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
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 18, 2019.
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.


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)
@GlassBones: She has, but even if she hadn't, legal name is not the most important name. Calling this article Bradley Manning would be as silly as calling the article on David Bowie "David Jones". Irtapil (talk) 15:31, 27 October 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)

It's funny, because if a television show has long been off the air, the policy is still to say it IS a TV show, because it still exits, even if it's no longer airing. We don't call it a "dead show." Trying to say Bradley Manning is a "deadname," when it's the name the subject used at the time he was doing what he did to merit an article in the first place, seems a bit contradictory. (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME and MOS:GENDERID represent widely discussed community consensus (per WP:CONLEVEL) that override the opinions of editors on this page. According to those guidelines (1) we refer to the article's subject using their current identity and pronouns, and (2) we mention the deadname once or twice for the edification of the reader and according to the WP:ASTONISH principle, but (3) we do not mention the deadname more than necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
in any case, she was not "born as" Bradley - that name was assigned to her by her parents. 2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:F13D:665A:E95:7F84 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

besides, "deadname" is not a real thing. It is made up by activists, and there is no reason for the rest of the world to do as they want. (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "Administrative Segregation" to "Solitary Confinement" for all instances of the term[edit]

"Administrative segregation" is a synonymous euphemism for the practice of solitary confinement. The use of this term (In general, not only within its current placement in the article) is intended to soften and obfuscate the nature of Manning's treatment. Juan Mendez, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, has argued emphatically that solitary confinement is torture in publicly available documents such as this. The term "administrative segregation" is less widely known by the public than the term "solitary confinement" and thus is politically coded language that makes all uses of the term in the article less clear. Whenever you have two exactly synonymous terms, the only sensible course of action is to use the more widely understood term. The only argument that could possibly be made for using the lesser known of two identical terms is to present information in such a way which obscures the true nature of events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4600:86b0:dd0a:3a7c:7a59:a73b (talk) 01:42 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Singer/Songwriter/Rapper Saul Williams dedicated the song "Think Like They Book Say" to Chelsea Manning.[edit]

This is an obscure fact that might fall under "cultural impact", but wanted to add it to the discussion.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021[edit]

Remove "Bradley Edward Manning" from Born section, her deadname is nobody's business. (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done. per MOS:DEADNAME. - Daveout(talk) 07:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote that explains deadnaming?[edit]

I fully agree with the policy at WP:DEADNAME (even as a trans-questioning person myself). However, I don't think the readers knows very much on the topic of deadnaming, and thus could lead to confusion at a glance. Similarly, those in the know of trans subjects might see it as disrespectful or confusing. So I suggest introducing a hatnote clarifying it, that only the current name is to be used. I don't see that as POVing or censoring content, but just instructing the reader about how to use the person's name. Since we uncontroversially use {{family name hatnote}}, we already provide reader guidance on how subjects' names should be used and handled. I think deadnames are equally important to explain.

I created a hatnote template as a suggestion: {{deadname}}

Seeking consensus or lack thereof. Gaioa (T C L) 15:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, but I am barely literate in template syntax. If you want input from experienced editors who are literate in the issues, you might ask around at WikiProject LGBT. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gaioa: here's the existing Template:Editnotices/Page/Chelsea Manning text:
This article on Chelsea Manning uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. Additionally, MOS:DEADNAME specifies that a trans person's deadname may be included if they were sufficiently notable under said name. See the talk page for further discussion. Many thanks.
Please explain why we need a new, secondary hatnote, instead of just revising the existing hatnote's text to satisfy your concerns. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Because it's for the reader, not the editor. The reader can equally well misunderstand deadnames, but they never see editnotices. Gaioa (T C L) 17:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
In that case I'm not even sure what you're trying to clarify with the hatnote. What could the reader possibly think other than "Oh, they're referring to her by the name she currently uses"? And how would the hatnote change that? Nardog (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Not a ridiculous idea, but I think it would be an uphill battle to get consensus for this. I think I would stand weakly in opposition to this as not particularly conveying any new information to the reader worth the extra verbiage and the pain of maintenance. The comparison with {{family name hatnote}} is compelling because that template doesn't actually tell you anything more than what you can get from reading the article, which will show you how to refer to the person in formal contexts (generally by surname), and this hatnote wouldn't either. But those naming conventions seem much more complicated and here I think the most oblivious person would read an article referring to a person by one name and set of pronouns throughout (even if it mentions other names/genders) and find it most natural to use the same name/pronouns, which would be correct. In contrast, someone not familiar with varied naming conventions may by default assume everyone to use the same naming conventions as them (for me, that would be assuming the last word only is the surname). Another template often slapped at the top of an article even though its information becomes apparent by reading the article is {{Algebraic notation}} (in chess). As this isn't Manning-specific, I think we should move this discussion elsewhere (rather than just linking to it elsewhere). — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: There already is WT:LGBT#Suggestion about transpeople's deadnames, so I suggest moving your comment there. I'm not sure about moving the entire discussion but I won't object to it. Nardog (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I oppose saddling this overlong BLP with a distracting, margin-to-margin page-top banner reiterating what is already explained in the fourth sentence of the lead: A trans woman, Manning stated in 2013 that she had a female gender identity since childhood and wanted to be known as Chelsea Manning. That sentence sufficiently informs the reader that this bio involves a person who prefers to no longer be known by her original name. Moreover, Manning's previous notability by her deadname is obvious even to the most casual reader, who can see at a glance how much of our article describes Chelsea's life prior to 2013. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thumbs down icon We already have "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[3] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" as the opening sentence. Readers interested in the article already know something about Manning. And just as Basketcase2022 says the material in the lede explains everything, without deadnaming. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that as POVing or censoring content, but just instructing the reader about how to use the person's name. It is not our job to tell readers how to use a person's name. We are not an instruction manual, we are not here to control the reader's lives. If we say that a person changed their name, and then discuss them by their current name, it's obvious that we are using the new name. We are an example of using the name properly, and I have zero objection to someone seeing what we do and being moved by it, but the moment we start advocating in text for a certain way to refer to people, we are not being NPOV, we are being advocates with how-to information, which is not the goal of this project, and certainly not the goal of any one trans person's pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)