Talk:United States v. Manning/Archive 1

Detention at Marine Corps Base Quantico
Should that section be moved in here? Looks quite relevant to the topic. Belorn (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't about the trial, Belorn. I've set this page up for any significant pre-trial hearings and the trial itself, which may take place in the summer. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you want to limit the article, but anything related to the trial should at least have a summery. Is there any other famous trial where there had been claims about miss-treatment during the detention time leading up to the trial? looking at Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange, The Pirate Bay trial, both has significant pre-trial sections about events leading up to the trial, but neither mentions detentions. Belorn (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could perhaps write up a summary of the detention issues, so long as it didn't get too detailed. But it would kind of move us away from the point of this article, which is to be about the trial and related legal issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oki, when I got the time I could try to create a small summery below the section charges. I am still slightly looking for an example to see how others has solved this, so to not put too much weight into the background which is better explained in the main article. Belorn (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Source for court dates
Hi Srich, I don't see a problem with this source -- the material is purely factual, rather than commentary, and it's quite helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The factual material is not the concern -- a fan site or internet petition can certainly have factual material, but the ELNO policy is to avoid such pages for what they are, not what they contain. For example, a fanpage for a celebrity might say "This movie star was born in Riverside, California, on December 29, 1848, and remained on earth because of the law of gravity." The factual material on the page does not change it from being a fan site. (As per previous discussions, my opinion is that including BSN, even as a reference for factual material, is a backdoor approach to getting the website onto WP.) There must be other sources for this information that do not infringe on ELNO. Besides, the page contains lots of POV/commentary: "Besides these swift denials ....", "Interestingly, Combs noted ...." and, more importantly, it asks for donations, to sign the petition, and posts dates for upcoming rallies. (Also reader comments.)  These are the reasons, I'm sure, that WP does not allow such external links. While Nathan Fuller seems to have done a good job in saying what happened, he is not a secondary source subject to editorial control from a recognized publisher. Finally, the helpfulness of the page's information is questionable. The Judge said keep it quiet in the courtroom and Fuller said it had been quiet except for a cough. (And how helpful is it to say the judge looked at the clock before calling a recess?) Let's find a clearly acceptable source. --S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can find an alternative source for the dates, that would be helpful, because the information is quite useful, but we can't really leave it unsourced. I did look around before adding this one, but couldn't find anyone else who had covered it in such detail. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no shortage of fans and reporters interested in Manning and his upcoming court dates, so covering them (even as they occur) won't be a problem. Moreover, aren't these rather vague dates simply WP:CRYSTAL? The argument that BSN is the only source for these dates ignores the fact that other, more reliable and neutral sources attended the hearings and apparently decided not to report on the dates. Also, consider this story: . We have an important hearing set for June 6-8. The results of that hearing may significantly change future dates. We do not need the Bradley Manning Support Network as our RS for this bit of non-news. We cannot get around the fact that BSN is a fanpage and on-line petition page. --S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC) I see footnote 15 already has the AP story and the June 6-8 dates.04:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair point about the dates probably changing. Perhaps if you could add the source(s) that you found for some of the dates, and/or remove the ones you feel are highly likely to change, that would do for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks good, thank you. As this is your area of expertise, please feel free to fix any inappropriate language, etc. Those of us not versed in these procedures are floundering trying to describe what's happening, and I think that includes many of the sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much. I'm hardly an expert, but am happy to contribute when I see something that really needs fixing. ;-) --S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, future dates are subject to change. See: Judge doubles pretrial hearings. Recommend we simply look to the September 21 trial date and let the other stuff ride. Letting the lawyers make sausage, without constant updates will work out just fine. --S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

why "sic"?
This sentence

"His lawyers argued that his superiors had failed to provide adequate counseling, and had not taken disciplinary action or revoked his security clearance, and suggested that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy – which was repealed in September 2011 – had made it difficult for Manning to serve in the army as a "gay man" [sic]."

why the use if SIC? Is there something incorrect about "gay man" ?--72.47.85.39 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Gay men are no different from other men. I shall remove the quotes from the article and the "sic" - unless anyone objects. --The Historian (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why?
Why did Manning replace his two military lawyers, Major Matthew Kemkes and Captain Paul Bouchard, with Captain Joshua Tooman? The reason isn't given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.8.191 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Source doesn't say material was recovered from overwritten space
I made this change [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Bradley_Manning&diff=566436264&oldid=566433977] and a similar one to the bio article to better reflect what the source actually says. The older version, suggested material was recovered from overwritten data which piqued my interest. Whenever I've looked in to this before the consensus has been despite some common misunderstandings, it's probably not possible and there's definitely no evidence of anyone doing it on a meaninful level for HDs (which I presume we're talking about, not SSDs). However when, I read the source I realised I was probably mislead. The source simply says using a single pass is less secure which is inherently true even if a single pass is probably good enough for most purposes including I expect for Manning. However this is also likely largely irrelevant here so the source is IMO confusing matters by mentioning it. What the source also says is the data was recovered from unallocated space after the attempts. This suggests to me what happened is the person tried to use some tool to wipe certain files. Which is a big mistake as there will often be temporary and other files that have now been deleted or are now stored elsewhere, which the are marked as free space on the partition and so may be overwritten at any time, but until they are still contain whatever data was there originally. In fact even if a smarter tool was used which tries to wipe deleted files it can see, this probably wouldn't work at all (and will often miss stuff anyway) if the old partition had been deleted when reinstalling the OS. Alternatively it may be a tool was used which tries to wipe all free space on the partition (which still often misses stuff for a variety of reasons) but the person who reinstalled the OS screwed up and made the partition smaller than the HD or the former partition so there was some stuff in what was now unpartitioned space. Either way, the source does not say anything was recovered from space that had actually been zero-filled. Most likely, and the reason I feel the source is unnecessarily confusing, if the hard disk had been properly zero filled (i.e. the whole disk and not just parts of it), nothing would have been recovered whereas even with 35 passes the data would still have been recovered because it's no use overwriting something 35 times if you're leaving other compromising stuff alone. (Although I don't know how easy this is to do on a Mac. And of course there is likely still a minor risk from thing such as reallocated sectors.) If a better source can be found, it may explain what exactly is meant by the data being recovered from unallocated space. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your change makes sense. I took a glance at the Wired article and also didn't see any claim of recovery from zeroed-out areas. I would expect that capability, if it exists in a practical form, to be a closely-guarded secret. "Unallocated" could likely means either not part of a partition, or in a partition but not allocated to a file. — rybec   03:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually worse than I thought (whether this is Wired's fault or the information presented pretrial was just misleading I don't know). This came up on WP:RD/C and so I hard a looksy (well search) of some trial transcripts and found where it came up in the trial particularly page 53. The investigator actually says "Nothing can be recovered prior to 25 January, nothing in unallocated space can be prior to 31 January" (if you read earlier you'll understand the dates, the whole drive was zerofilled on 25 January when the OS was installed and free space was zerofilled on 31 January).
 * So basically even the investigator is saying you can't recover anything. However a seven pass was used for the free space, not a single pass for erasing the free space. No idea how many passes were used during the OS install. But either way it seems nothing was recovered from overwritten space, rather data was recovered which was stored on the HD after it was overwritten/erased.
 * I'm lazy to fix either article at the moment but anyone else is welcome to.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Post- findings reactions
Three rather WP:SOAPy paragraphs have been removed. (All three were added in one edit.) One, a statement by Amnesty International, explicitly deals with Edward Snowden. Two, again by AI, is commentary on the actions of Manning, surveillance in general, rights to privacy, etc., and not focused on the case of US vs. PFC Manning. (Also SOAPy). Three was commentary by Human Rights Watch on the virtues / evils of the Espionage Act. It is not RS as to the how the Espionage Act operates, but is simply polemical. I ask that justification be provided for inclusion of these items, subject to consensus from the community. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Response - Human rights organizations

Srich32977,  in my opinion the article is not complete if the response of the human rights organizations is missing. In my opinion Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are the major international human rights organizations. Without this the article will fail neutrality. Human rights are politics bur not soap. Everything is politics: the way you eat, travel, work and have holiday. It is not dangerous. My addition was not forbidden propaganda or advertising and reserves place in the article. Please revert. Watti Renew (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that more is needed. But the presentation of the full quotes needed much, much work – mainly because of neutrality and NPOV issues. This article is about the trial, so commentary from AI, etc., should address the trial and not the more general issues of surveillance, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I intended to continue: You could have reverted without reference if I would have referred to the fact that there is a risk that USA starts treating the US whistleblowers revealing the injustice of the US administration almost like China and Russia does in respect to the dissidents judging Chinese (eg. Jiang Yanyong, Gao Yaojie, Wan Yanhai) or Russian government/administration (eg. Marina Rikhvanova, Pussy Riot). However, I did not add this since lacking reference. It is an open opportunity for everybody. Watti Renew (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My addition was in my opinion relevant to the trial. Watti Renew (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please follow WP:BRD. Your addition was the Bold, my removal was the Revert, we are now in Discussion. This is an article which will attract the interest of other editors, so we can await their input. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Bradley_Manning&diff=566646672&oldid=566646356 diff] The first paragraph wasn't properly sourced: the item it quotes is about Edward Snowden and does not mention Bradley Manning. Various commentators have compared them, but the source provided does not. The comparison is probably worth mentioning (perhaps in Manning's or Snowden's biography rather than in this article), but this needs a different source.


 * I know very little about Human Rights Watch but my understanding of Amnesty International is that they attempt to be non-partisan and impartial, doing humanitarian work on behalf of prisoners everywhere who are held for political reasons or are being tortured or otherwise ill-treated. If AI has something to say about a prisoner, it's usually noteworthy, in my opinion. Its commentary about Bradley Manning has been covered in secondary sources (quoting from their Web site was appropriate here, I think). The article has ample material about Manning's prosecution for breaking military regulations and committing crimes; a few paragraphs criticising that prosecution would not be excessive. I don't think it's good style to use such a preponderance of lengthy quotations as in the second paragraph, but I'd favor rewriting rather than deleting the proposed section. It's a widely held point of view, and differing points of view are already presented in the article. — rybec   19:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial legal proceedings against Bradley Manning. If there are law review or other articles of legal scholarship that address these specific legal proceedings, then those sources might be added. But generalized commentary on the non-legal aspects of the case go beyond the WP:TOPIC of this article. The particular comments were once posted on the Bradley Manning page. (In fact, that article has lots of "response" type information.) I suggest you make an argument on Talk:Bradley Manning for inclusion on that page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reactions to these proceedings ought to be within the scope of this article. Change of rationale smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — rybec   21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I saw the "reactions" posted on the Bradley Manning page and left them. User:SlimVirgin (who is an awesome Wikipedian) removed them with a simple "commentary" edit summary. (I then removed them here and I initiated the BRD.) The case for posting the reactions -- because they pertain to the whole Manning affair -- should go on that article talk page. Moreover, the reactions (if posted) will get better visibility on that page. Finally, this article serves to keep Manning from becoming WP:TOOLONG. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm content with the S. Rich's reversions – for the time being – because the reactions were not balanced. NPOV is an extremely important thing to strive for. Arguably now more than ever, in the post-conviction, pre-sentence stage. In fairness to those who added the content originally, the sources were never going to be balanced at this stage, because reaction from the judge and government will generally only come after sentencing. But once we are in a position to offer a balanced range of reactions from appropriate sources, reactions to this case will most definitely belong in the article. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that the judge will ever make an out-of-court comment. (Perhaps after she retires.) The government will be quiet as well. Why? A lot of legal work remains. First the sentencing hearings will continue, then sentence will be announced, then post-trial motions might be made, then the case goes to the General's SJA for a legal review, then it goes to the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) e.g, the general for a review. Next there are two levels of appellate review available. Lastly, Manning may go to the Prez and ask for clemency. At each of these stages Manning's conviction might be reversed or his sentence reduced. (But so far the legal case looks like it was well handled.) All of this is Due process of law! Because POTUS is the ultimate authority, and to avoid any command bias, the government is not going to comment. In the meantime, we will have talking heads and interest groups making their comments pro and con. They will not give us any encyclopedic material, so let's keep them out of this article.  – S. Rich (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Obama's remarks
The section labeled "criticism" has been removed and posted in the Bradley Manning article. As Obama was not commenting about the trial or legal proceedings (or even making a criticism of the legal proceedings) it is off-topic. Good bit of research, but not appropriate here. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) shows that this is pertinent, and indeed is what reminded me to add this.
 * He was widely perceived to be commenting on Manning's guilt, and this was seen as influencing the trial. Furthermore, the defense's list of witnesses included a witness whose name was redacted, with a note about "improper comments on April 21, 2011" which appears to refer to Obama. Your own remark "Because POTUS is the ultimate authority, and to avoid any command bias, the government is not going to comment."
 * Here is another page that explains what "unlawful command influence" is. It's when a high-ranking officer, whether intentionally or not, influences the participants in a court-martial, improperly affecting the outcome. —  rybec   01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Retired USAF First Sergeant Powers is not an authority in these matters, but that is not the issue. POTUS was talking about the Manning situation and not the trial, so he remarks still remain off-topic. In civilian trials, there is often a lot of pre-trial publicity which may "taint" potential jurors. What do we do? We screen the jurors. In this case the judge (who also acted as the jury at Manning's request) could have been challenged. It is possible that Manning's attorneys (military and civilian) will, at the proper time (perhaps at appeal) bring up the command influence issue, but I wonder if they will if they did not bring up the issue with the trial judge. Alas, I do see the remark that POTUS made, and I wish he hadn't! One, because he shudda kept his mouth shut, and two, because it made me look bad. Please note I've added the material to the Manning article. That's a great place for it.  Commentary in this article should be (must be) focused on the legal proceedings, issues, etc. Law review articles will be written and then they can be cited as RS for this case.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Here "defence list" refers to a list of witnesses whom the defence wanted (or claimed to want) to appear. This was during a pre-trial hearing in December 2011. — rybec   03:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This news article includes the paragraph "Obama is included on the defence list in order to raise the issue of "unlawful command influence". Coombs contends that the president exerted improper sway on the prosecution of Manning by making comments about him at a fundraising event in April in which he said Manning "broke the law"."
 * It is a bit late for me. I think we may be able to include this item on the list of potential defense witnesses, but more cogitation is needed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to "United States v. Manning"
I propose that this page be moved to "United States v. Manning". The short names of all court cases in the United States consist only of the parties' last names, never their full names. This is also the consensus with regard to naming American case articles throughout Wikipedia without exception. – Zntrip 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Case name will comply others as you note. Also, the simple Manning will solve the gender identification matter that has arisen. I am not going to make the move, but I think a WP:BLAR would work. – S. Rich (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So what were the charges he was found guilty of?
What were the charges he was charged with and found guilty of? 117.199.7.24 (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Gale

First name
Manning's first name at the time of the trial was Bradley, so shouldn't that be name in this article? Regardless of what Manning's name is considered to be now, changing it in an article about a historical event feels like historical revisionism. --PiMaster3 talk 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:IDENTITY explicitly supports what you're calling "historical revisionism" with regard to pronouns: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, … pronouns …. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." I think should also apply to names, else we end up with bizarre phrases like "When John was six, she …". —me_and 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in your eyes, an encyclopedia should give a higher priority to not hurting somebody's feelings than to reporting the facts as they happened? The US Military never brought charges against anyone named Chelsea Manning, or against any female named Bradley Manning.  A lot of Wikipedia editors seem to be gunning for a job in the Outer Party...  Clinton   (talk)  23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such person as "Private First Class Chelsea Manning" in the United States Army. He enlisted as Bradley Manning and is still referred to in official military documentation as Bradley Manning. He will be serving his sentence in an all-male prison. As far as this trial is concerned, "Chelsea Manning" is nothing more than an alias. 208.163.239.119 (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do people keep skipping over this when they quote MOS:IDENTITY? - "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)."

Pronouns
MOS:IDENTITY states "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman'), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." As such this article should refer to Manning using female pronouns ("her", "she", etc). has changed all the pronouns back to male, and I can't revert without it being a blatant violation of WP:3RR.

Can someone else revert the changes back to having female pronouns? I think attempting to use male pronouns breaches the style guide, and despite there being multiple editors (mostly but not entirely IP editors) reverting the article back to male pronouns, I don't think the local consensus overrules the style guide.

—me_and 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read the style guide first. It states explicitly: "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)."

What leaked material was actually classified
There are inconsistencies between this article, Chelsea Manning, List of charges against Bradley Manning, and external sources regarding exactly how much of the leaked material was classified. If you can help, please chime in at Talk:List of charges in United States v. Manning. Thanks! —mjb (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

formal name
I understand the point about how she self identifies as Chelsea Manning and how that is the name of the person who was court martialed but I still think it is incorrect to refer to her as "United States Army Private First Class Chelsea Manning". This is because the title "United States Army Private First Class Bradley Manning" is given by the US military and not the individual who was assigned that title. She can be both Chelsea Manning and United States Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. This is not a trivial distinction or something that can be ignored out of connivance. If we allow people to change their official military title then people could self identify as any military rank. It also should be noted that someones military/formal title does not always include their actual name showing that this distinction does exist. (look at Counts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactusfrog (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree as per the following: The formal and proper name of the case is US v. PFC Bradley Manning. And this article is about the case, not the person. The opening sentence should be match the case name, not the person's name. Thus it should read "United States v. Manning is the court-martial of United States Army Private First Class Bradley Manning[1] (now known as Chelsea Manning)." – S. Rich (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything that happened within the context of the case, happened with Bradley Manning. It is extremely confusing to speak about the case while referring to a female defendant, especially when the gender change (announced after the events, and ultimately not related to the case itself) is not explained in context. Manning's gender change should be something that is reflected on a biography page, not on this article. If the consensus disagrees and finds the gender mismatch acceptable for this article, then there should at least be a very clear explanation as to why the article is written the way it is. IMO the current state of the article is not being neutral to the facts of the case, it is giving preference to the ex post facto issue of Manning's status as a transgender. 65.87.26.122 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed This article is about a case where the name and rank are undeniable. The pronoun/name discrepancies should be corrected immediately. IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Standard Discretionary Sanction allowed for this article for duration of the arbitration case
Be advised that the Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction, authorizing discretionary sanctions to be applied for this article (as well as Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage) for the duration of the case. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Further reading section -- too long?
This article is about the legal case, the court-martial. It is not about Manning in general or events surrounding the WikiLeaks events. With this in mind, the further reading section is becoming a bibliography of all Manning related topics. Manning, and further reading related to Manning, is already covered in the other article. This listing should be trimmed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning
I will edit the lead from "United States v. Manning was the court-martial of former United States Army Private First Class Bradley E. Manning (known after the trial as Chelsea Manning)" to "United States v. Manning was the court-martial of former United States Army Private First Class Chelsea Manning (known at the time of the trial as Bradley Manning)" to be in line with the recent renaming of the Chelsea Manning article. The consensus reached at this page is now the official Wikipedia standard and should be respected across the English language wiki.IrishStephen (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See the section "formal name" directly above. Manning was known as Bradley until after the trial. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus reached was regarding that article, the story about the person. This article is about the legal action undertaken, not the person. (From what I see, there was no decision to apply female usage in all Manning related articles.) In this article the references now (and in the future) refer to the case as "United States v. Bradley Manning". With this in mind, the lede should refer to the case using the name by which Manning was tried and convicted. When citations refer to Manning with male pronouns, those references should be respected, particularly if they help avoid swaps in gender usage. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to all articles about a person. Chelsea Manning is Chelsea Manning. This is indisputable.IrishStephen (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of BLP when the case and trial is referred to as US v. Bradley Manning. Per WP:BLPSTYLE the use of "Bradley" is balanced by an explanation and reference that clearly shows the name was changed to Chelsea after the trial. Indeed, footnote 1 by Jennifer Rizzo uses "Bradley" to say Manning faces trial. Overall the legal proceedings will always have "Bradley". Indeed, Coombs' request for pardon does not say "Chelsea" or use female pronouns. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The person involved in the case is Chelsea Manning, therefore the article should call her Chelsea Manning. <<>> IrishStephen (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – References to the person Chelsea Manning should concur with the standing decision at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request#Decision_by_closing_administrators. References to the full name of the court case could perhaps be otherwise. Startswithj (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Startswithj, I think you have a misunderstanding of how the trial proceeded. Your edit (undertaken while this discussion is going on) mistakenly refers to a "dismissal". A dismissal from the service only applies to officers. Enlisted personnel are discharged. Manning's case is under review by the Convening Authority and Court of Military Appeals. Once those reviews are completed, and the sentence upheld, Manning will be "dishonorably discharged" from the service. The sentence which reduces Manning to the lowest enlisted rank (Private) is more symbolic than anything else; but, because the court-martial was "of Private First Class Bradley Manning" it is not proper to describe the case as United States v. Private Manning, or US v. Private Chelsea Manning or US v. former PFC Manning. The case is "United States v. Private First Class Bradley Manning", and the article will best (and most accurately) reflect that fact by using the terminology which the court uses. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert] Hi, User:Srich32977. Please feel free to tag me in replies (or is that generally not done? I'm newish here). Yes, I wrote in my edit comment (not in the article itself) "she was demoted, not dismissed," which was my paraphrasing of Military discharge, and my understanding that Manning's rank was reduced but not stripped. But if this can be reduced to a question of whether the opening sentence should paraphrase the case name or paraphrase what happened between what parties, please consider my suggestion below, in response to Two kinds of pork. Thank you. Startswithj (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Inserted reply to Startswithj]. Yes, Manning was reduced to the "lowest enlisted rank" as part of the punishment imposed. And Manning will receive a dishonorable discharge from the army. The discharge certificate will likely be handed to her when she leaves USDB. (IOW, she won't be hanging it on the wall of her cell.) The effective date of discharge, I believe, will be the date the sentence was pronounced. The "discharge" itself will be implemented as soon as the sentence is confirmed by the GCMCA and CCA. Even though discharged from service in the army, Manning will remain under the jurisdiction of the military prison system until the sentence is completed (discharge or not). So, for all practical and legal purposes, Manning underwent court-martial as PFC Bradley Manning. She will leave USDB as Chelsea Manning. She is a former PFC and she is the person formerly known as Bradley Manning. But, again, she was tried in court-martial as PFC Bradley Manning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that the legal case used Manning's former name, nor do I disagree with the order of events. But I don't see that it's necessary to use her former name in describing (paraphrasing) what the case was or was about. Startswithj (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We should not change the title of a court case in disrespect to WP:V. However, it is also clear that referring to Chelsea by her former name is disrespectful and should be minimized. I support the proposed change of the lede to refer to Chelsea Manning, known at the time of the trial as Bradley. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Furthermore, there is no reason for the article to omit "Chelsea" where it would normally be natural to use a given name (for example, in the caption under her photo). Formerip (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No. While I agree with NBSB that we should minimize Bradley, this is a step too far unless we have sources to use to PFC Chelsea Manning.  Though I wouldn't be opposed to removing the PFC bit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "United States v. Manning was the court-martial of Chelsea Manning, a United States Army Private (then known as Bradley Manning)"? Startswithj (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I wish it would work. However, there is no such person as "Private Chelsea Manning" or "Private First Class Chelsea Manning". (And Manning, inside the USDB, will be referred to as "inmate Manning".) Manning's name, outside of the court-martial, outside of the legal proceedings, is hers and she can certainly use Chelsea Manning. But the court-martial was the United States v. PFC Bradley Manning. And this article is about that court-martial. We are not "omitting" Chelsea, nor are we being disrespectful. Manning said she wanted to use the name Chelsea from here on out, and did not suggest that she be referred to as Chelsea in the past tense. Also, we can certainly use female pronouns when talking about her in the article. But suppressing the name of Bradley, as the name applies to the legal proceedings and reliable sources supporting the article, does not comply with WP:V or NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggested revision (inspired by Two kinds of pork) is meant to tell the reader that "this case was the court-martial of this person," rather than to paraphrase the court case's name. It also avoids preceding her name with her military rank. Startswithj (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You changed "... former United States Army Private First Class ..." to "... United States Army Private ..." noting that "she was demoted, not dismissed". However, the "former" applied to "Private First Class", precisely because she was demoted.  It is common and natural for articles on courts-martial to give the rank of the defendant at the time of the start of the court-martial.  (See "Former Sergeant ..." in United States v. Hasan K. Akbar, for example.) That rank should be returned to the lede sentence. -- ToE 06:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I made that change. I did not freeze the article afterward or ask for a freeze. I wouldn't know what's common in court-martial articles, but I wouldn't say its previous wording seemed natural (clear) to me. I read it as another refusal to recognize her presently known name, and seemingly her title as well. I'm honestly trying now to discuss a better way of wording the introductory sentence that would be more clear and correct. Startswithj (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given this is an article about a case within the US Military & that they continue to impose restrictions on Chelsea's preferred name (postal etc), at least at present, why not: "United States v. Manning was the court-martial of former United States Army Private First Class Chelsea Manning (known to the U.S. Military as Bradley Manning)"? AnonNep (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Manning is a "former" in two senses: she is 1. a former PFC and 2. a former "Bradley". As the article is about the court-martial case entitled "United States v. PFC Bradley Manning" we best avoid ambiguity by using that name for the name of the case. The title of the case will never change. And the RS which supports the name of the case uses Bradley. IOW, it is not just the US military that describes Manning as "Bradley Manning" at the time of trial. The RS does so as well. (Replying to, your point about former sergeant Akbar is well taken, but we do not have Akbar changing his name (or preferred gender) after the court-martial was over.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not too sure where you get 'former' from. I was suggesting wording for a qualifier after a lede with Chelsea Manning, which, it appears, some aren't happy with, to a 'known as/to', which is present tense and accurate as per sources on U.S. military position. In short: a lede stating she's Chelsea Manning but is (still) known to/by the U.S. military as Bradley Manning. This is a military article and, if she's still known by others, as Bradley then the relevance of that to this article is a whole other discussion. AnonNep (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose The MOS is actually very clear on this particular issue, so let me quote the passege in full:


 * Changed names: If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention.


 * That's the text you find here: Manual of Style/Biographies It could not be more clear or more specific in its instruction on how to handle a case like this. It's why the article for 1960 Summer Olympics says "Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali, won boxing's light-heavyweight gold medal." 99.192.82.249 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * Oppose There's no ambiguity here, in light of WP:BIRTHNAME which is different than what we use to title pages. The main article is properly Chelsea Manning, moved as a result of consensus on WP:COMMONNAME, but this an article about an historical event and that context for name use is different.  The decision on page title was not controlling on any use of the former name Bradley in any/every context. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:MOSBIO as explained by 99.192.82.249. Version 577020157 (18:13, 13 October 2013) looks good and is consistent with this policy [correction: guideline].  The "... former United States Army Private First Class ..." should be retained as that references the rank of the defendant at the start of the trial. -- ToE 13:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose as per 99.192.82.249 (I feel like I am refering the Borg here). The article about the individual has no bearing on a court case. The RELIABLE sources for the case (i.e. the court documents) do not reference Chelsea and therefore it should remain. Mike (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is much wiser to stick to Manual of Style/Biographies here. The names used in court documents can often vary from the name actually associated with a person, either because the full legal name is used or because one of the parties is kept anonymous. For example, I don't think we want to argue that the article on Bush v. Gore should need to call him Albert Gore, Jr. or that Roe v. Wade is forced refer to Norma McCorvey as Jane Roe just because that's what she was referred as in the proceedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple Sarah (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of Bush vs Gore the actual name on the court document is "George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman, et al.z", with this article it is "United States of America v. Manning, Bradley E., PFC". Mike (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. A couple of editors supporting this change suggested that it was either mandated or at least supported by the successful October RM of Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning, or by WP:COMMONNAME on which that RM was decided.  That RM, however, only dealt the title of that one biographical article.  It does not necessarily apply to the title of other articles, and definitely does not apply to the body of any article.  (Note that WP:COMMONNAME is a section of WP:Article titles.)  The choice to use "Chelsea" for all phases of Manning's life in the body of that biographical article was made early on, based on the guideline WP:IDENTITY.  The choice in this article boils down to balancing the competing guidelines WP:IDENTITY and WP:MOSBIO.  (I feel the latter holds more sway here in this article about the court martial, but a legitimate argument could be made otherwise.)  I suggest that when the current block lifts, the article be reverted to the previous stable version.  If disagreement still exists over the wording of the lead sentence, further discussion and a proper RFC could be held here.  Note that the last revision before the start of this recent dispute is revision 576613619 of 17:43, 10 October 2013, but it would be better to revert to a later revision such as 577003233 of 15:59, 13 October 2013, which contains the improvements made to this article during the course of the mini edit war, but has the same long standing lead sentence. -- ToE 01:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Gender neutrality
I think we should remove all usage of personal pronouns in reference to Manning in this article.--71.59.58.63 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Conditions of pre-trial confinement
Whatever the UN guy did or said about the solitary confinement or pre-trial confinement is off-topic. This article is about the court-martial and legal proceedings. If Manning's counsel had made motions to the military judge about the conditions, based on the report, then such motions would be pertinent. But no such motions were made. The conditions of confinement and the various protests about the confinement are well covered in the basic Manning article. They are not needed or helpful here. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * But a fact's a fact, whether the defendant's attorney officially mentions it or not. Sometimes attorneys don't expose faults hoping to get complaisance from the other side. But he got almost nothing back. A (very) high prison term like 35 years was the maximum sentence Manning could receive without the crown (to use a BE word) being regarded as pitiful pitiless people. If Manning had said nothing and not cooperated at all, do you really think he would have received a life sentence or worse? 35 years is already a shame! But these harsh conditions, 14 months in solitary confinement with constant physical humiliation (sleep deprivation and regular stripping down) would have broken almost all guys. Almost no one would have any confidence in fairness of the military judicial system anymore. He "confessed" in order to escape his jailers. The UN rapporteur on torture's analysis is on-topic. --Fb8cont (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * None of that matters. It wasn't mentioned in the trial, so it does not go in this article. Earthscent (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * But his lawyer did complain about the excessive duration:
 * "To put this amount of time into perspective, the Empire State Building could have been constructed almost two-and-a-half times over in the amount of time it will have taken to bring PFC Manning to trial,... If construction workers could finish what was then the tallest building in the world ahead of schedule in 410 days, military lawyers have no excuse for their 'extreme foot-dragging' in prosecuting an allegedly record-breaking leak, Coombs says." see Landmark Delays in Manning Court-Martial, Lawyer Says
 * And without the excessive duration the other issues of the pre-trial confinement wouldn't have been so effective. That's a strong link.
 * The trial was plagued with secrecy and deeply flawed, see Bradley Manning: 1,000 days in detention and secrecy still reigns --Fb8cont (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So add what Manning's lawyer said, but the UN official is still irrelevant. Earthscent (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The two sources you provide do not mention the Mendez report. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Both this article and the basic article mention (in Sentencing) that Manning's sentence was reduced by an additional 112 days because of the conditions of the pretrial confinement. So that fact is properly accounted for. But adding in Mendez's report to this article would be improper WP:SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a primary source: Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Juan E. Mendéz - Addendum: Observations on communications transmitted to Governments and replies received (29 February 2012) (Item 170 and 171)
 * P.S. Try to search for "prevention of harm watch". --Fb8cont (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But the source simply says (paraphrased) "There were reports of mistreatment; we therefore contacted the US government; and the US replied". Nothing in the report deals with the courts-martial proceedings. Moreover, the source does not verify that there was mistreatment. It only says there was "alleged" mistreatment. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the source says something very different. Let me quote five major sentences out of section 170 (typed in small letters) and highlight therein key information and annotate it in [ ]:
 * According to  the  information  received [from the response of U.S. government, see sentence 1],  Mr.  Manning  was  held  in solitary confinement for twenty-three hours a day following his arrest in May 2010 in Iraq, and continuing through his transfer to the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico.  His solitary confinement -lasting  about  eleven  months - was  terminated  upon  his  transfer  from Quantico to the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth on 20 April 2011. In his report, the Special Rapporteur stressed that “solitary confinement is a harsh measure which  may  cause  serious  psychological  and  physiological  adverse  effects  on  individuals regardless of their specific conditions.” Moreover, “[d]epending on the specific reason for its application, conditions, length, effects and other circumstances, solitary confinement can amount to a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and to an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture.” (A/66/268 paras.  79  and  80)
 * "The Special Rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously  punitive  conditions  of  detention  on  someone  who  has  not  been  found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence. The Special Rapporteur again renews his request for a private and unmonitored meeting with Mr. Manning to assess his conditions of detention. [That request was repeatedly refused]"
 * The source says that according to the government's own response Manning was held in solitary confinement for eleven months and that is a harsh measure that may (by itself) cause serious psychological  and  physiological  adverse  effects. Of course there may be some persons who have no problem with solitary confinement, but many other do have grave problems with it. Perhaps read Can Dündar's new book about his thoughts of his solitary confinement (that lasted only three months and was without this very special treatment). --Fb8cont (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, there is no information available showing the UN report had any bearing on the pre-trial investigations, Article 32 hearing, or the conduct and outcome of the court-martial. This article is about the legal proceedings. Nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)