Talk:Chelsea Manning
(Redirected from Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage)
Latest comment: 21 days ago by Titan(moon)003 in topic why is her deadname literally in the first sentence
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Manning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Q1: Why is this article titled Chelsea Manning?
A majority of sources now use the name "Chelsea" when referring to Manning which would make it the common name. There has been consensus among editors since October 2013 that this name should be used.
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: 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. Q4: I feel that Wikipedia is being biased against (or towards) 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. Q5: Why does Wikipedia include Chelsea Manning's deadname?
Wikipedia's guidelines say that we should include the birth name for a living transgender person in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is the case for Chelsea Manning. By doing this, we ensure people who have only heard of Manning as her deadname can still find and recognize the article. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about article name and gender. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
 | Editor behavior around the article title discussion was brought to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee: |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. 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. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chelsea's deadname should NOT be displayed on a public platform. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Rosemary Mccoy (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: because she was notable under her former name. See MOS:DEADNAME for the policy and Elliot Page for a similar example. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
maybe don't use old pictures though? or SOMEBODY ask her about it if no one has yet. KingcCake (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Individuals opinions on the articles have no relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. Cautious behavior around living persons is for legal protection not to keep the topic happy. (Imagine if people were allowed to dictate what their articles are to be about? Wikipedia would be completely unreliable.) JSory (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is it not, soi disant, unreliable anyway? 86.17.194.20 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Political prisoner
editAmnesty has campaigned for Manning’s release since 2013, when she was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment - a jail term much longer than for military personnel convicted of murder, rape and war crimes - for leaking classified government material. Amnesty believes the sentence was excessive and should have been commuted to time served (over three years at the time of sentencing), not least because Manning was overcharged using antiquated legislation aimed at dealing with treason, and denied the opportunity to use a public interest defence at her trial.
In addition, the whistleblower was held for 11 months in pre-trial detention conditions that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez deemed to be cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. She was placed in solitary confinement as punishment for a suicide attempt last year, and was denied appropriate treatment related to her gender identity during her incarceration. In a podcast for Amnesty in 2016 (www.amnesty.org.uk/chelsea), Manning recounted the draconian nature of her pre-trial detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia: TimurMamleev (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @TimurMamleev, I'm unsure about your intentions. Do you think something needs to be added to the article? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it should be added to the article that Amnesty International considered Manning a political prisoner and demanded his release and regularly published articles about her. However, Amnesty International argued that not every political prisoner is given the special status of "prisoner of conscience", which is designed to draw maximum attention to a particular political prisoner. TimurMamleev (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- The term "political prisoner" is not used in either of the sources listed above, that I can find. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it should be added to the article that Amnesty International considered Manning a political prisoner and demanded his release and regularly published articles about her. However, Amnesty International argued that not every political prisoner is given the special status of "prisoner of conscience", which is designed to draw maximum attention to a particular political prisoner. TimurMamleev (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the phrase “and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics” as it is purely speculative. Manning had no higher education at the time of enlisting, and her GI Bill would have run out of money before reaching the doctorate level, so claiming she would have been acquiring a PhD with her GI Bill is inaccurate. Saying she enlisted in order to be eligible for GI Bill benefits is far more accurate. 2600:6C46:6B00:297:1C39:E471:36B6:43B2 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done for now: The statement appears well-sourced – see ref 72 – is there some reason to assume the author of the reference was misinformed? Tollens (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Who is Casey Manning?
editWho is Casey Manning?
There are two mentions of this individual but no links or explanation about who this person is or how he/she/it are related to Chelsea/Bradley Manning.
The main article only says: "Manning has an older sister". So I assume Casey is Chelsea's older sister, but this should be stated explicitly, otherwise further refernces to this appelation has no grounding in fact.
Vonuan (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. I added the name to the statement she has an older sister.However, we may need to address how she is refered to later in the text, as at least one source gives her name as Casey Manning Majors, in which case she should be refered to once by that name and later by Majors during the testimony portion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply and the edit.
- As to the naming, I am of the opinion that one should use the name of a person AT THE TIME of the event being discussed.
- IF the event is at birth, then the birth name should be used.
- In the case of the trial of "Bradley Manning" and prior events, it is wrong to distort history by speaking of "Chelsea Manning". If this becomes a requirement of "political correctness" then we are on a very slippery slope. Vonuan (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- This was already a requirement; see MOS:DEADNAME and supplementary essay Wikipedia:Gender identity § Retroactivity. It is not common in written English to treat the names of people, places, or things as temporally fixed in the way you suggest (in fact it would be extremely confusing). Correctly naming living biography subjects is an act of basic decency and respect.
- If you have further comments or concerns on how Wikipedia writes about transgender people, please take them to a more general forum. Such a change would affect many more pages than this (and has been discussed to death hundreds of times and is never going to happen). –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
why is her deadname literally in the first sentence
editdo better Beep320 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- According to the policy, since she was also notable under her previous name, it goes in the lead section (See MOS:DEADNAME. In fact, her situation is even used as an example).--MattMauler (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- cringe and transphobic Beep320 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Beep320 How is it transphobic? It is a legit guideline, did you not even bother to read MOS:DEADNAME before you baselessly called someone cringe and transphobic? Titan(moon)003 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- cringe and transphobic Beep320 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)