Talk:Chelsea Manning

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

I Opted

I opted to put Chelsea in the "Transgender" category (which says not to put somebody in it just because they're trans) specifically because her gender announcement was politically controversial. But if there's disagreement on that I don't mind someone removing the category. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Did someone actually question Manning's transgender identification, given the circumstances surrounding the leaks? It would be good to have some examples to laugh at. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is one such critic. It's not quite black-and-white though. The author of that piece is transgender herself, and was critical mostly of Chelsea's use of her trans status during the trial as some sort of attempt to get a lesser sentence. Which is actually pretty messed up, I didn't know she had even done that. (I had thought she only came out afterward.) So I don't really know what to think at this point. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Coming back after the fact, I found a guy from Fox saying essentially what I had said before, so I added it. Media Matters also mentions that it was already known that Chelsea was transgender before the trial, and the only thing she saved for afterward was the official request to be known by the name Chelsea. So yeah, I call bullshit on the very thing I linked to (the Business Insider one above). Anyway. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The category seems fine, but why the sidebar? Manning is primarily known for the intelligence leaks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

corrected uniformed picture caption with correct rank (If manning was reduced in rank, please revert.)72.50.82.151 (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone planning on editing this to reflect her current situation? 108.70.12.24 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully. — Dysk (contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove deadname?

I know Chelsea Manning was well known under her birth name, but c'mon, we can do better than Wikipedia. As such, should the deadname be removed or de-emphasized? Celeste (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I can de-emphasize it. However, it must stay as it was very well known, and also, you take dead naming waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. It should not be removed.--Gale5050 (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think deadnaming is a practice that shouldn't be on RationalWiki. I think we should at the very least deemphasize it and hopefully the dead name does become dead one day. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Hence why I de-emphasized it, however, it should be kept as they are famous under that name. However I will delete a redirect if one exists. --Gale5050 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I treat redirects as a more the merrier thing. I don't see the harm in leaving redirects for deadnames as it feels like redirects "correct" the name, but if there is unintentional harm of keeping redirects, then I'd really need to hear it and it'll be appreciated. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think going with a strict notability rule for deadnames (harsher than WP), and using soft redirects for deadnames could help alleviate potential transphobia here on RW. Just my two thoughts. And @Gale5050 I'm serious about deadnaming because I'm trans. {{laugheline}} Celeste (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s appropriate in the lede, for one it gets in the way of adding a {{lived}} template. I’d lean towards adding it to the gender section, but I won’t lose any sleep if it’s removed altogether. Her deadname is arguably notable in this case as she’s famous both for stuff she did before transition whilst using that name, and her treatment in prison by people who would’ve continued to use it.

Gale5050, don’t antagonise users you’ve had issues with on other sites. Christopher (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There really is no appropriate place for it besides the lead, and soft redirects do not work. I mean, you could say the same for Caitlyn Jenner, but ultimately, they are very famous under there last name. Removing it entirely should not happen. --Gale5050 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

there was once a time when chelsea was seen by world as bradley, as she was when she became known o the wider public. in fact her journey rom bradley to chelsea was in a large part in public and in the courts. is deadnaming to indicate the name they were once known as? at which privately and/or publically she became known as chelsea is significant to her story and criticisms leveled at her. and searching for info about her, from a particular period, or just without knowledge of what she used be known as, sources before becoming chelsea would be absent. if her fame/notoriety was entirely post her transition, it would not be relevent. here its part of the story. we shouldnt misgender or deadname, her past is her past. but we shouldnt obscure the fact in when her past was her present, to the world it was his present. her transition is a little to vaguely described, the timeline a little indistinct considering the significance of it on her legal woes, mental health, and its bearing on her defence, sentence and the background to the leak in the first place.

the timing of her publically coming out as trans after conviction, was without hindsight suspicious. her detractors ae obviously not going to give her the benefit of the doubt and view it as suspect. to world a convicted felon makes an announcement that could effect her sentencing seemingly out of the blue to the general public. yes one would raise an eyebrow at the timing. being openly trans at the time no walk in the park already, suddenly the biggest story in the world has trans i the headlines associated with convicted criminal, a confirmed traitor in many eyes, using trans as a ruse or the most well known trans woman in the world is worst criminal. i can understand why some openly transwomen at the time were less than supportive. chelsea would have been bradley in much of the reporting through this period.

chelsea is a trans woman now. it could hardly be denied at this point. just as she was convicted, though, right before deciding to send her a scary mens prison that would terrify even the butchest cis male crims, llet alone a super famous traitor every con knows and probably who think rape is more noble a crime than betraying their country, if claiming your trans and letting your hair grow a bit and putting on some slap gets segregated from patriotic rapists, or to womens prison which has less likelihood of your rape, or avoid prison altogether, yeh you'll say your trans if it can help in any way. trans or not you'd wanna avoid the more brutal of americas famously brutal prisons. claiming she was trans at that point is suspect whatever you think her or her crimes. now we know it was genuine? it wasnt the only reason people disliked her. accept she really is trans does not mean she isnt a traitor in their eyes.

its not dead naming thats a issue in the article its that its denying she had any life at all before she was chelsea. and there next to nothing about the leaks she was convicted of - the significance, their size, whether they were justified or not, the manner in which they were released, real or imagined damage to us propert or reputation or its agents. here it looks like she was some petty lgbt activist indiscriminately endangering patriotic americans lives out of spite at the homophobia in the army. her transition was a part of the story, not the story nor the most important part of it. our coverage completely over shadows why her transition was notable at all. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I weakly agree. Besides, Celeste (known as Cassie on Uncyclopedia),has went as far as misusing admin tools just to cover it up. However, if you go to Uncyclopedia you will immediately see why they got away with it.--Gale5050 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There is literally no way that coming out as trans would at all be helpful in the situation she was in. To suggest that is ignorant. We saw what happend because of it, the media campaign against her reputation intensified, bigots sad all kinds of nasty things, and she got locked in solitary multiple times to punish her. People who attacked her and said she was faking or trying to get out of punishment were being transphobic- Yes, including the other trans people. It may be a kneejerk reaction but in a society where transphobia is normal even trans people are going to perpetuate it sometimes. ~~ 18:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you should drag drama here. Anyway I'll try to process what's been said here.... --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)