Manning sees herself. By Alicia Neal, in cooperation with Chelsea herself," was published by the Chelsea Manning Support Network in April 2014. The editors who participated in our debate three months ago were provided a link with which to view the image online. Obviously the portrait itself has not changed since our debate concluded. The only development is an October article at The Verge. I fail to see how that article calls into question the consensus we reached in September. JohnValeron (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Three facts from the article might call the consensus into question. First, the article reports for the first time that Manning herself approves of the portrait. Not that the organization that released it approves, but that the subject of this article approves. Second: the article reports that two weeks after your last discussion ended, The Guardian began using the authorized portrait to accompany op-ed pieces authored by Manning; the new image has gained more currency in the three months since the original discussion. Finally: the article makes clear that no new photograph of Manning is forthcoming. "Under Army Regulation 190-47, prisoners of the Army Corrections Systems — where Manning is serving her 35-year sentence — 'will not be photographed, except in support of medical documentation and for official identification purposes.'" This fact was absent from the original discussion, and might have affected the consensus; the prospect of illustrating an article titled 'Chelsea Manning' with an image of Bradley Manning for the foreseeable future seems unsustainable. Joeycastillo (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Again as I pointed out on August 31, the Chelsea Manning Support Network stated in April that new photo images "are not expected to become available anytime soon." So you are simply wrong in claiming this fact was absent from the original discussion. I also made clear that the drawing was published as "How Chelsea Manning sees herself. By Alicia Neal, in cooperation with Chelsea herself." So it's likewise untrue that The Verge article is the first time "Manning herself approves of the portrait." You may be right that the drawing has gained currency in the past three months, but the fact remains that this idealized image does not accurately reflect Manning's present appearance. Not only, as she points out, is her face thinner, but she is not permitted long hair and recently filed suit against the Secretary of Defense to allow that, among other things. JohnValeron (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, the image atop the article right now not only fails to accurately reflect Manning's present appearance, it also fails to accurately represent her gender identity. It also fails to match up with the name at the top of the article. I spent some time looking and I can't find a single WP:BLP of a transgender woman that uses a pre-transition image to illustrate the subject. Given the choice between an idealized image that accurately reflects Chelsea Manning's gender identity, and an older image that does not, I think it's a no brainer to make the main image the one that accurately reflects her gender identity; it's an article about a woman named Chelsea Manning. Full disclosure: my interest in this is that I help out at a community that focuses on LGBT issues; via that I saw one of her Guardian op-ed's today, googled my way to this article and was jarred by the photo that came up in the search results and atop the page. I logged on to make the case that the infobox should respect her gender identity; I'm not a seasoned wikipedia editor, and while I may have overstepped my bounds in this discussion, please trust me when I say that I meant well here. Anyway, that's my case; I won't respond further and will respect the consensus that comes from this discussion, or if this discussion is deemed inappropriate, the consensus achieved in September. Joeycastillo (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not see an improvement by using that image as it is a description versus an actual picture of Manning dressed in military fatigue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear that Manning endorses the drawing or that it depicts Manning today. We do have a reliable source which provides an official photo from Manning's attorney, and this image is certainly acceptable to both Manning and the US Army. I recommend that we avoid endorsing the Manning Support Network image as we cannot verify that Manning has approved this particular image. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What has changed since the September 2014 discussion is that Wikipedia is lagging behind the media by even more months in depicting Chelsea Manning as accurately as possible. (If even the most historically trans-hostile mainstream media is beating us at fulfilling our own WP:IDENTITY policy, we're doing something wrong.) — Saxifrage ✎ 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be a personal opinion of yours, but that does not change the facts at hand, we are not a news agency we are an encyclopedia. We have two possible other pictures we could use both of which have been thoroughly discussed already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
“… Wikipedia is lagging behind the media ….” Such is the nature of an encyclopedia, as a tertiary source. And if primary and secondary sources make other pictures available, no doubt we’ll consider using them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015

I would request that the 10th Mountain patch insignia be removed from this page. The material is very tangentially related to that honorable division of the U.S. military. By including the patch, it seems to imply that there is some official approval of this soldier's behavior. There is an implied POV here that does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

71.228.130.69 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)JParsons

Done Removed image of shoulder sleeve insignia as unrelated to subsection 2.3 Contact with gender counselor. Manning's assignment to 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division remains noted in Infobox. JohnValeron (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The mention of 10th MD remains in the infobox & text, but I've removed the icon from the infobox too. – S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Category: Women in the United States military

This is going into a gender discussion, the category has since been removed and a gender neutral one has been added. Searching through the archives this same issue was raised before in the past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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'm wondering if this category is appropriate. There was a mini edit-war over this a few months ago and it was decided that it wouldn't be included and instead another category remained. I think the category that remained was "trans women in the US army" or "LGBT people in the US army". Was there another discussion that decided that "women in the US army" is appropriate or was it snuck in? 194.82.100.215 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems like it was snuck in. That nuanced category should be discussed first. The category was removed. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Trans women are women. We can't treat them like a third gender. Georgia guy (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Does it matter what the U.S. military thinks about this? The Army recognized Chelsea's legal name change, but never acknowledged that she is female, and indeed continues to incarcerate her in an all-male facility. The latest news that her request for hormone therapy has been approved makes no mention of transferring her to a women's prison. In this particular instance, I oppose enforcing Wikipedia's overly rigid political correctness. Leave this category out of the article. Please. JohnValeron (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean, Wikipedia should treat her like a man in this particular case?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I mean that Wikipedia has reached consensus on treating Manning as female, but we should make an exception in this instance in deference to the U.S. military's categorization of her as an incarcerated man. Should she be transferred to a woman's prison, we can readily restore this category. JohnValeron (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And Third gender seems apt. I don't think it's constructive to take a pejorative tone in reference to such people, as in the comment by User:Georgia guy, above. - Boneyard90 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Boneyard90, I followed your link to Wikipedia's article Third gender, but fail to see how it is "apt." In Manning's famous coming-out statement read by Savannah Guthrie on NBC's Today show in 2013, the soldier declared: "As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." She did not say, "I am third gender." Accordingly, your application of that term to her is at least as pejorative as you charge Georgia guy's comment with being. JohnValeron (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2015 (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.

Medford, Oregon Manning Support

Please add this photograph [3] to the article. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need it, there are plenty of photos in the article including a billboard for the cause. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you :) CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Parole...

As far as I am aware persons who are convicted of a federal or military crime and who are serving their sentence in a federal or military penitentiary are NOT eligible for parole, There is no parole system on the federal or in the military level in the United States. All convicts must serve their entire sentence. YborCityJohn (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the official U.S. Army Clemency and Parole Board web page. JohnValeron (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok I stand corrected, then there is NO parole on the federal level (i.e. non-military). YborCityJohn (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links

Why the hell is there an external link to the Manning Support group? External links, outside the citations, are meant to have a neutral point of view. Not that it really matters what I say because the Manning supporters already have this page on lockdown... Wikipedia is a joke. 2601:B:BB80:80D:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for raising this issue. According to Wikipedia:External links, "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline…." Although we may normally link to a subject's official site, the guideline requires that in doing so we meet both of two criteria, one of which is: "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article." The Chelsea Manning Support Network fails this test. Its content is obviously not—and indeed doesn't even purport to be—controlled by Chelsea Manning. Accordingly, I have removed that external link. Kent Krupa (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Details of life in confinement

We see material – actually quite detailed – about Manning's life in confinement. Is this encyclopedic? Would such details be noteworthy in any other BLP of non-imprisoned persons? I submit not. – S. Rich (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, when I searched for Wikipedia:Encyclopedic, I was redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please, would you clarify in what sense the material in Chelsea_Manning#Prison_life violates our WP:NOT policy? Also, I don't understand your question about noteworthy details "in any other BLP of non-imprisoned persons." Since Chelsea Manning does not fall into the category of "non-imprisoned persons," I can't see the relevance of your query in this regard. Thank you. Kent Krupa (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIARY applies. And it applies whether or not someone is confined. Visits by Manning's sister and working in the wood shop does not qualify as "enduring notability of persons and events" type information. (NOTNEWS) – S. Rich (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
S. Rich, thanks for your reply. I removed all mentions of woodshop and visits by Manning's sister, and did some additional trimming to reduce redundancy. Kent Krupa (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A good step. But IMO the mention should be even briefer. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it should read something like "In correspondence with AI and Cosmo, Manning reported that she was adapting well to prison life.[cite][cite]" – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
S. Rich, as it stands, Chelsea_Manning#Prison_life consists of 274 words. By way of comparison with BLPs of other incarcerated individuals, Nidal_Malik_Hasan#Prison_life contains 427 words; Ted_Kaczynski#Prison 435 words; and Charles_Manson#Interviews (231) plus Charles_Manson#Parole_hearings (194) combine for 425 words. Given this largess in other cases, why must Manning be reduced to a single sentence? Kent Krupa (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:OSE is a good essay, so these are candidates for cleanup. All articles should be WP:TERSE. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
S. Rich, the Chelsea Manning article encompasses 9,600 words. If you are intent upon enforcing WP:TERSE, why fixate on the 274 words of Chelsea_Manning#Prison_life—a mere 2.8% of the total? Kent Krupa (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Most prison cells have windows, the joint is in a hilly area of the post, prisons have fences & razorwire, they have libraries, sometimes it rains in Kansas so the sky is always not blue, Manning has a single-occupant cell and is mixing with other inmates. This is all normal circumstance for life in the Greybar Hotel, and not WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
S. Rich, the Chelsea Manning article states that she has a mother and a father. Since everyone has parents, we ought to omit Ma & Pa Manning from the narrative as being not noteworthy. Ridiculous, right? So is asserting that it's not noteworthy when an inmate, best known for having endured 326 days in solitary confinement, shares details about her present incarceration. If you wish to apply WP:TERSE to the entire 9,600-word BLP, I will support you in any way I can. However, I oppose singling out Chelsea_Manning#Prison_life for WP:TERSE without holding the rest of the article to that same stringent standard. For the time being, I suggest we wait a few days to allow other editors to weigh in on this point. Kent Krupa (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Omitting parent category

At the bottom of this Wikipedia article are the categories, and they include both "Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917" as well as "Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917". I would like to delete the former, which is known as the "parent" category (the latter category is the "child" category). Basically, if he was convicted, it's obvious that he was charged.

The rules about this can be found at WP:SUBCAT. It gets a little technical, but essentially the parent used to be "non-diffusing" but as of today it is not longer "non-diffusing". Even if it were still "non-diffusing", I think we would still be free to remove the redundancy, but it's moot now because the parent is not longer non-diffusing" as best I understand.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Since you changed "Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917" to a container category, I removed Manning from that category. Kent Krupa (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we change the photograph here to line up with the fact that she's female?

Can we either just remove the photo entirely, or change it to one taken during her transition (since it's only recently been permitted IIRC)? Possibly the former, then add a photo after she's transitioned? Otherwise, we're being really ridiculously insensitive. Blockyblock567 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Blockyblock567, within the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section near the top of this page, please click [show] next to Q6 to see answer. Also, please be aware that this issue has been much discussed in archived sections. Click Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive index, and search for "photo" or "image" to find the appropriate links. Kent Krupa (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot's changed since that two year old letter. Manning has a preferred image now: the one she uses on Twitter. I'm with Blockyblock567, leading her article with the current image is insensitive in the extreme. https://twitter.com/xychelsea — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:184.75.44.210 • contribs) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Again please read the (FAQ) the others are either low quality or under copyright. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87, you are factually mistaken in asserting that "the others are either low quality or under copyright." The full-color, high-quality image How Chelsea Manning Sees Herself by Alicia Neal is in the public domain, as evidenced by its licensing description at Wikimedia Commons and by its usage in the Gender Transition section of Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning. Kent Krupa (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I was mistaking it for an actual photo my mistake. In any case we have already have had many discussions on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87, yes, we have had many discussions. As best as I can determine, the most recent ended 26 January 2015. But at Wikipedia, no consensus is set in stone. There is no policy or guideline prohibiting editors from revisiting topical issues from time to time in a dynamic BLP such as Chelsea Manning. The present discussion has been underway for only 10 days—hardly a protracted period. Please allow more time for it to run its course before closing. Thank you. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose replacing a photograph with an artist's illustration. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also Oppose per the arguments made four months ago nothing has changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Better no image than a pre-transition image. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That is maybe how you feel but Manning's lawyer has said that she is proud of the current main image, so what do you suggest? The rendering bears no likeness to how Manning really looks and is not informative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87, when you say, "Manning's lawyer has said that she is proud of the current main image," I assume you allude to this August 2013 statement by User:SlimVirgin, who "obtained clarification" from Manning's lawyer David Coombs, "which I'm sharing with his permission. … I asked about the current main photograph, and he said that Chelsea is proud of the photograph and would want it to be used until a better one becomes available." It is worth noting that Manning seems to have had a falling out with attorney Coombs, who led Manning's court-martial defense that concluded with her sentence to 35 years in prison. Not a happy outcome, to say the least. I direct your attention to Manning's new Twitter account, which began on April 3. Within a week, Manning had followed and publicly thanked six lawyers plus the ACLU. Conspicuously absent from this list was David Coombs, whom Manning has still not acknowledged, and who may no longer represent Manning. (He is certainly not handling her case before the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals.) My point is that nearly two years after SlimVirgin exchanged emails with Coombs, much has changed. It would be presumptuous for us to base any current decision on an outdated, second-hand source as to which image Chelsea prefers. And remember, the color portrait by Alicia Neal was not completed until April 2014. It obviously was not available as an alternative when SlimVirgin "obtained clarification" from David Coombs. Kent Krupa (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Its not a good alternative though due to inaccuracy and no new evidence has come forward on which picture Manning prefers. Yeah you can guess that she prefers the cartoon image due to it being on twitter but that is an assumption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87, would you happen to know the backstory on how User:SlimVirgin came to exchange emails with Manning's lawyer David Coombs in August 2013? I did not realize it was permissible for Wikipedia editors to reach out to public figures that way to obtain clarification of some point in a BLP. It seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research. However, if SlimVirgin could do it two years ago, why can't we do likewise now? We could contact Trevor FitzGibbon (email address is here), president of FitzGibbon Media, the public relations firm that represents Chelsea Manning. Ask him to please run this issue by Manning to see which image she prefers. Naturally a response would take a few days, given Manning's incarceration. But surely we can wait that long. This Wikipedia page is not going anywhere. Kent Krupa (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want then sure go ahead the only thing I would see of issue though as the facial features are not accurate in the drawing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if Manning preferred the illustration I would still oppose replacing the photo. Since when do we prefer less accuracy? And before someone brings up, well that's not what she looks like now - yes, you may be right. But our biographies should show the most recognizable photo available. --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that is the hangup, are we going to go with a main image that doesn't look like the person the article is about? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87, when you commented, "Manning's lawyer has said that she is proud of the current main image," I thought you meant that Manning's preference was dispositive. But now you agree with User:NeilN, who says, "Even if Manning preferred the illustration I would still oppose replacing the photo." As I understand it, Wikipedia changed the name of this article two years ago from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, and enforced feminine pronouns, solely because Manning had expressed a preference. Why did her preference dictate name and pronouns, but can be ignored as to her image? Kent Krupa (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I missed that part of Neil's comment but could argue that Neil has a point about biographies. The image looks nothing like Manning and therefore misleads the reader. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The name and pronouns were changed because reliable sources started to use them. --NeilN talk to me 02:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
User:NeilN, have you looked at the articles about Manning published in the past six months by WP:RS? They overwhelmingly use the portrait by Neal, not the old Army photo. Kent Krupa (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
User:NeilN, the Google search link you provided generates a list including 15 thumbnails. Eight of them are the 2010 selfie of Manning in blonde wig and makeup. Four others show Manning in uniform—none being the formal 2012 Army photo we use as Wikipedia's main image. Do you agree that by this measure, we ought to replace our main image of Manning in uniform with the black-&-white selfie? Kent Krupa (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not a RS search, sorry. --NeilN talk to me 04:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In the end, this is about MOS:IDENTITY, which has an entire bullet point dedicated to gender identity; WP:RS is relevant only inasmuch as we see WP:RS using the portrait to depict Chelsea Manning, which we do: The Advocate; New York Magazine; Rolling Stone. MOS:IDENTITY states that "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." It doesn't mention photographs, but I think we all can agree that if we had an up-to-date, post-transition photograph of Chelsea Manning, we would lead the article with it. The concern seems to be about using an image that misleads the reader about Manning's facial features. Well, the current image misleads the reader into thinking Chelsea Manning is a guy, especially when shown in search results that draw data from Wikipedia. Given the options, and the fact that WP:RS accept this image as an image of the article's subject, I think MOS:IDENTITY demands that we lead with an image that "reflects this person's latest expressed gender self-identification." And nothing in WP:LEADIMAGE precludes us from doing so: "For most topics, the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person." If this requires an RFC from the broader Wikipedia community, I would support that. Joeycastillo (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Before we continue down this road it still stands that we don't know which image Manning prefers, if we did we could go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87, you have me thoroughly confused. I thought you agreed with User:NeilN that Manning's preference is of no account when it comes to an image! Kent Krupa (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I said I misread his statement, one factor is going to lead to the other anyways here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There would be no harm in running an RFC for a month to assess wider opinion. If the proposal were a short statement along the lines of "to replace <photo> by <likeness> based on usage in recent reliable sources", it might have a chance. --Fæ (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That is an excellent suggestion. Thank you. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose leading the article without a photograph. Removing the current one could be seen as suggesting that women ought to look a certain way. If we get access to a post-transition photo, that will of course be the preferred one. But it will probably not look very different since prisons afford little opportunity for cultivating one's image. Connor Behan (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Connor Behan, I'm afraid you have misconstrued our discussion. Since the initial question by User:Blockyblock567 that opened this section 12 days ago, no one has suggested removing the 2012 Army photo without replacing it with the 2014 portrait by Alicia Neal. So you are opposing something that has not been proffered. Kent Krupa (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, "photograph" was the key word in my post. We should not replace it with something less accurate. Readers are only misled by the image in the same way that they would be misled if they actually saw Chelsea Manning. And that is no fault of ours. It's the fault of slowly changing preconceptions that correlate gender with hair length. Connor Behan (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Connor Behan, thank you for clarifying. Sorry I misunderstood. So you believe the lead image must be a photograph. Yet as Joeycastillo pointed out above, WP:LEADIMAGE states that either a photo or artistic work of a person is acceptable. In this case, we're not limited to the 2012 Army photo. Kent Krupa (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem that has been kicked around that nobody has been able to give an answer to is the fact that the drawing bears no likeness to how Manning actually looks. The facial features are wrong, she doesn't have the long hair, and is thus inaccurate and misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
One image misrepresents Manning's facial features; the other misrepresents Manning's gender identity. The question here is which one is more important to get right, and the argument User:Blockyblock567 and others are making is that representing her gender identity accurately is paramount. WP:RS are increasingly doing what they can to depict Manning as a woman, whether via the selfie or the drawing; Wikipedia lags behind in this respect. The question nobody has been able to give an answer to is why MOS:IDENTITY should be set aside in this situation; "Wikipedia favors self-designation" is a pretty clear guideline. Joeycastillo (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Because you're twisting the guideline to suit a situation it doesn't cover? --NeilN talk to me 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The current photo shows what Manning looks like currently, you can interpret it anyway you like but it is what it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, with respect, that is simply untrue. As our BLP states, the Army now provides Manning with cross-sex hormone therapy and the ability to wear prescribed cosmetics in her daily life. In the latest issue of Cosmopolitan, Manning's ACLU attorney Chase Strangio confirms "the fact that Chelsea is receiving hormone therapy and other treatment for gender dysphoria." We also know from her new, verified Twitter account that Manning does cardio exercises "every other day or so." The cumulative effect of female hormones, cosmetics and exercise could well be significantly changing her appearance from that shown in the most recent photographs, taken by the news media at Fort Meade in August 2013—to say nothing of the official Army photo from April 2012 (three years ago!) that Wikipedia uses as its lead. It is presumptuous to argue that those old photos better represent Chelsea Manning today than does the idealized portrait done by Alicia Neal last April. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't deal in "idealism" for living people. And there's nothing in BLP which mandates the most recent representation be used. I thought someone was going to start a RFC? --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, now that Chelsea Manning is active on Twitter, I suggest we postpone the RfC for a week or so in the hope that she will respond to tweets in recent days to her and separately to her PR firm asking her preference as to Wikipedia's lead image. I realize that you are on record as declaring, "Even if Manning preferred the illustration I would still oppose replacing the photo." However, other editors may be willing to consider Chelsea's preference, should she express one. Thank you for your patience. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support using the post-transition drawing. Drawings and photos are both attempt to depict reality, and it could be argued that photographs because they are an attempt to replicate reality, are also fictions as drawings as. Regardless of that art-historical theory explanation, I think we should use the image that corresponds with the current identity of a person, that's why I've always supported images that reflect the subject of biography's age even if there are higher res. etc. photos available.OR drohowa (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
We tend to lead with pictures that represent the figure from their period of most notability, rather than the most recent (we have Shirley Temple from her acting days, Jimmy Carter being president, and so forth.) While there are issues of identity, we are not here to present the subject's personalized idealized image (we will often pick candid photographs over studio shots), which is the direction one starts to go in when one chooses whatever drawing the subject puts forth (and going with whatever the person puts forth is certainly not our standard for text material). This appears to be a photograph with which she has been willing to connect herself. I think overall, the arguments lean toward including the photograph; were we to get a usable photograph of her post-transition, that would tip that balance somewhat. (Besides, if we choose people's Twitter images over photographs, I'd be a shaved-head Snoopy.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I trust you're joking about Twitter, but lest anyone be misled, let's state for the record that the color drawing in question dates from April 2014, whereas the black-&-white thumbnail version used as the profile image for @xychelsea did not appear until Manning's Twitter debut one year later. No one has suggested incorporating that B&W thumbnail into this Wikipedia article. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not true, the B&W image is of poor quality, check the archives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, what archives do you mean? Perhaps you are confusing the present discussion with earlier ones that involved the 2010 selfie of Manning in blond wig and makeup. We are not considering that photo here. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning/Archive_15&oldid=1136607573"