Page move-protected

Talk:Chelsea Manning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Bradley Manning)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
May 11, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is this article titled Chelsea Manning?
The first 2013 formal move discussion closed, and a committee of three uninvolved and experienced admins determined the move to Chelsea Manning should be reverted back to Bradley. Discussions since that close upheld that waiting 30 days was a good idea and the time should be spent making the case for a new move discussion. In a subsequent move discussion, consensus was against a proposal of "Private Manning" as the article title. A new discussion about moving the article back to "Chelsea Manning" started on September 30 and was closed on October 8 with a consensus to move the article to "Chelsea Manning". A majority of sources now use the name "Chelsea" when referring to Manning which would make it the common name.
Q2: Why does the article refer to Manning as she?
MOS:IDENTITY says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') 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. [...] Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and ' [sic]' may be used where necessary)."
Q3: Shouldn't we insist on a legal name change before changing the title of the article?
Articles are titled based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Article titles, and are usually the name the subject is most commonly known by, which is not necessarily their legal name; legal name usually has little bearing on the title of an article. A long discussion in October 2013 concluded that the article title should be "Chelsea Manning".
Q4: Why is Manning in transgender categories?
The fact that Manning is transgender, and was a transgender inmate, a transgender soldier, etc, is notable and defining and has been discussed in multiple reliable sources (which are cited in the article). See Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization for more information.
Q5: I feel that Wikipedia is being biased towards or against my beliefs here, what should I do?
Wikipedia policy mandates that articles reflect the content of reliable sources and be written from a neutral point of view, avoiding advocating for any particular perspective. Minority ideas and opinions must not be given undue weight or promotion in Wikipedia articles. It is impossible for coverage of real-world controversies to leave everyone happy – ideas change and adapt over time, and partisan viewpoints are typically entrenched and unable to self-assess bias – but seeking and maintaining neutrality is an ongoing process. Concerns over bias can be addressed with bold editing following the WP:BRD cycle or by starting a civil and constructive discussion at this talk page to suggest article improvements.


Please add to the page ...[edit]

See also

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

 Done NedFausa (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.--2604:2000:E010:1100:E918:9D3D:D206:8875 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


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

That is a good question. The policy that applies here is MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, which says that if someone is widely notable under the previous name, then it should be included in the lead. In fact, Chelsea Manning is used as an example on the policy page itself.--MattMauler (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Good question, but during the entire time that Manning was in the Army, leaking classified documents, getting courtmartialed and imprisoned, Manning was a man named Bradley. While that is now a "dead" name, it was by the name "Bradley" that Manning was infamously known, and to remove that name completely from the article would likely cause a good deal of confusion as well as to serve to some extent to separate Chelsea Manning from the crimes committed by Bradley Manning. As I read the article, the only place the name "Bradley" is mentioned is in the very beginning where it states correctly that manning was formerly known as Bradley. Throughout the article, even referring to all the events during the time Manning went by Bradley, the name Chelsea is used, and the pronouns "she" and "her" are used, even though Manning was identified as a man at the time. One mention of the former name, under which Manning became notorious, does not seem rude but rather simply and succinctly stating a fact. GlassBones (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, has Manning officially done a name change to Chelsea? If not, the article should be titled Bradley Manning, and that name used throughout. GlassBones (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
As our article Chelsea Manning states: In April 2014, the Kansas District Court granted a petition from Manning for a legal name change. Those who object to Manning's deadname, however, will never be satisfied until "Bradley" is completely expunged from the record. I've even seen some fanatics argue that publications such as The Guardian ought to go back and sanitize all their news stories from May 2010 onward to eliminate every last vestige of Bradley. It's historical revisionism on the order of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Where is Winston Smith (6079 Smith W) now that we need him? NedFausa (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Where is Winston Smith? Well, if you're looking for someone who was tortured for standing up to their government, one woman comes to mind... WanderingWanda (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
She is currently known as Chelsea by all reliable sources that refer to her. It WAS an official name change in this case, but using her current name in the article does not require that it be a legal/official change, only that she be called that name consistently by RS. See MOS:NAMES: "Article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known" (although previous names can be included in the lead if she was a notable person under the previous name, which she was in this case).--MattMauler (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, these questions are all already addressed in the FAQ at the top of this talk page (see Qs 2, 3, and 4).--MattMauler (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo[edit]

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

Oppose. The photo you suggest depicts Chelsea Manning interviewed at the Wired Next Festival in Milan, Italy, on 27 May 2018. Just hours later, she tweeted "im sorry" with a selfie showing her perched barefoot precariously on a ledge several stories above a deserted late-night street. I submit that changing our current Infobox image—professionally posed and shared by Chelsea herself on the happy occasion of having been freed from military prison after seven years—with a less flattering shot closely presaging her suicidal gesture, would be brutally insensitive. NedFausa (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@NedFausa: My apologies, I didn't know the context behind that photo at all. I'll keep the suggestion of in general using a photo with long hair as it's more accurate, but given the context behind the specific one I linked to, I now agree it wouldn't be a good idea to use that one in particular. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 06:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Update picture[edit]

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

A few suggestions include the pictures from

 - (could not find original source, attributed to Win McNamee via Getty Images)
 - (this one is also attributed to Getty Images, couldn't find photographer's name)

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

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

Dominikasokolov, Wikipedia cannot just use random photos from the internet. Please see our WP:IUP, whose gist is: we can only use freely liscensed photos. The most recent free photo we have of her is
Chelsea Manning on 21 April 2020.jpg
, but I don't think thats very high quality. I think the current photo is pretty good to be honest, professionally taken, well composed, and while a few years old, isn't outdated. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020[edit]

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

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

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