Disputatio:Chelsea Manning

Unauthorized sources

Jondel, mutasti "inlicitas personas" (unauthorized persons) ad "inclitas homines fontium" (unauthorized female men of sources). It's probably best to ignore the English word sources here, which gives a wrong or weird perspective: after all, it's Manning who's the alleged source, and any entities (e.g. WikiLeaks) to which he might have leaked information are recipients, not sources. They could perhaps be considered secondary sources, with regard to whoever might read them, but that phrasing tends to put the argument ahead of itself. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:22, 4 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

ok. Got it.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:49, 4 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Movenda?

There is a proposal to move this page to Chelsea Manning. It was turning into an edit war, which I hope I've stopped, but it's a reasonable suggestion: here's the place to discuss it. Andrew Dalby 12:15, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

No objection to the move, no reason to object (do we have a counterpart to en:MOS:IDENTITY?) - let's fix the name, fix the genders, get it all in order. —Mucius Tever (disputatio)

We don't have that counterpart yet ... you could write it, Mucius! Andrew Dalby 08:55, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence, which may of course disappear again in a thorough re-edit. Andrew Dalby 19:55, 27 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

We give both names in the text, but up to now the page has remained at "Bradley Manning". A visiting editor, Fitoschido, has moved it to "Chelsea Manning". Since there was a sort of unfinished discussion here, I've moved it back pending further comment. My opinion is that Wikipedia generally chooses the names under which people were best known and most notable: this person's notable acts were done under the name "Bradley Manning". But I don't feel strongly about it. Any other comments? Andrew Dalby 14:06, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

[Fitoschido's summarium was: This person is (legally) entitled to choose their identity, you have issues with that? Are you narrow?]