Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 13 October 2013

This article (alongside "Bradley Manning" and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage") is subject to discretionary sanctions for the duration of the Arbitration case following the passage of a temporary injunction.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving United States v. Manning was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 August 2013.

Template:BLP noticeboard

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Source doesn't say material was recovered from overwritten space

I made this change 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)

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)

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.

shows that this is pertinent, and indeed is what reminded me to add this.

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)

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".

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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). Ksusiek 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#What leaked material was actually classified. 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 (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 | 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Reality trumps the fiction in your head. IrishStephen (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Freedom of speech articles
• Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles