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]

Selecting pronouns in direct quotation

Due to the contentious topic, I am posting here before making any changes. In the section on military service, we write the following: She was allegedly being bullied, and according to another soldier, was having a breakdown. The soldier told The Guardian: "The kid was barely five foot ... [She] was a runt, so pick on [her]. [She's] crazy, pick on [her]. [She's] a faggot, pick on [her]. The [girl] took it from every side. [She] couldn't please anyone."

I think this is an excessive number of bracketed changes that hurts readability. I also think it compromises the original quote. One option would be to paraphrase, but the structure conveys meaning that would be difficult to capture. Another option would be to remove it entirely. A third option would be to use the original pronouns. I suggest the third, which is employed for a quote from Manning's father in the Background section. Any thoughts? cityuser (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID gives the advice to prefer paraphrasing over excessive bracketed replacements. Excessive bracketed replacements are still preferable to misgendering. If we can't find a way to make the line flow better, I would omit it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning_gender_identity_media_coverage
No tags for this post.