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.
  1. ^ Rainey Reitman, "Feminist, trans advocates should support Bradley Manning", Bradley Manning Support Network Steering Committee, Washington Blade, February 23, 2012

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018[edit]

Remove "born Bradley Edward Manning". (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Consensus is for this name to remain. I'm afraid additional requests would require additional discussion here on the talk page before changes can be made.  .spintendo  18:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Alleged suicide attempt[edit]

At 21:04, 29 May 2018, User:BananaCarrot152 removed a newly added, reliably sourced section Suicide concerns, explaining, "WP:NOTATABLOID I think we should err on the side of privacy regarding acute medical emergencies." I request discussion as to why devoting a new section to suicide is inappropriate in this WP:BLP, which already contains longstanding sections describing Manning's experiences on suicide watch and prevention of injury status in 2010 and 2011, and her suicide attempts in July 2016 and October 2016. I am puzzled as to why actual attempts to kill herself are encyclopedic, but the apparent contemplation of self-destruction now constitutes an acute medical emergency that is taboo. Note that sources cited in the removed section reported that the operators of Manning's Twitter account tweeted that she is safe, and that people on the scene in Milan said "Chelsea Manning is fine and is already traveling to America." Additionally, Manning's friend and political communications director, Kelly Wright, told The Associated Press that Manning has not suspended her Senate campaign. Does this sound like someone in the grips of an acute medical emergency? KalHolmann (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My objection is only that these are recent news stories, the tweets in question have been removed and that the reporting is mostly speculative. The long term implications of previous suicide attempts are clear, however it is not clear whether this incident has long term implications or what these might be (sources have not covered this -- even if you think it will be important). This is not an issue of "taboo", but rather this article is not the place for sensational news stories of apparent or ongoing acute medical emergencies. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
User:BananaCarrot152, please cite WP:RS supporting your contention that Manning is now suffering from an ongoing acute medical emergency. Even if you are a psychiatrist, I doubt that you've had a chance to examine Ms. Manning in the past 48 hours. KalHolmann (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Recording a politician's suicide attempts is not "sensationalist".--MagicatthemovieS

I notice the Baltimore Sun, the one source about this event cited that I know for sure is a RS did not use the word suicide in it. NY Daily News is a tabloid and I'm unclear on the Italian source but the title seems very sensationalist for a sensitive BLP-related topic. Rab V (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also unsure if naming a section 'suicide concerns' is too leading, sensational and vague for a BLP-related topic. Who is concerned? Better to title sections after something concrete that happened instead of the reactions or concerns of an unnamed group. Rab V (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
So, as you see it, no one was concerned. And if they were concerned, it was not about suicide. Got it. Thanks. KalHolmann (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:Cooperation. If you want to misrepresent editors issues, you will have a hard time editing in a collaborative medium like wikipedia. Rab V (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I am fine without the word "suicide" being associated with the tweets. The contents of the tweets speak for themselves. However, as Manning is a candidate for the U.S. Senate and a public figure, and as this issue has been covered by major news sources such as CBS, Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, etc it certainly deserves inclusion in the article. We should probably follow the lead of sources such as that which although they are not hesitating to cover it, they are refraining from using the word "suicide". It's the tabloids and the click baiters which are using that word and I don't find it necessary. Marteau (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Marteau, in lieu of Suicide concerns as the section title, what would you suggest? KalHolmann (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
That is, of course, a good question. CBS DC is headlining it as a "Window Ledge Tweet" as is Boston Globe. I kind of like that. "Window ledge Tweet" or "Window ledge photo" under "Post-prison life". Marteau (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Geez, I dunno. Couldn't we possibly find something more vague? I'm afraid a few readers might actually get what this is about. KalHolmann (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive: "May 2018 tweets". Marteau (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Has anyone actually seen the photo? I suspect that Wikipedia editors enforcing a taboo against the S word have not seen the picture that Manning attached to her second "im sorry" tweet on May 27, 2018. Google and MSM have essentially scrubbed the image from the Internet, no doubt out of privacy concerns. One outlet that hasn't is The Gateway Pundit. I do not suggest that we include them as a source. God forbid! But if anyone remains skeptical about whether or not this incident involved the threat of suicide, I invite you to look at the photo attached to what we are now timidly calling the "Window ledge tweet." And then think about how we are misleading our readers by camouflaging the truth. KalHolmann (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not our job to add "the truth" as KalHolmann defines it. Instead, we summarize what high quality independent reliable sources say, complying fully with BLP policy. So why the heck are you bringing this Gateway Pundit crap to this discussion? It is counterproductive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it... don't recall where. It seemed like the cry for help it probably was. Anyway, the issue is that labeling Manning's action as a suicidal gesture or whatever involves interpretation. Of course, it is an obvious and almost certainly correct interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless. Labeling the thing the "Window ledge tweet" does not involve any interpretation... it's a bare-bones fact. Marteau (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
What part of WP:NOTNEWS do people not understand? Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and we don't report on the daily Twitterverse. There has to be evidence of lasting historical significance. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This is more than just someone tweeting a pic of their kitten. This is a tweet from a candidate for the United States Senate which led, by all accounts, to widespread concerned for her well-being. This led to a later assurance, presumably by a friend, that she was "safe". It has been reported by multiple reliable sources including CBS News, Baltimore Sun (the newspaper of record in the state she is running) the Boston Globe, the NY Daily News and dozens more. Were Manning a private citizen, more discretion might be indicated, but as she is a public figure who willfully put herself in the public eye, and as a candidate for Federal office, it is eminently includable. Marteau (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Also,your invocation of WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this issue. Partisans in particular often invoke NOTNEWS when Wikipedia includes issues that don't paint their candidate in the light they desire... hundreds of times editors have re-iterated the fact that actions by politicians are more includable than if those same actions were performed by someone not not in the public eye and by someone not running for office. And last time I checked, Manning is still running for U.S. Senate. Marteau (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I find Kaldari's point more persuasive here. This was a couple tweets that got some fleeting attention that was resolved quickly, unclear if there is lasting importance here. The arguments from Marteau seem to assume bad faith from Kaldari and be based on arguments I don't see in RS for lasting political importance. Rab V (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It has not "resolved quickly". The latest tweet from Mannings account (19 hours ago) said the candidate is "recovering" which does not mean "resolved". Marteau (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I think what's relevant is if this story resolves quickly in terms of news coverage as opposed to keep coming up in RS. I don't see yesterday's tweet keeping this story going in RS so it seems resolved. Rab V (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For the record, I added to Manning's BLP a Glenn Greenwald quote saying Manning's two tweets "clearly were strong suggestions that she was strongly contemplating suicide." I cited Democracy Now! This was reverted by User:Rab V, who advised, "blp issues and due issues, take to talk page." So here it is. The talk page. Where reliably sourced quotations by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists come to die. KalHolmann (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am unclear about how his Pulitzer prize makes his speculation about someone else's mental health not have BLP issues. Also unclear on why you want to use primary sources when you know this topic has raised BLP concerns for several editors. Rab V (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Rab V, Glenn Greenwald is not just any passing journalist with a Pulitzer Prize. He was among the first to cover Manning in 2010, and has written dozens of articles about her at various publications, both during and after her incarceration. As he reminds us in the Democracy Now! interview that you expunged, "I spent many hours on the phone with her while she was in those prison facilities. I visited her in Kansas at Leavenworth while she was there. … Remember she twice tried to kill herself while she was in the military brig in Leavenworth. Those were serious suicide attempts. They weren't dramatic or fake. They were very real. … Clearly she is struggling in a lot of ways." Of course you're entitled to belittle Mr. Greenwald's journalistic status and suppress his thoughts about this latest incident involving a public figure whom Greenwald considers a hero and a personal friend. You're entitled to do so because you are, after all, a Wikipedian. KalHolmann (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have anything against Glenn Greenwald as a journalist. Still not sure how using his speculation on someone else's mental health is not a violation of BLP. It seems from your edit summary your main reason for using this quote is to include the word suicide, though we have already discussed RS and BLP issues around doing so. Rab V (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed all references to the tweets per BLP. Please gain consensus here before re-adding info about this recent incident. Valeince (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I have been able to find, nearly all news stories about the tweets are from 28 May, and the only commentary or new development is a tweet from Manning's twitter page on 29 May reiterating that she is ok and the Greenwald interview which is not particularly noteworthy for this page as discussed above. I can't find any WP:RS from 30 or 31 May that discuss the tweets and all RS about the tweets seem to be the initial news stories. Taking all of this into account, it seems to me that the enduring notability of the events is unclear and specifically not discussed in sources except for the statement by Manning's spokesperson saying that she is not suspending her campaign (which isn't noteworthy on its own). I'm sure that these events could have lasting and significant implications, but as of right now the events are confined to a single news cycle (WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE). Given that this article is a biography and not, for instance, a page about a political campaign, I think that without further RS showing lasting implications, the section should not be included. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This section should not be included, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM; at least, not right now. There may be other reasons to exclude it as well, concerning interpretation and WP:OR, but for now, not-news/recentism are reason enough. The question here in my view is that if one accepts these guidelines as valid, then what is the big rush? Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Why must we hurry up and have information about these tweets in the article right now? If there continues to be ongoing coverage about this by reliable sources over a period of time, then I'm pretty sure everyone currently opposing inclusion, myself included, will change their mind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't have to include stuff that just happened, until the perspective of time has made it clear that it is of sufficient import to merit more than just a passing mention in a bunch of newspapers in the first news cycle, and then never mentioned again. We should simply wait and see. Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am astounded that editors here think that withholding well sourced information that a candidate for public office evidently has continuing issues with their mental state and with threatening to harm themselves is in any way responsible behavior. Politicians have awesome power over us, with the power to either help protect or trample our personal and property rights and our freedoms. They stand up in the public fora and say, "Vote for me! You can trust me to do the right thing! Give me that power over you!" People look to Wikipedia for help in making their decisions on how to vote and your deciding to withhold information directly pertinent to the state of mind of someone who proposes to have that power over us is one of the most obscene things I have witnessed in my life. What you are proposing is in my opinion a dereliction of duty and editorial malpractice of the highest order and you are, again in my opinion, putting your subjective application of Wikipedia guidelines over the well being of the American nation. Am I being overly dramatic? Absolutely not. It is true that Manning almost certainly will not win, but votes given to her, which may have been given to another candidate, may in fact sway the election (see Ralph Nader in the 2000 election who most likely was the reason we got Bush that election). I urge you all to re-consider what you are proposing and exercise the explicitly permitted right you have to use your common sense in the application of the notability guidelines. If ever there were a time for exercising that common sense, now would be the time. Marteau (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Both Wapo[1] and NY Times[2] carried the AP story. It's unconscionable that editors would argue that it is not noteworthy to include in the middle of her election campaign. It met the highest journalism standards to make national news on a topic that is not covered generally by the press. Why is Wikipedia censoring reliably source and widely covered notable incident that has been covered before regarding this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This page is a biography of "an American activist,[5] whistleblower,[6] politician,[7] and former United States Army soldier", not an election or voting guide. Currently, we have no sources that shed any light on what impact, if any, these tweets have except for your own analysis. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to state everything that someone might be interested in reading -- even when it is well-sourced. Without analysis or continued coverage, news reports do not constitute notability on their own. And as User:Mathglot has said, if RS continue to cover the events and their implications become clear and notable, then I too will happy to change my mind. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
From the NY Times: Kelly Wright, the communications director for her Senate bid, told The Associated Press on Monday that the 30-year-old transgender woman now needs the "space to heal." She did not reply when asked if Manning was seeking professional help. When asked whether Manning had suspended her Senate campaign, Wright wrote: "Negative." - not our analysis. That is AP asking and receiving answers. Manning requested space and said the campaign is not suspended. Those are notable outcomes for a candidate for senate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:9081:f571:c597:f64 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2018‎ (UTC)
(edit conflict) Careful, Marteau; in saying as you did here that editors are "withholding well-sourced information", which is censorship—something clearly contrary to Wikipedia's principles—you are failing to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors and coming close to making a personal attack. You need to assume that those editors who don't see eye to eye with you about this topic are not a cabal of politically-minded hacks out to gut Wikipedia and censor it to their political liking, but simply honest editors, applying the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as best they know how, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. For starters, you should strike out that portion of your earlier comment where you said that, or reply here, stating that you assume good faith on the part of other editors and meant no accusation or attack. If you feel you cannot do that but need to hold to your earlier view, that's fine: in that case, please place a warning about censorship behavior on my User talk page (here), and provide diffs so I will know what you are talking about. Be prepared to have this go to the Administrator's Noticeboard and back up your allegation with evidence, but I advise you to read WP:BOOMERANG first.
I couldn't give a hoot which way the Manning election turns out, and personally, I think that anybody that would use Wikipedia to inform their vote is about as foolish as those who use Facebook for that purpose. I don't doubt many people do so, but this is an encyclopedia, and that is a social network, and you can't stop fools from getting their information wherever they choose. In the meantime, let's keep it civil here, tone down the accusations, and stick to the goal of improving the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I stand by my words. I am alway willing to discuss what I have written, but not in answer to a threat. Marteau (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Your words are erroneous, and I reject them. Your invocation of the word "threat" in response to a neutral description of standard Wikipedia procedures for raising user behavioral issues, is risible. If you want to discuss a user's supposedly censorius behavior, you know the proper venue for it, and this is not it. Can we now please get back to discussing the content you wish to add to the article? Or not; I'm content to let this thread die. In fact, that would be the best outcome at this point, imho. Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
threat (n) a statement of an intention to visit hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. Telling me that if I did not either strike out my words and/or publicly proclaim my feelings of good faith that you would take me to Wikicourt was in fact a threat. Marteau (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── There has been no further coverage of these events in the past 4 days or so and I've been unable to find any new sources that add anything. All we have is a single wave of news reports saying that Manning's tweets/window ledge photo caused concern for her well being, that her account tweeted a short while later that she is "safe" and that her campaign is not suspended. We also have an interview with Glenn Greenwald where he speculates about her. This seems textbook WP:NOTNEWS to me. If User:Marteau is correct and these events are inherently notable then they will have a documented effect on something to do with Manning in the future. Until then we can only speculate. Therefore, I would like to close discussion here until further RS appear and ask that everyone refrain from re-adding the window ledge section so that our kind admins can unlock the page and we can all get back to editing as usual? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, consensus of page watchers is clear that it is not currently includable, and I will of course not add it until such time as consensus changes, perhaps in an RfC. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies would you be so kind? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's unprotected by now, isn't it? Sorry, was hanging out by the pool. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
On June 5th, Manning authorized publication of video of "police wellness check" in intercept article that discusses attempted suicide. I appreciate the sensitivity, and responsible posting past few days. With explicit consent, I think it's noteworthy and ethically compliant to keep it there. Full transparency, I reverted a revert Shushugah (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS seemed to be the main issue when the talk page decided to wait. I'm not sure this one article will extend the life of this story. And even though she released her video, it seems like the article is talking in a speculative voice about a possible suicide attempt which seems to indicate she hasn't made a statement either way on that front directly. Rab V (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Rab V, for the record, the content that you removed does not mention suicide, excepting the title of one citation to "Chelsea Manning 'safe' after tweeting alarming photo hinting at suicide" in the New York Daily News. If I were to replace that reference with a different one to support the four words "half an hour after," and the replacement did not include "suicide" in its title, would you continue to revert this addition? KalHolmann (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The title of the news articles is not the issue. Rab V (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Rab V, please state the issue in plain English, without resorting to Wikipedia jargon and linked acronyms. I'm honestly trying to understand, but this is a long thread and various pretexts have been used to suppress our inclusion of this important incident in the life of Chelsea Manning. KalHolmann (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll quote BananaCarrot since their's was the first objection at the top of this section and pretty much the same points have been brought up every time since. "You seem predisposed reasons given multiple times are "My objection is only that these are recent news stories, the tweets in question have been removed and that the reporting is mostly speculative. The long term implications of previous suicide attempts are clear, however it is not clear whether this incident has long term implications or what these might be (sources have not covered this -- even if you think it will be important). This is not an issue of "taboo", but rather this article is not the place for sensational news stories of apparent or ongoing acute medical emergencies." Rab V (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself! I'll try again though because I had already written the following before I saw Rab V's last answer.
The issue is that there has been a lack of ongoing coverage. If something happens in someones life and reliable sources like newspapers cover it, that is not on its own enough reason to include it in a biography on Wikipedia. Rather, we need ongoing coverage or something in the sources that shows that this event has lasting impact. News events are only notable if they are relevant in some bigger context. Right now we have two events that are obviously related (the police came because she made those tweets) but that are not strongly related in terms of context; the tweets stories discuss that people were concerned for her well being, the Intercept article is about Manning's view that the US is a police state as demonstrated by the "raid". Neither of these has gotten attention for more than one news cycle (at least so far). The Intercept article is not a continuation of last weeks coverage because it's primarily about the raid and police use of force, not the tweets or concern for Manning's well being.
You also say that this is an "important incident in the life of Chelsea Manning". I won't dispute this, that's not the point, but the sources/coverage of the incident don't demonstrate its importance. If it is important, we would see continued coverage. Maybe we will (for instance if she suspends her campaign as a result). But one initial news cycle just after the tweets, and then a tangentially related story in the Intercept isn't enough. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Rab V, you quote User:BananaCarrot152 saying "this article is not the place for sensational news stories of apparent or ongoing acute medical emergencies." Yet when I asked him on May 29 to please cite WP:RS supporting his contention that Manning is suffering from an ongoing acute medical emergency, he did not do so. Since you appear to endorse his unsupported claim, I'll make the same request of you: please cite a source (other than BananaCarrot152).
As for the separate issue of "long-term implications," I remind you we already have in this article a section titled "Suicide attempts" discussing Manning's dry runs in prison on July 5 and October 4, 2016. User:Funcrunch added the first on July 6, the same day it was reported by The Washington Post, although he used the heading "Hospitalization" until The Guardian confirmed, a week later, that she had indeed tried to end her own life. Funcrunch then changed the heading to "Suicide attempt." Funcrunch added Manning's second suicide attempt on November 5, 2016, one day after it was reported by The New York Times. As of November 2017, Funcrunch "greatly decreased" his editing on Wikipedia, which is unfortunate. I'm sure his advice would help us understand how he ascertained the long-term implications of Manning's 2016 suicide attempts contemporaneously, not retrospectively. KalHolmann (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Commenting just to acknowledge and thank KalHolmann for the ping, but this is precisely the kind of topic/discussion I can't deal with right now. (P.S. I also prefer singular they pronouns) Funcrunch (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to speak too much for bananacarrot but I believe they are talking about the speculation around suicidality or depression.Rab V (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Speculation? Falsely claiming, unsupported by WP:RS, that the subject of this BLP is suffering from an ongoing acute medical emergency—now, that's speculation. KalHolmann (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This gotcha moment is more confusing than it is illuminating but don't let that stop your enjoyment. If you are interested in improving the article, that is the actual purpose of this talk page though. Rab V (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I did not reply earlier (regarding acute medical...) because it no longer felt relevant to the discussion when I returned. My reasoning, however, is that suicide, attempted suicide and suicidal ideation are considered medical emergencies; see Outline of emergency medicine#Psychiatric. I meant acute as it is described here; Acute (medicine). I never intended that my characterization of her medical condition end up in the article. Specifically, I was only trying to characterize the medical condition described in the sources (especially the one's that used the word "suicide"). But now, regardless of whether or not there was a medical emergency, I believe that the reason for exclusion of the events from the article is that there has been a lack of continued coverage or clear future implications, as I described in my previous post which I am happy to discuss further. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: it is a very high bar and high standard which is being set here regarding the insistence on "continuing coverage". Despite the matter-of-fact "this is how we do things on Wikipedia" tone, the bar is higher for this article than for almost any other on Wikipedia. I suspect a fair bit of what's in the article now would not have been included had that standard been applied in the past. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if that bar remains so high next time some marvelous and flattering news about Manning comes down the pipeline and there's a rush to include it. I will be sure to bring the popcorn and the diffs of this debate for the event. Marteau (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I share your cynicism. A double standard is indeed being applied here by overprotective editors hellbent on shielding Wikipedia readers from the tragic reality that is Chelsea Manning's life. KalHolmann (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming good faith. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
...said the cat to the canary. Marteau (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent Twitter posts[edit]

Note that I've opened a discussion at here regarding the repeated addition of contentious material based on conjecture. Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, please ensure that there is consensus for the inclusion of any such material prior to restoring it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • User:Ponyo, I am glad you saw this too; I saw your earlier revert and summary and I agree. I have protected the article since an editor or two, or three, didn't seem to take you seriously. Marteau, KalHolmann, MagicatthemovieS, it is a good idea to pay attention when an admin reverts and invokes the BLP. Also pinging Kaldari, who knows a thing or two, or three. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • WaPo covered it with AP story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Sounds like NEWS to me. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • You need to remove about 300 sources then as the entire article is constructed of news sources. Also, suicide attempts are not covered by news outlets generally but notable events are. A prominent figure and political candidate tweeting from the top of a building, however, is a notable event covered by papers of record. Obviously, the notability of the event overrode the general news position of not covering suicides or attempts. This is patently obvious since previous suicide attempts are covered in our article and other news outlets. Why would you think this event deserves different editorial judgement than previous attempts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I think you're confusing "suicide attempt" with "Tweet possibly showing picture of someone on ledge". Drmies (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the BLP page discussion is no longer there, as far as I can see. I have added a section using only high quality sources (AP News, etc.). It is NPOV with no original research or conjecture. All quotes are taken from in-line quotes in the cited articles. I have not stated who wrote the Tweets on Manning's account, who appeared in the photograph, or what they might have implied. The focus is as much on the police response as on the Tweets themselves. I hope this is satisfactory for all. Cloudspert (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I especially like the word attended in your contribution: "…the Montgomery County Police Department attended Manning's apartment…." Pardon me while I head over to our page for September 1, 1939 and revise the wording to: "On this day, Germany attended Poland to mark the beginning of World War II." Oh, and the BLP page discussion is the section right above this one. It's only 4,857 words, so is easily missed. KalHolmann (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What word would do you think is more appropriate? The BLP page link above does not lead to the discussion above, which is labelled 'suicide attempt'. Since Manning attempted suicide in prison and since the recent Tweets don't seem to constitute a suicide 'attempt', it did not occur to me that it was the relevant section, so apologies for missing that. Based on the discussion there, I would add to my comment above that the incident has received continued coverage on one of the sources that I added (The Intercept) and on other media such as RT, Daily Beast, Medium, and Advocate. Note that these are not being used as sources (though some could be), so their reliability is not an issue. Rather, I mention them to demonstrate continued coverage (the lack of which earlier on was a primary objection to the incident's inclusion). Importantly, Manning is quoted as making a political point in relation to the incident, saying "This is what a police state looks like." Some such as Common Dreams have picked this up and are themselves framing the incident in political terms. Cloudspert (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Removed the section per reasoning discussed Talk:Chelsea Manning#Alleged suicide attempt. The tweets story and the intercept article are tangentially related and neither have seen ongoing coverage on their own. The sources Cloudspert provides above are just talking about the intercept article, the medium one appears to be the only one that was posted more than a day later, and as it says at the top "This is mostly for feelings." We are still in the same position we were in when the discussion in the above talk page section ended. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Small formatting issue[edit]

I'd peep under the hood, but the article is full protected: Why is the See also section in mouse script? And on my screen at least, the last 2 items are differently aligned. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Blatantly abused my administrative powers to remove "small=yes" (hadn't seen that before--what's the point?) and the last two items (intended via double asterisk), for reasons of economy, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018[edit]

Can the incident in question in the following article from The Intercept, a well respected newspaper, be added to Chelsea's page?

It represents a flagrant abuse on the part of police in the question of how to deal with mental health incidents, and it was widely covered by the press so it meets the importance standards of article inclusion. Resentcontributor (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Your question asks can this be added, but it's not clear how this reference you've mentioned is to be added - as an external link, as a reference, or as part of the prose. If it's textual information you'd like to add, your request should specify verbatim, which text is to be added, such as "Please add the following sentence to the third paragraph of text under this heading."  spintendo  01:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning accuses Wikipedia of transphobia[edit]

During the Q&A portion of her paid appearance on July 21, 2018 at the biennial Circle of HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) conference in New York City, Chelsea Manning was asked about her Wikipedia page. "It's changing constantly," she replied. "I have noticed that. I went from a convicted leaker, to a whistleblower and convicted leaker, to politician and activist and whistleblower. And I'm not done yet, trust me. I got plenty of stuff down the line." However, she added, "There's a lot of inaccurate things on my Wikipedia page and on the history about this case. I know that they're wrong but I'm not gonna fight it or anything like that. I'm not so focused on it that I'm gonna like try to correct it."

During a follow-up radio interview immediately after her keynote talk, Manning was asked, "What were some of the most incisive things that you've read in your Wikipedia page where you almost said something?"

A. Honestly, it's like little things about like my early life where I'm just like that sounds really transphobic. I've had moments where I feel like people like look at my past and look at the things I've done like take away my political agency and my ability to think for myself and like I'm some hapless person who's just like falling like, oh, I don't know what I'm doing and therefore I'm falling—
Q. Falling down the stairs into the position you're currently in.
A. Yeah. I'm like, no, I can make mistakes, I can learn things, I can do things, I can make my own decisions, including bad ones, including good ones, and including mediocre ones. And I don't like the tone sometimes of me as like this hapless transgender person who's just dealing with so much that she can't handle it.

I've reread the entire Background section of our BLP, including its Early Life subsection, and I honestly do not understand what Manning considers transphobic. Perhaps, as a Top 10 editor of this page, I'm too close to it. I urge other editors to review that content for any hint of transphobia, and form consensus here as to how to remedy it. KalHolmann (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Much of the section about her early childhood reads to me like the story of a girl who is simply bouncing from one unfortunate set of circumstances to another. I wonder if there is a mundane reason for this: Maybe editors have been referencing reliable sources that are easy to find, and these happen to be sources that present Manning as passive. Does anyone know of sources we have overlooked -- sources that that present Manning as having more agency? -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 23:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Please, in what sense does a child have agency? KalHolmann (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair question. After all a child certainly does not have agency in a legal sense. Perhaps it would be better to use words like "autonomy", "self-determination", and "activity" -- qualities associated with being a subject as opposed to an object.
Think about how differently the following would read if it were not for the italicized portion:
When Fred Rogers was young, he was made the target of bullying because he was fat, and his parents raised him in an environment in which he was discouraged from verbally expressing his anger. But he learned that he could express his feelings, including his anger, through the way he played the piano.
-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 00:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I re-read that section looking for what it might be. I don't know but, with the possibility of transphobia in mind, the paragraph: "Manning's sister Casey told the court-martial that both their parents were alcoholics, and that their mother drank continually while pregnant with Chelsea. Captain David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, told the court that Manning's facial features showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome.[31] Casey became Manning's principal caregiver, waking at night to prepare the baby's bottle. The court heard that Manning was fed only milk and baby food until the age of two. As an adult she reached 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed around 105 pounds (48 kg)." implies unstated assumptions of male or female. ('Men are tall' etc). Also "Friends and neighbors considered the Mannings a troubled family." etc. In general, a sense of nurture rather than nature. Again, I don't know. I'm trying to, carefully (I hope), offer thoughts, as requested by the OP, that may lead to the article's improvement. AnonNep (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We rely on what Reliable Sources say. We can't go searching through the Reliable Sources to find some way to reword them or recast them because of an implication someone might draw from them. I propose we not do a lot of soul-searching about this offhand comment by Manning and just continue to do our job as encyclopedists. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In this instance, I don't think we should be casually dismissive. Chelsea Manning is one of the most famous transgender individuals in the world. When she complains that a section in her Wikipedia bio "sounds really transphobic," we ought to take notice and strive to correct it where appropriate. KalHolmann (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
As another Top 10 editor, I'm at a loss as to what exactly Manning is concerned about. If we could see the particular items, then they can be tweaked. But "I don't like the tone sometimes of me as like...." is not enough. And certainly not enough to say WP and the ≥1,000 editors of this article are transphobic. MelanieN is right, soul-searching is not needed or helpful here. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


I'm slightly vague as to what the official policy is, if any (I checked the archives and I'm not sure about the consensus, but the link to gender identity for BLP seemed to just go to the MOS with no obvious reference) but it strikes me as a bit off that Manning's former name is quite so prominent in the intro. Though I would agree that it's reasonable to have it somewhere reasonably obvious, putting it in bold right after her real name seems a bit much and actually looks a little adversarial. Couldn't it be dialled down just a little without risk of compromising the article's usefulness? I can't help feel there's a reasonable balance between being respectful and conveniently informative and even at a glance that seems to be rather conspicuously awry.

If it is a policy (regardless of whether or not I could find it) to highlight a person's former name that they no longer identify with quite so assertively (indeed I'd go further and say aggressively) I can't help but feel that the policy should perhaps be revised. --Vometia (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vometia: This issue has been previously discussed in multiple threads, most recently on 19 January 2018. Please review those discussions and respond here. Note: you will have to click Show under "Use of feminine pronoun" at the bottom of the archive page to display the relevant discussion, which is headed "Position of birth name in lede." Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I suspect it may be worth putting that in the Q&A section at the top of this page; at present there's a link to MOS:IDENTITY that goes nowhere and a similar one in an archive regarding gender that again just linked to the MOS page, so it could perhaps do with being reviewed. Which is an observation rather than a demand that "someone must do this!", someone not being me but someone else: I lack the boldness and knowledge to do so but that's still quite the demand.
I do think the consensus is wrong, though: I know it's a Wikipedia standard since forever but strength of numbers and loudness of voice etc doesn't make something right and this is something I would say is quite wrong, regardless of it apparently now being a standard. But that's not an argument for here, it's a debate for elsewhere and I'm not the person to lead that debate. And it's why I raised it as a concern on the talk page rather than being... well, "bold", though I suspect without knowing the entire history of this matter but now having an inkling, "unintentionally reckless" would be the likely reality of "be bold!" --Vometia (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vometia: I found two links to MOS:IDENTITY under Frequently asked questions (FAQ) on this talk page, and both function properly. KalHolmann (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
How curious. It just takes me to the top of MOS with "redirected from MOS:IDENTITY" underneath it.
Though regardless of what the seemingly errant section says, I'm not convinced about its appropriateness. For the record, if it really needs re-stating, at least by me... --Vometia (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery is relevant to article[edit]

On October 20, 2018, User:Rab V reverted my addition of Chelsea Manning's announcement that she had, after years of fighting for it, finally undergone surgery. In his edit summary, Rab V made two points. First, it was "not directly stated in tweet what the surgery is." Any fair reading of Chelsea Manning would confirm that Manning has fought for only one type of surgery: Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Second, Rab V contends that "without secondary source it is difficult to establish how relevant a surgery would be to rest of article." Again, one need merely read this BLP, which mentions SRS four times, to establish that editorial consensus has long recognized the relevance of said surgery to Chelsea Manning. I request renewed discussion to affirm that this latest development is, obviously, about SRS and that it is, just as obviously, relevant to the BLP. KalHolmann (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Still if it's not immediately obvious the exact nature of the surgery we shouldn't be making assumptions or we could run into OR issues. The surgery may be related to being trans and not be sexual reassignment surgery, for example orchiectomy or breast augmentation. My tendency is to be cautious around BLP issues for people's medical history as well. If it is very notable, it will probably show up in secondary sources that could also clarify the exact surgery since Manning is still often in the news. Might as well wait til then. PS I am not a man and we probably shouldn't gender wikipedia editors as if they are :) Rab V (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The quote can be run after being led into by a reference to this story from earlier this month that she was to receive "gender transition surgery". Under MOS:LWQ, we can and should skip the wikilink in the quote itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler: The Reuters story to which you link is more than two years old (Sep 14, 2016). As such, it is unrelated to this latest development and ought not to be added. KalHolmann (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, the Google News results were listing that as an October 8, 2018 story for some reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler: I also reject your reading of MOS:LWQ, which states: "…when linking within quotations, link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." I submit that Manning's intended meaning is clear: she's alluding to sex reassignment surgery. KalHolmann (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain which surgery she is referring to exactlty so we are still at an impasse. It seems related to her status as trans but that still could imply several different possible surgeries. My understanding with regards to notability of surgery within the article, the issue that made it notable and widely discussed in the news was the legal fight the DoD had with her. That fight ended when she left their custody so isn't an issue now. My preference would still be for a reliable secondary source to clear up what surgery she had and help us make sure we aren't wading into BLP issues around someone's medical history. Rab V (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018[edit]

Please remove "born Bradley Edward Manning." It directly goes against the guidelines to include a trans person's birth name, and is highly disrespectful. Thank you. Transoulrebel (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: From MOS:MULTIPLENAMES: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." This article is actually specifically mentioned as an example within that guideline. She was certainly notable under her birth name, so the article is written correctly under current guidelines. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)