Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Chelsea Manning

Political prisoner

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/chelsea-mannings-original-revelations-still-need-investigating

Amnesty 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Who is Casey Manning?

Who 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

why is her deadname literally in the first sentence

do better Beep320 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
cringe and transphobic Beep320 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

My removals

I made quite a few removals so I'm opening a discussion. My concern is that the military service section was wandering way off topic. A lot of the content there should be in a different section. Jozsefs (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arrest_of_Bradley_Manning