Talk:Chelsea Manning

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

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)

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)

Great - thanks! It looks good. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

An excellent idea. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes it should. It should be reverted back to the DMY version per WP:DATERETJOJ ^Hutton 23:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK. I agree. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Nicks, Denver. Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History. Chicago Review Press, 2012, pp. 212–216.
• Walker, Peter. "Amnesty International hails WikiLeaks and Guardian as Arab spring 'catalysts'", The Guardian, 13 May 2011.
• Horne, Nigel. "Tunisia: WikiLeaks had a part in Ben Ali's downfall", The Week, 15 January 2011.
• "In the year of the protester, Bradley Manning is the great dissenter", The Irish Times, 24 December 2011.
• Rosenbach, Marcel and Schmitz, Gregor Peter. "US Determined to Punish Bradley Manning", Der Spiegel, 15 December 2011.
• Malinowski, Tom. "Whispering at Autocrats", Foreign Policy, 25 January 2011.
• "A Selection From the Cache of Diplomatic Dispatches", The New York Times.
• Black, Ian. "WikiLeaks cables: Tunisia blocks site reporting 'hatred' of first lady", The Guardian, 7 December 2010.
• "Time's Person of the Year: the Protester", Time magazine, 14 December 2011.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"a former United States Army soldier"

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

I also agree based on the evidence. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, we need an immediate redirect. A search on Chelsea Manning doesn't yield this article, it yield an article about football club Chelsea FC. 68.81.192.33 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried a move. Disappointingly, User:Cls14 has reverted immediately back, using a highly gendered term in their edit summary! I'm assuming this is some kind of misunderstanding over not having read the reference, so will not put it back just yet. Morwen (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty confusing to see Manning described with female pronouns for the time in which they served as a male soldier. I recommend to use the male pronoun for the time prior to their recent declaration concerning their identity. As to the article title, that should follow the predominant usage in reliable sources, as everything else.  Sandstein  12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That would go against long-established practice, and MOS:IDENTITY

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent Morwen a message about this stating I was unaware of any potential change and as such I thought it was a scam. In the article itself it didn't mention any gender change so I assumed it was spam, which it clearly isn't Cls14 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did cite the article in my edit summary! Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:Morwen has moved the page to Chelsea Manning for a second time. The move is hasty and without proper consultation with editors. I think this article should be moved back to Bradley Manning until it is confirmed the subject has legally changed his/her name and a majority of reliable sources start referring to this subject as "Chelsea Manning". --Tocino 12:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but AFAIK Bradley wants to be a woman but isn't yet. Also, I don't believe his name has been officially changed to Chelsea. I find this move extremely premature, not to say ridiculous. This is not a Wendy Carlos situation. Yet. Yintan  12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just happy he didn't decide to self-identify as Jesus Christ could you imagine the redirects. SMH. This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname. †TE†Talk 13:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. " from MOS:IDENTITY. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Many sources are still reporting the name as Bradley Manning. For instance: The Telegraph: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman called Chelsea, Washington Post: Bradley Manning says he is now a woman named Chelsea, BBC: Bradley Manning: 'I want to be a woman', The Independent: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, Channel 14: Bradley Manning: I want to be a woman (called Chelsea), RT: #FreeChelsea: Bradley Manning states he's 'female', wants to live as ‘Chelsea’, ABC News: Bradley Manning Says He Wants to Live as a Woman and Today: Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman. Sources even referrer to the person as "he". I think article move was hasted. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Self-identification". What other sources refer to her as is irrelevant. She has self identified as female, and by MOS:IDENTITY that means the article should use female pronouns. Casiotone^talk 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading MOS:IDENTITY, I think we should use female gender nouns, pronouns and possessive adjectives, because that's her latest expressed gender self-identification. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we have to follow whatever a person decides to call his/herself this week? No. MOS:IDENTITY says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to (etc)". There is, as yet, no question about Manning's gender at all. Yintan  13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was no question about her gender. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course - there is no longer a question about Manning's gender. She is female without doubt. I'm glad you agree. Casiotone^talk 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun."--Brian Dell (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He can request all he likes, Bdel555, that doesn't make it true. Or factual. Yintan  13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He signed his...I mean (no kidding intended) ... she signed her name "Chelsea E. Manning" on the Today Show statement, but indicated that his name in official mail to the detention facility is still Bradley Manning. Here is the statement:

Subject: The Next Stage of My Life

I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.

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. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.

Thank you,

Chelsea E. Manning

Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea's statement is very clear and seems almost designed to invoke MOS:IDENTITY, which is also very clear. I regard this matter as a WP:BLP area. Morwen (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And the sources are equally clear that it's still "he".[2] Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advocate, it's supposed to report valid sources. You need to revert this article back to where it was, until such time as the sources starting calling him "her". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for renaming the article. But the pronouns used for her throughout the article are still inconsistent. What does the E in Chelsea E. Manning stand for? --88.73.34.231 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is a source for "Chelsea E. Manning"? It could be that Manning has decided to drop the middle name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Time for New Secton on Gender Identity Issues?

I created a subsection for the BACKGROUND part of the article for his gender reassignment. This may only be a temporary thing. Should there be a seperate section collecting information on his gender issues? (I seem to be having an issue with his gender as I just realized I used the masculine pronoun for Chelsea.)Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is such a sad, pathetic joke

Bradley Manning is the person's name, legally. I have no idea what is going on here, and assumed the article was vandalized, until I read all the nonsense above. I would have expected a speedy revert until a *reliable source* indiciated otherwise. Can an adult editor please step in? 198.161.2.241 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Admin of ten years standing here. today.com is a reliable source. Morwen (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to flash your badge, officer, but the manner in which this hasty move has been executed is a bit ridiculous. Surely you can see that? †TE†Talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you find to be hasty? Unless we aren't taking the Today Show as a reliable source, Manning's expression is public, and we should adjust our titles to reflect the policy of deference to LGBT self-identity. If you have a problem with that general policy, then we can talk about that. But Morwen is 100% correct that everyone needs a rebuttal. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous the number of people making transphobic arguments against a fairly straightforward page move. It's ridiculous that anyone would think they saying new here that hasn't been hashed out before, that we are supposed to rebut each one individually. Morwen (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Transphobic"? Am I missing something? Yintan  13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The theory being that Manning isn't allowed to decide how we should refer to her. That lack of deference to her wishes constitutes a lack of respect / transphobia. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The overriding "theory" is that we follow common names and valid sourcing. Maybe it will be there tomorrow, but it isn't there today. Editors who want to abuse Wikipedia for the sake of advocacy have been itching to make this move for many months now. They have moved too soon, and make Wikipedia live down to the level its critics accuse it of being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing is valid. MOS:IDENTITY is clear. Take your soapbox somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS does not override sourcing. Take your own soapbox somewhere else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Page moved to Chelsea Manning without sufficient consensus

With all due consideration to MOS:IDENTITY and the page mover's talk page posts, this was not a noncontroversial page move, and as such requires consensus under Request to Move discussion and vote. --Mareklug ^talk 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Morwen (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your link does not say anything about where the article should be located, and other policies, I think, trump this move. --Mareklug ^talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS:IDENTITY is indeed clear. The question is, does it apply to article titles as well or do we follow WP:COMMONNAME? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This fails WP:POLICY (and therefore MOS:IDENTITY) by overriding WP:UCN policy with MOS:IDENTITY guideline, when at the very top of the page it is indicated that it is a guideline and not a policy, therefore subject to policies, whenever a conflict between policy and guideline is evident. The way to override a policy is by using the WP:IAR, and the way to do that is to establish a consensus to use it to apply MOS:IDENTITY instead of WP:UCN, which has not been done. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is also pretty clear. This definitely needs to be discussed first. I can't believe that there are editors saying it shouldn't be discussed - that is not what Wikipedia is about. And so now we're having a discussion about whether there should be a discussion... StAnselm (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines says "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." One has to first go to the Talk pages of these policy pages and get the guideline changed to at least allow for exceptions, otherwise we're bound by the policy like it or not. Fact is, Wikipedia currently gives huge deference to the desires of biography subjects when it comes to their sexual identity.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also a WP:BLP, and Manning's statement (as Morwen notes above) pretty much perfectly matches the consideration in question. As such, I've put in a protection against moves for the same time period as the present autoconfirmed edit protection, which should allow enough time for all the discussion the change to the subject's documented chosen name will need - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In the first place, you've misunderstood MOS:IDENTITY, which says "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself" (emphasis mine). In the second place, you've totally gone against WP:RM, which says that if a move is controversial (which this one obviously was), it may be reverted, and should be proposed via a requested move. StAnselm (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP mandates immediatism, not eventualism - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute about the verification of the statement, and WP:BLP is very clear as David said. The only thing controversial about this are people's feelings about if we should accept the statement, which is a discussion that should happen around general policy. In this instance, the LGBT policy has been correctly applied, and FWIW, I would take strong exception against reverting this change. --\/\/slack (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, given Manning's statement, the move is now entirely in accord with policy. There appears to be no legitimate grounds to doubt the authenticity of the statement, and MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that we go by what Manning now says. Personally, I would have preferred a formal RfM, just to avoid the inevitable drama - but the result seems a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I happen to think Wikipedia indulges the views of biography subjects too much and should follow external sources more. But I have to disagree with StAnselm simply because we cannot interpret policy that way. That quote is from the first bullet point, which then says, "For example, see the article Jew..." The first bullet point is general, the second bullet point specific. Generally accepted interpretation is to follow the guideline for the specific case when there is a specific guideline available. The specific guideline may be seen as an exception to the general guideline.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think the changes are too rash and need to be thought through. Many parts of the articles no longer make sense and read terribly, and quite ridiculous in places. Atshal (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns are already shifting in RSes e.g. [3] [4] - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Once a source like CNN starts saying "she", you might have something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider the Independent to be much more likely to be news rather than stenography than CNN - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, in fact, supposed to be "stenography", not "news". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an RS, but crikey, even the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)