Talk:Chelsea Manning

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)

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)

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)