Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea Manning: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 117: Line 117:


She's made a statement that her name is Chelsea Manning, so the pronouns should be changed to she and the article renamed Chelsea. The FAQ about Brenna no longer applies. 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
She's made a statement that her name is Chelsea Manning, so the pronouns should be changed to she and the article renamed Chelsea. The FAQ about Brenna no longer applies. 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

== statement via today.com ==

So, [http://www.today.com/news/i-am-chelsea-bradley-mannings-full-statement-6C10974052] appears to be pretty unambiguous. What do we think? [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] ([[User talk:Morwen|talk]]) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:00, 22 August 2013

Good articleChelsea Manning has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 11, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Toolbox


Blanket?

What is a blanket that cannot be shredded and how is it different from a normal blanket? 117.199.7.24 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Dodo[reply]

Infobox

I've updated the infobox to reflect the convictions but some of the non-standard formatting used in the other infobox aren't carried through. We should preserve the info about his awards and stuff. Please help update the new (now more appropriate) infobox. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd, I've restored the previous custom-built box (instead of using infobox criminal), because it means we can add whatever parameters we want. I've retained the old parameters and included the new ones you added. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks! It looks good. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

I'd like at some point to go through the dates and change to day first, as in 30 July 2013. It saves extra commas, e.g. "He was convicted on 30 July 2013 of 17 of the 22 charges," instead of "He was convicted on July 30, 2013, of 17 of the 22 charges." We're supposed to check before doing this, so does anyone mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. Normal US date format is DMY. The military date format should not apply to individual people. Should be changed back per WP:DATERET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the date formats. I checked on 31 July and waited until 16 August to change it, which is long enough for someone to have objected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why switch to this format? Because it will mean less comas? Shouldn't it be US date format since he is an American, or is there something different for military personel? Also, somebody did object above, I'll try to find out who. Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should. It should be reverted back to the DMY version per WP:DATERETJOJ Hutton 23:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

  1. WP:MOSDATE says: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day ..."
  2. But it also says: "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage."
  3. And: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used ..." Looking back at the earlier versions, both formats were used, e.g. here: "As of June 7, Manning had not yet been formally charged," but "Wired released apparent excerpts from the chat logs between Manning and Lamo on 10 June 2010."
  4. Furthermore, there is an international dimension via Bradley's mother and the significant international interest.

Therefore, because of the above, and because DMY is easier to write, I asked if there were objections, and waited over two weeks before changing it (which was quite a bit of work, by the way, for anyone thinking of changing it back). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, asked and answered. I like working on bios even though my copy editing sucks and usually American bios follow MDY dating. I don't really care though. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section in the lead seems to take a POV

That section emphasizes the pro-manning view point pretty strongly. I think it should be rewritten in a much more neutral way. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is pro or anti, Todd. It says he was "viewed as both a 21st-century Tiananmen Square Tank Man and an embittered traitor," and that he was an apparently very unhappy Army private with access to classified material. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you point it out, both portrayals are highly POV, both positive and negative. Calling him a tank man is every bit as POV as calling him a traitor. He was convicted of theft, espionage and other criminal issues, not of being a traitor. I think it would be better to say that reaction has been highly polarized with those examples. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do start the paragraph by saying that reaction was mixed, and the examples from Nicks illustrate just how polarized it was. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I agree. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The POV is still off as per what Nicks write - the way it reads currently is that Nicks is comparing him to the Tiananmen Square man, where as in the book he just uses it to contrast the opposing views on what Manning has done. http://books.google.com/books?id=GE_yDipSkYQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.62.98 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction section graph starting "Manning and WikiLeaks were credited as catalysts for the Arab Spring" is duplicative of the introduction. One or the other should be removed. IMO, it should be the second, which is so POV it adopts a fawning tone. The references there are extensive, but there is no balance.Leslynjd (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the lead summarizes the reaction, so it's okay to say it twice. As for balance, it's a fact that they were credited as catalysts, so I'm not sure what it could be balanced with, or why would we would need to try to balance it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unless these views as a "catalyst" etc are widely held (something along the lines of WP:RS/AC at a minimum we would need to say "credited by X as a catalyst" since the nature of the claim is somewhat dubious and POV. Peopel such as Manning are easy targets for people to use both positively and negatively for propaganda/rehtorical purposes - people using such rhetorical devices should be viewed with a critical eye unless the viewpoint is widely held. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The viewpoint is widely held. Some sources used for this in the article:

SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Nicks source

I have no issue with the source per se, other than I wouldn't necessarily put it in the same category as a more traditional RS> However, we seem to rely on this one source a lot. This is a widely covered story, and regardless of the quality of the Nicks source, relying on one source for some much of the content/references seems less than ideal. Even if the Nicks source is absolutely fantastic, it's one perspective. Just as undue weight to perspectives in the article in general is a concern, undue weight to any one given source is concerning as well. I'm not suggesting we go on a Nicks pogram, but we should be looking to replace some of the content with other RS, even if it's supporting the same thing.

Some of the Nicks stuff, especially the unnecessarily hyperbolic bit about Tank man and traitor in the lede, is unencyclopedic. I would recommend removing that bit. You don't need to use his terms to reference him. It would be much more encyclopedic to summarize reaction in general in the lede...the majority of that section is given over just to Nicks in the lede, including far greater detail on that one assertion than is necessary. The fact that he is showing a balance of inflammatory rections doesn't mean we have the use his same inflammatory language. I would suggest simplifying it to something like, "reaction varied widely, etc." The language used may be great for an autobiography; I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicks's book is the most informed journalistic source on Manning, so it would be odd to replace it with a less informed one. As for the lead, the Tank man/traitor juxtaposition sums up well the wide range of opinion, and how it has veered from one extreme to another. I couldn't think of a more succinct way to do that. The problem with expressing it in general terms without in-text attribution is that someone else will come along and ask whose opinion it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a former United States Army soldier"

Is he not still a private in the United States Army? --RA (✍) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume not because he was discharged, but the person to check with is User:Srich32977. He is our in-house expert on these matters. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several reports I'm reading talk about discharge in the future tense. When does the discharge take effect? Now or on release? --RA (✍) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SV, but I'm really more of the out-house expert. At the moment Manning is still in the Army. His sentencing gets reviewed by high level judge advocates (JAGs) and then approved by the convening authority -- the commanding general of the Washington area military district. Once approved, written orders are "cut" which say "you are hereby reduced in rank to Private E-1." I'm not sure when his dishonorable discharge paperwork gets cut, because the military will retain jurisdiction over him until his sentence is completed. Perhaps when he completes his full term. (I will research this.) But the proper way to address him will be "Manning", not "Private Manning". So for WP purposes we can say (shortly) he ain't in the Army no more. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Srich. Someone added "former" to "Manning ... is a United States Army soldier" in the first sentence. Do you think we should we retain "former" or remove it for now? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or sidestep the question, for example by saying he "...was a Specialist in the United States Army..." thereby avoiding saying what he is now. --RA (✍) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Is a former US Army soldier who ...." His sentence might be reduced (unlikely), but the reduction in rank and dishonorable discharge are sure to be upheld by the GCMCA. – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, his rank has been diminished and he is no longer allowed to wear the uniform he is pictured in. Anyone have a neutral headshot sans uniform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.20.130 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning

She's made a statement that her name is Chelsea Manning, so the pronouns should be changed to she and the article renamed Chelsea. The FAQ about Brenna no longer applies. 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

statement via today.com

So, [1] appears to be pretty unambiguous. What do we think? Morwen (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=569713183"