Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

WikiLeaks automated response

This "e-mail" was posted here on the talk page by an unregistered user. It appears to be the automated response used by Wikileaks or Sunshinepress as a reply to any correspondence which they don't have time to answer. Although it is not likely to be the topic for discussion (nothing particularly new here, in terms of reliable sources), it may be useful for anyone doing research for this article, for example, I would like to find reliable sources for the statement that wikileaks "do have a lot of other material that exposes human rights abuses by the United States government". There is nothing in WP:TALK which suggests it needs to be deleted, except if the talk page starts getting crowded, it may have to be archive (not delted). So far there is no danger of wasting space, and the talk page has been completely inactive. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of WP:TALK again:
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
Therefore a Wikipedia article talk page is not an appropriate place to call for donations or otherwise campaign for a cause, however noble it might appear to us. As you indicate yourself, this post was not in any way a contribution to an useful discussion about the article's content, it was just abusing the talk page for advertising.
You also ignored the concern that this posting was likely a copyright violation, as the text was a) published elsewhere on the web before (see link below) b) if your conjecture is correct (it is plausible) and this if from an email sent by Wikileaks, 81.190.109.249 likely did not obtain permission from Assange to put the text under a CC-BY-SA license (which one does by inserting it here).
Even if copyright issues are absent, talk pages are not dumping grounds for fulltext sources. To adress the possibility that someone might need the text for research, I have provided a link to a copy on the Nabble.org mailing list archive below.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks may be under attack.

[redacted, full text can be found at [1], for example]

Please donate and tell the world that you have done so. Encourage all your friends to follow the example you set, after all, courage is contagious.

Julian Assange Editor in Chief

WIKILEAKS

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.109.249 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the parts in WP:TALK when it discusses under which circumstances deletion of other people's entries is acceptable: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations; or Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism OK". This one doesn't seem to fall under either category. It certainly doesn't seem like Assange is the only one here with an agenda. I explained why I thought it my be useful "for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page" due to the claims and information included therein, despite the fact that it is also an call for donation. But if you really, want to delete it, I won't argue further. Thanks for at least providing a link so that editors still have access to the message. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Read what you quote. "Copyright violations" was one of the reasons I described (I even linked to Wikipedia:Copyright violations for your convenience).
You seem to imply that it was Assange who posted this. I don't think that is true. Also, it is of course perfectly fine for him to send out such letters, they just don't belong on this page. And what other agenda do you mean?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read closely enough. I'm surprised that even generic automated email responses are also considered under copyright. By other agenda, I meant that although the person putting this comment up had an agenda, the military industrial complex which Wikileaks threatens also has an agenda and would like to have to comment taken down, not to imply that you are working for such an agenda. I know you have a good history here on Wikipedia. I'm sure you believe there may be copyright violations and you may be right, although it is not as if there would be any real danger of Wikileaks actually taking Wikipedia to court of displaying such an e-mail. I just meant to point out that bias against Wikileaks is more likely to be a problem than bias for Wikileaks, and that I don't see how the e-mail was reducing the quality of the talk page. But again, I think leaving a link to the e-mail is a good compromise. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

highly edited chat logs

Wired has released highly edited excerpts of the Manning/Lamo chat logs: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

Boing Boing has released different excepts: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/19/wikileaks-a-somewhat.html

For anyone interested in researching this event, and in order to assist in the editing of this article, I have combined the two on my user page at User:Gregcaletta/ManningLamoTranscript

Of course, we will have to use Boing Boing or Wired for citations, but it may be useful for reference to have the two versions combined in one place. Even once combined, the chat logs still appear highly incomplete, and for one section no date is given. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Highly edited sources of information are worth slightly more than a pile of shit and slighly less than a piece of garbage.
I agree that they are worth slightly more than a piece of shit, but I disagree that they are worth less than a piece of garbage. Unfortunately, that's all the major media organisations are using as their source, so that's what we have to use at Wikipedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice if the military would present us with some better evidence. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Manning Charged

Sources: New York Times, WSJ, The Guardian, CNN, Google News

Could someone please update the article? I really don't have the time at the moment. NW (Talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the charges in. Let me know if I missed something. I'd like to get info on how many years he is potentially in for but can't find it in a reliable source, though the charge sheet here shows it could potentially be a life sentence. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, that charge sheet does not give sentence periods, but this analysis does. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think he's probably in for 5-20 years, unless there is a massive public uproar and they manage to get him off on the first amendment, but that's probably unlikely in the current legal climate. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lamo's credibility

Given Lamo's documented drug abuse and history of domestic violence (see my recent SOURCED additions to Adrian Lamo), does anyone know if the FBI or Army CID have made comments regarding their star witness and his effect on the case against Manning? Bedouinali (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The FBI have not said anything about anything to my knowledge. The CID only said one thing in the month or so up until the charges this week and that is that Manning had been arrested, was being held in Kuwait, and had not been charged. All of our other information comes from Poulsen via Lamo himself. However, Manning was being held in Kuwait for more than a month without charge. I don't like to imagine what the Army were doing to him in this time, but I expect they managed to get some kind of confession out of him so that they would not have to base their whole case on Lamo's questionable chat logs. According to WIkileaks, he was denied access to civilian lawyers during his time under arrest. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Good thing you aren't engaging in asinine speculation concerning this case. Oh, wait, you are. My bad. But hey, maybe I shouldn't question you. You obviously know so much about the case you can authoritatively weigh in on the "questionableness" of chat logs you haven't seen AND provide commentary on the UCMJ in regards to Manning's access to attorneys. And obviously, Wikileaks is a completely unimpeachable source.
The talk page is a perfectly acceptable place for speculation, particularly in response to a question. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban reaction

I have removed the "Taliban reaction" section because this is not the appropriate article. The material was about the Taliban's reaction to the Afghan War Diary not to their reaction to the arrest of Bradley manning, and it is already covered in the appropriate article. There are also other technical and BLP problems with including this material, which I will explain if anyone is interested in discussing this further. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. I added that to this article by mistake. Gordonlighter (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's Comments on the Leaked Materials

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a press conference today about the leaks and her statements (properly sourced and cited) would be a good addition to this article.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Adrian (I believe the same Adrian Lamo featured in this article) recently added an NPOV tag to the article. I removed it because no explanation was given. I would very much appreciate anybody who wants to help writing this articles by searching for POVs which do not currently receive due weight in the article, but I personally am not aware of any such underrepresented POVs. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any such POV problems, though I'm admittedly kind of biased myself. Perhaps Adrian could explain why he added the tag? Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The heavy usage of quotes from Wikileaks, as well as (especially) the quotes from Greenwald, show heavy bias in favor of Bradley Manning. Perhaps the fine editors here could think of a way to add rebuttal comments and a more neutral POV? It reads like a Libertarian newsletter right now. As I am, in fact, somewhat of a Libertarian myself, I would know. 66.74.76.107 (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The article also includes lengthy statements by US Government officials. Which significant POV do you feel is missing from the article? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Commentary section is pure garbage. It reads like a brief written by Manning's defense attorney. Moreover, the mere act of adding a Commentary, a word used to describe an individual's particular point of view on a subject(and as such it is inherently biased), to an article that is supposed to be encyclopedic is ridiculous. It takes about two seconds of reading to figure which point of view is represented, to the exclusion of all others, in the "Commentary". That someone actually thought that section presented a neutral point of view is absolutely laughable. Moreover, the portion of the asinine Commentary section that discusses State Dept. action toward Wikileaks back in 2008 has no relevance to this case, at all. If you want to write paragraphs about the earth-shattering importance of Wikileaks, do it on your own site, alongside your ramblings about the military-industrial complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If you can't see a non-neutral point of view here, you are completely blind. The statements from Glenn "sockpuppet" Greenwald (as if that clown is in the position to question anyone's credibility)concerning the conttents of the chat logs are nothing but pure speculation. Neither Greenwald, nor any other commentator or journalist for that matter, has been given access to the unedited chat logs, so statements about what is or isn't in them are speculative and should be removed, as should statements pertaining to any person's supposed lack of credibility that use the incomplete chat logs as "evidence" . But of course that won't happen because the people who wrote this article are too busy inveighing against the so-called "military-industrial complex". Individuals are using what is supposed to be an encyclopedia (what a total freakin joke)to launch speculative attacks on the credibility of those with whom they disagree, quoting sources on only one side of the story and practically hero-worshipping in print those whom they deem to be right in the Manning case. The Commentary section is a perfect crystallization of the bias of the "authors" of this piece of crap entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, that press briefing from the State Department is from 11 June 2010, and he was asked questions specifically about this case. Again, if you know of any significant POVs that are missing, or underrepresented in the article, and you have reliable sources to cite for them, feel free to present them. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, wrong. I am not talking about the June State Dept. release, I am talking about the following statement, taken from the grossly biased "Commentary" section. It reads as follows:
"In 2008, Wikileaks released a classified report of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center discussing ways to destroy WikiLeaks's reputation and efficacy.[15] The report said 'successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions'.[20] Greenwald wrote about this: 'exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here.'"
The first two words of the first sentence read "In 2008". State Dept. actions two years before Manning's arrest have absolutely nothing, at all, to do with this case, and claims otherwise are suppported by absolutely no evidence(and Greenwald's speculative allegations don't even remotely rise to that level). And of course, what would a portion of this laughably biased, supposedly "encyclopedic" entry be without more unsupported speculation by Glenn Greenwald? Greenwald's musings on this topic have no place in an article that is supposed to be unbiased and encyclopedic in nature. It is bad enough that Greenwald's speculative pontifications in regards to the contents of highly edited and redacted chat logs are being used to question the credibility of Adrian Lamo; even more unfounded speculation shouldn't be added on top of it. Greenwald has absolutely no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the U.S. Government in this case; he can't possibly know, as he is not privy to any of the information regarding the government's arrest of Manning, other than severely edited chat logs. Repeating his unfounded allegations (unless you can back them up, and you can't), as if they were fact, in an article that purports to be encyclopedic is a joke. As I mention in other posts on this talk page, it is quite obvious that you, and the other "authors" of this "entry" are trying to imply (and the inclusion of Greenwald's comments almost makes it explicit)that Manning was not arrested because he ILLEGALLY leaked classified data, rather he is merely being persecuted in order to destroy the credibility of Wikileaks. Quoting the individual who leaked the Pentagon Papers only makes the motives of this entry's "authors" even more transparent. The whole Commentary section should be scrapped immediately, because, for one, it is one person's commentary, which by its very nature is nothing but pure opinion, but also because it seems to be included solely to guide the reader to the conclusion the "author" of this entry wants the reader to reach, just in case someone reading about Manning's infractions comes to the conclusion that, hey, maybe he did break the law. It seems the goal is to convince the reader that the "military-industrial complex" arrested Manning, a brave whistleblower in the mold of Daniel Ellsberg (please, give us a break), to destroy the credibility of Wikileaks, rather than the because he broke the law. Including a quote from Ellsberg, who accuses the United States of engaging in "highly murderous and corrupt operations" makes the bias that much more obvious (and please, don't even try to claim that his statements aren't biased and that you included a contrary point of view). Of course, if the bias became any more obvious than it already is, it would rise to the level of parody. Continuing to claim that this article is not biased is such pure bullshit, I seriously can't believe anyone would continue to repeat such nonsense. The Commentary section is a complete joke, and is nothing but pure speculation; including unfounded allegations of "murder" and "corruption". There is not one factual statement that can be backed up in that entire portion. Not one. At the very least, the Commentary should be scrapped. Ideally, this whole entry should be rewritten by someone who can write about the KNOWN FACTS of the case rather than merely including speculation from political commentators concerning the US government's motives and unfounded smears directed at Adrian Lamo based upon incomplete chat log entries. Please, quit insulting our intelligence by claiming you have included all relevant POV's because anyone who is even semi-literate can see that such a statement is a bald-faced lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were referring to the State Department comments. The link to events in 2008 is not one made by me but by Greenwald. I don't understand your objection to a commentary section. WP:NPOV states that all POVs should be represented in the article, as long as they appear in significant mainstream publication. If you know of alternative points of view that have been discussed in equally significant publications, you are free to present them here. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Greenwald is the only person I know of to have conducted an extensive interview with Adrian Lamo, and published the whole interview on the webpage for his article. I wish there were more journalists doing this kind of investigative journalism. If you could find some alternative investigative journalism or commentary from an alternative POV I would be very grateful. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My problem continues to be with the Commentary section. Greenwald's quote in the Commentary section is pure speculation, plain and simple. Attempting to balance that statement with conflicting statements only compounds the problem as it would be presenting more speculation, this time only from the other side of the political spectrum. Furthermore, the quote from Daniel Ellsberg has no business being in an article on something that is supposed to be encyclopedic. It is inflammatory to say the least, as it makes accusations of murder and corruption. If someone doesn't change the content of the Commentary section it is going to get deleted. It has no business at all being in an encyclopedic entry. It reads more like an entry on a left wing blog than it does an online encyclopedia. It implies there is some sort of conspiracy behind Manning's arrest and it puts forth the notion that Manning's arrest was done not only to smear Wikileaks but also to hide murderous actions of the US government. Such unsourced allegations, especially ones so inflammatory, have no place in an encyclopedia. It needs to be deleted, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I disagree that commentary is generally a bad thing in encyclopaedia articles. An encyclopaedic article on a controversial topic would be incomplete without include the controversy. Greenwald's statements are not a fringe theory. As far as I can tell, no one has actually denied the statements that he has made. But even if he what he is saying is not true, it does not make it unencyclopedic to include the comments as quotations, because we are merely sating that Greenwald (and Ellsberg) said these things, not that they are necessarily true. Also, by your logic, we would also have to remove the statements made by Government officials, of which there is about twice as much than the Greenwald stuff. For example, the state official's said the leal of the documents would be "a serious breach of our security and can cause potential damage to our national security interests". I would say this is also "speculation" and also quite unlikely, but I included it because the fact that he said it is in itself significant. In fact, the State department official was actually asked the allegations of Greenwald you referred to were true, and the government official avoided denying it. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In short, everything in the article is a fact, backed up by a reliable source. Not everything in quotation marks in necessarily a fact, but it at least a fact these these things were said. This is why it is not unencyclopaedic to include commentary in this way. The first sentence of WP:NPOV says that articles should include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If you are worried about POV, you will have to find more significant sources representing alternative POVs. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that undue weight is given to the commentary of the obviously biased Greenwald. He himself claims that "a definitive understanding of what really happened is virtually impossible to acquire...". Therefore, his claims that "...Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security." and that "...Lamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions" are pure speculation on his part. In addition, to say that he is a "reliable source" might be a bit premature based on his speculation. His (Greenwald's) 'significant view' has been established here ten times over despite this. While I understand that little reliable sources have been found for this particular topic, I believe that it shouldn't carry undue weight in Manning's favor. Please consider the fact that the majority of the quotes are in his defense, and the fact that the only quotes in response are about the material in question. This Wikipedia article is not a tabloid for conspiracy theories about the government ("...exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here"), nor is it the collection bin for supporting comments and defense. I urge the editors here to revise this article. 66.74.76.107 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I fail to see how the removal of the commentary by Greenwald would improve the quality of the article. L"Undue wight" refers to a disproportionate representation of a particular viewpoint based on the prevalence of that viewpoint among significant sources. In other words, it can only be "undue weight" if Greenwald's view is held by a very small minority among significant sources. Unfortunately, Greenwald appears to be the only journalist who has investigated this matter to my knowledge. If you know of any alternative viewpoints on this in significant sources, please present them.
In response to your point about this being "speculation". Lamo said in his interview with Greenwald that there were important parts of the chat logs that Wired did not release. Either Lamo is lying or he is telling the truth. Therefore, the statement "Lamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions" is clearly true. Greenwald made the full audio of the interview available at the bottom of his article so you can verify this for yourself. No significant sources have disputed this, but even if there were, we would just include those sources in the article, rather than removing the stuff from Greenwald. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't have 20 min to read you guys' whole thing but in skimming I noticed someone wondering about other interviews w/Lamo. Here's one. Starts around 17:30. Btw anyone for an indent reset? Anyone else feeling cramped?
--Qwerty0 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitely indent reset. Lamo has done a few interviews for the mainstream media, but no one has really asked him the hard questions apart from Greenwald. Greenwald is a lawyer as well as a journalist so the interview is very interesting to listen two if you have the time. It becomes pretty clear that Lamo is making at least some stuff up, but it is hard to tell exactly what. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Clear in what way that Lamo is making stuff up? Evidently it is not too obvious or you would not have any problem telling us "exactly what" is being made up by Lamo. Greenwald is a political partisan and that is evident in his wrting. The notion that he is a non-biased source providing non-biased commentary on the truthfulness of Lamo's assertion is asinine. As for Greenwald's speculation, he cannot back up his claims that Lamo is "extremely untrustworthy". Furthermore, his assertion that Lamo may have violated the law by possibly breaking a promise to Manning that his correspondence would be confidential is absolutely absurd. Exactly which laws did Lamo break? Lamo is not a doctor or a lawyer; there are no laws protecting confidentiality that apply to Lamo in regards to his interactions with Manning. Furthermore, even if there are, an individual is required to break his silence if he knows of a pending crime. As for Greenwald's assertions that nothing Manning leaked is damaging to national security, well hindsight has made him an ignorant jackass on that one. Greenwald's interviews with Lamo may be relevant because they shed some light on Lamo's interactions with Manning, but Greenwald's opinionated musings on the case aren't relevant, and he certainly doesn't deserve to have a whole section devoted to him. Statements he has made concerning Lamo and this case, particularly his implication that Manning was arrested as a way to destroy Wikileaks, show that he is extremely biased; his utterings are given entirely too much weight in this article. Greenwald's opinion concerning Lamo's trustworthiness is not worthy of mention in this article, particularly when you consider he has no evidence that Lamo is lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
All commentary and opinion is "biased" whether it is partisan or not. WP:NPOV does not state not to include opinion, it just says not to state opinion as fact, and to include opinion only if it comes from a significant publication.
If you are interested in my own opinion, I think it is clear from the recording that Lamo was making a lot of stuff up in the interview, but that is my opinion and you should check for yourself by listening to the interview. But neither your opinion or my opinion on this is relevant to the article. What is relevant to the article is anything which has appeared in a significant publication on the topic of the "Arrest of Bradley Manning". The only question, is where and how to present the material. I have moved the Greenwald material to the "commentary" section as a compromise. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, guess what, if your opinion on whether Lamo is a liar has no place in a supposedly encyclopedic article, NEITHER DOES GREENWALD'S. It should be excised completely. It seems you are absolutely hell bent on including biased opinions that have absolutely no place in this article. Greenwald's statement about Lamo's trustworthiness seems to pretty definitively state that Lamo is a liar. If that is not opinion presented as fact, I don't know what is. There is quite simply no reason why Greenwald's opinions on this matter should have an entire section devoted to them. His interviews with Lamo can be incorporated into this article withouth having a separate sectioned headlined with Greenwald's name in bold, capital letters. The latter half of this article, which is nothing more than attempts to smear Lamo, is about as neutral as a Red Sox fan at a Yankees game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's important to understand the distinction between presenting opinion as fact, and presenting fact about opinion. For example, if we said this in the article, without quotation marks, it would be stating opinion as fact:
"Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manning that are (a) extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Manning's personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c) are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired."
But if we place it in quotation marks and write
"Greenwald wrote that "Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manning that are (a) extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Manning's personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c) are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired.""
Then it is a fact about an opinion i.e. it is a fact that Greenwald said this. The reason his opinion deserves to be in the article and not mine or yours is that it appears in a significant publication, as do all of the other facts and opinions in the article. The article can only be considered "POV" if there are significantly different POVs which appear in significant sources but which do not appear in the article. If you can provide such alternative POVs, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, your criticisms are not useful. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"In 2008, Wikileaks released a classified report of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center discussing ways to destroy WikiLeaks's reputation and efficacy.[15] The report said 'successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions'.[20] Greenwald wrote about this: 'exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here.'": I think that, although the article is ok without the paragraph, it should be added because there is nothing wrong with it. It is biased the way it looks now, but if instead of removing it all, we work on making it clear this is what Greenwald believe and not what Wikipedia (as a whole) believes, will prevent it from being biased. Remember: Being neutral means not having opinions, but it does not mean you cannot describe other people's opinions. A neutral encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia that never talks about people's opinions, but an one that talks about people's opinions (that is information for encyclopedias too) but makes it clear it is an opinion. Just because someone is biased doesn't mean he can't be quoted in an encyclopedia. Example here: Criticism of the War on Terror: "The remark, 'You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror,' by U.S. President Bush in November 2001,[18] has been a source of criticism." has a biased quote from George Bush but does not make the article biased. Also, being 2 years before the arrest doesn't mean it is irreverent, because all plans are made before there are executed. 75.147.179.37 (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this Wikipedia article is recommended by the Code Pink-sponsored "Save Bradley" hero-worship group pretty much says everything you need to know about the POV of the article. What a joke. This is why I always tell people to look at the Talk pages when they read anything at Wikipedia, because it's ALWAYS activists who do the editing on political/current events type articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.158.227 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Manning's sexuality/gender identity

There's been a fair amount of speculation in reliable sources that Manning might be gay or transgendered:

With WP:BLP concerns in mind, is it worth working this into the article? If so, how? – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say not. As you said yourself, it is "speculation", and you will notice that the articles above put a question mark at the end of the title. As it is gossip, I would not think it worthy of including until someone (preferably an actual newspaper) actually reports it as a fact. Even if reliable sources stated it as a fact, we would have to address whether it is relevant to the "Address of Bradley M anning""Arrest of Bradley Manning". Gregcaletta (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It's gossip, so it isn't worth adding to the article, but your commentary about State Dept. actions in 2008 that have no connection to Bradley Manning do merit inclusion? Give me a break. Someone who is a little less insanely biased needs to write the entry on Manning. Anyone who tries to imply, by mentioning State Dept. actions over 2 years before Manning's arrest, some sort of ridiculous conspiracy is occurring in which Manning is a pawn being used for the purpose of smearing Wikileaks has no business anywhere near this supposedly encyclopedic entry. There is a reason people scoff at the value of Wikipedia. The entry on Manning provides a perfect example. Quit using Wikipedia as your own personal political platform to smear individuals or institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The State Department press briefing is from 2010, and they directly discuss the documents and arrest in question. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the comparison. The article is the "Arrest of Bradley Manning". Speculation about gender issues based on fairly innocuous statements in unsubstantiated chat logs are not relevant. Speculations about the motive of the government in arresting and prosecuting such individuals is highly relevant. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This sort of scandal-mongering is flagrantly out of line for a BLP. I've been involved in a big dispute at Johnny Weir, where many were maintaining that Wikipedia couldn't mention that some sportscasters had mocked him as gay in a widely carried broadcast, or even quote comments he made in response to them. There the people trying to "clean up" the article went much too far, but WP:BLP does say in no uncertain terms that we don't publish scandal sheet articles that don't even present the thing they're alleging as true. (i.e. the above references) This should go double-triple for a case where a disinformation campaign is quite likely to be in play, perhaps serving as propaganda against don't ask, don't tell repeal in the bargain. Wnt (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well put. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Though I suppose I should add in a link to the USS Iowa turret explosion to clarify why I'm particularly suspicious. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I would say that, even if we could be absolutely confident about his sexual identity, it does not belong in this article unless there is some reason to believe that his sexual identity or speculation about his sexual identity might have caused him to do what he is accused of doing. I had not heard, before seeing this note, that there was any speculation about his sexual identity, so I certainly had not heard that there was any speculation that it contributed to the issue at hand. Sterrettc (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another source says he's openly gay. I might agree the others may not be RSs, but this one is.
The fact that he's politically outspoken on U.S. and/or military policy is highly relevant to this article. That would be true regardless of what the policy is that he's critical of.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that he's politically outspoken on U.S. and/or military policy is already included in the article, in the form of the chat logs, but you can include that source if you like. Whether or not he his gay is not really relevant to this arrest. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'm convinced: the CNN article [2] (and two other articles that looked genuine but were both spam-blacklisted...!) and the Telegraph source above are certainly enough to mention in the article, as they describe an alleged motive. Though I'm still highly suspicious that there's some kind of deception going on here. I'm supposed to believe that the military left someone with gay postings using his own name on Facebook, who'd been reprimanded for fighting, and demoted, and outspoken against military policy, was left with unrestricted access not just to the basic SIPRNet but also JWICS, and still nobody noticed he downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he had no business looking at? I'm starting to believe he really is innocent, and being framed, because it's the least astonishing explanation for everything. Wnt (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I still can't think how we would work it into the article. It seems to be a fairly extraneous detail, unrelated to his arrest. I doubt that articles about legal cases generally mention the sexuality of the accused unless it is directly relevant to the case. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the material about him being gay because I do not see the relevance to his arrest. I am worried it may violate the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, and at least the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources. It is certainly best to err on the side of caution when referring to living people, and this article is not even about Manning himself (due to WP:BLP1E). WP:BLP1E suggests having articles about events (such as his arrest and charges) rather than the person in the event, specifically to avoided cases like this. It seems to me to be gossip included in these articles to make them seem more exciting (i.e. building up a character in order to create a narrative, a rhetorical technique), but not at all relevant to the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Manning's disaffection with the military life due to the DADT policy is very, very relevant. He was alienated from the Army, and found a new social outlet in a group that included not only his boyfriend, but also "politically motivated computer hackers." It isn't just gossip either. It's sourced in both The New York Times and The Daily Telegraph. See also my comments here regarding WP:BLP1E. The conditions described by Sterrettc at the top of this subsection are satisfied: "his sexual identity ... might have caused him to do what he is accused of doing." That's why I've reverted the removal of this material. If we choose to create a separate article about Manning, then it belongs in that article. Until that time, it belongs here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The relevance to the criminal case (if one believes it) is that Manning was angry about sexuality discrimination and this was a motive to divulge the information. And that article title is ludicrous - ostensibly, an article about the "arrest of Bradley Manning" rules out general biographic detail of Bradley Manning and details of the alleged crime and prosecution. If you do a search at the Main Page for "Arrest of" and look at the items that come up, most of them have been renamed, e.g. Arrest of Roman Polanski -> "Roman Polanski sexual abuse case". Wnt (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw that this article refered specifically to a breakup with his girlfriend. The fact is that he had a breakup with his boyfriend, Tyler Watkins, and wrote about it... and there are two articles cited. Why is it acceptable for someone to falsely claim he broke up with his 'girlfriend'? Why is it unacceptable to state that broke up with is boyfriend? I guess we're going to discriminate against homosexuals by pretending they don't exist? There is nothing unacceptable about saying that Bradley Manning was gay, that he dated Tyler Watkins, and that, according to his own writing, his boyfriend broke up with him shortly before he leaked classified documents? There seems to be a double standard when we can talk about someone breaking up with their heterosexual partner but to suggest that someone broke up with a homosexual partner is off limits.
The fact is that he broke up with his boyfriend shortly before he released classified documents and the media has widely speculated that this has motivated his actions. If you're really so intolerant that you cannot discuss his sexuality openly then please use the term 'partner' but using saying he broke up with a girlfriend is just false.71.175.13.145 (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Airstrike

Two children were wounded, and several men were killed,... "several" should be changed to "a dozen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.240.217 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and make the change. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus. Only one editor seems to oppose the move and various valid reasons have been given for an article to exist on the person himself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

{{movereq|Bradley Manning|The current name of the article reflects an avoidance of creating a WP:BLP1E article. However, in recent days I have seen media interest in Manning as a person. There was a several minute long analysis on CNN(? or one of the other cable news channels) and now this article in the New York Times. Wikipedia has many articles on individual spies and whistleblowers, some of which I am sure only were involved in one event. (Nathan Hale and Ian Fishback come to mind). Finally, I note that if Manning is a person of interest in the leak of the Afghan War Diary, that would be a second event.}}

Arrest of Bradley Manning → Bradley Manning — The current name of the article reflects an avoidance of creating a WP:BLP1E article. However, in recent days I have seen media interest in Manning as a person. There was a several minute long analysis on CNN(? or one of the other cable news channels) and now this article in the New York Times. Wikipedia has many articles on individual spies and whistleblowers, some of which I am sure only were involved in one event. (Nathan Hale and Ian Fishback come to mind). Finally, I note that if Manning is a person of interest in the leak of the Afghan War Diary, that would be a second event. Abductive (reasoning) 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • I oppose this particular move, all there have been other names suggested as alternatives, so I will post that discussion bellow. I would like to point out that I originally created this article at Bradley Manning, but moved it here after the suggestion of other editors, and I'm now pretty sure it was the right decision. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a case of single event: everything in the article (apart from the part about him being gay, which seems irrelevant, and is a perfect example of the dangers of turning this into a BLP article) relates to his arrest, including the suspicion that the Afghan War Diaries may have been among the documents he has been charged with. It is certain in the spirit of WP:BLP1E, besides being the letter as well: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This article seems to me like a perfect example of an application of WP:BLP1E . Gregcaletta (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Right after the paragraph you quoted, the WP:BLP1E continues: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, [...] fit into this category". I think this event is significant enough to apply this second clause and make a separate BLP. Diego Moya (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the move. Compare Bruce Edwards Ivins, notable only for being suspected of something he may well not have done, and Richard Jewell, known primarily for being falsely accused of a bombing, also for heroic action to save victims of this bombing, but not any other event. I think we should just put the article where a reader expects to find it. Wnt (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
These people are both dead, which is why WP:BLP1E does not apply in their case. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Now we're in looking glass land... an encyclopedia that decides whether or not to have an article about someone based on whether he's living or not; and if he's living you don't tell the motive behind his alleged crime... or his malicious prosecution. Maybe I should just accept that Wikipedia's coverage of anyone alive will be all screwed up on account of legal fears and that such weighty matters are best left to copyrighted sources, now and forever. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We've been in looking glass land for awhile now. Ah, for the good old days of Wikipedia's youth, before the Seigenthaler fiasco. Tisane talk/stalk 04:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
FWIW: For WP:BLP1E, I think the issue is more about notability. The article on Richard Jewell was started while he was still alive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the move. This is a big enough case that it easily passes under WP:BLP1E constraints. I don't think it needs to be a biography to write an article about him. (Richard Jewell's article isn't.) -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I will also add that, if by chance Manning is exonerated, he'd still remain notable enough to have an article about him here. -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I Support the move - The Wikipedia policy on deciding an article title lists "Recognizable" as the first criteria. That policy contains this quote "Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article." A survey of the references on this topic show that "Bradley Manning" is more recognizable than "Arrest of Bradley Manning." ...and you can't get any more NPOV/ neutral than a reliance purely on references: NPOV Evidence: The phrase "Bradley Manning" appears in references more frequently than the phrase "Arrest of Bradley Manning." - Boyd Reimer (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support There seems to be over much fuss about WP:BLP1E if we read further into that we find
If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
Looking at the number of references it seem it meets the significant event criteria. So its clear their should be an article on Manning and related events, the question is what to call it? Here we should really look to Wikipedia:Article titles specifically Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. "Bradley Manning" seems to meet most of those its the term people are most likely to search for an no one would be surprised to find the article there. "Arrest of Bradley Manning" is less concise, has less precision (it is about more than just the arrest). Any other title gets complex loosing conciseness and will fail naturalness.--Salix (talk): 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
If people were trying to use the article title to avoid WP:BLP1E, that's just obfuscating a problem. This article, as written now, isn't about Manning's arrest (a small event)--it's about him, his chat logs, government responses, etc. If Manning qualifies under the prohibitions of WP:BLP1E, this article should be deleted. If he doesn't, the article should definitely be renamed. I haven't read enough of the details to make a sound judgment on which of these two is correct, but we can't pretend like using this type of title somehow makes the underlying problem go away. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Manning may be notable for only one event, but it is an enormous event. The policy WP:BLP1E says of such persons, "we should generally avoid having an article on them." [emphasis added] The word "generally" implies that there will be exceptions to this general rule. The policy goes on to state, "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." I think that the case of Manning is comparable to that of Hinckley, and the quoted policy language fits him like Spandex. He is only notable for one event, but it is an enormous and well-documented event, and his role in it is central. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I would just to point out that WP:BLP1E says that there should either be an article just for the event, or thee should be an article for the person and the event, but the main point of the policy is that it is never appropriate to have an article for a person instead of for the event, which is what a move would entail. i am not opposed to creating a separate article on Bradley Manning, but the policy is very clear that it should not replace this article. (Sorry, if my use of bold makes it seem like I'm shouting, but I generally find it makes it easier to make a point ;-) Gregcaletta (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to your occasional use of boldface in Talk page comments, Greg. That would be hypocritical of me, since I do it myself on a regular basis. I think we can agree that it's probably about time Manning had his own biography, in addition to this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Gregcaletta is correct in the above assessment that in cases where a person is notable for one event, that event should stay and not the bio...but I am absolutely certain that you are misinterpreting what an "event" is in this case. The event spoken of in this case is always going to be an event that is relevant independent of the subject (say, for instance "Gotham City Shooting (1958)"). To say that Manning is notable for his arrest is downright cheating. Especially since this article talks a lot about things other than his arrest. Even if it would be possible, as was asserted below, to say that arrest, because it includes presumption of a crime, allows details of the crime to be discussed, it is clear they are given undue weight. His bio shouldn't be there at all (maybe 1 sentence to establish context), the section on "reactions" is far too long...even the details of the crime are too long. I apologize, because I don't feel like I'm finding the words, because to me this seems unbelievably obvious--there are several levels on which this article is not proper right now:
  • "The Arrest Of Person X" cannot be a notable event by itself unless the actual arresting event (the act of taking the person and putting him or her into handcuffs) is itself notable. This article is trying to inherit the notability of the leaking and/or Manning, and somehow claim that his arrest is notable.
  • If "Person X" violates BLP1E, "Arrest of Person X" will almost always violate the same policy, and definitely does in this case.
  • If this article is allowed to stay, it gives far too much weight to things not directly connected to the arrest.
I sincerely believe we either need to create a Manning article, or decide that such an article is a violation of BLP1E, and radically strip almost all of the information out of this article so that we're not indirectly violating BLP1E. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well then, perhaps the name of this article should be "Afghanistan Wikileaks case," or something of that nature. This has been in the news for a bit more than two weeks, and there are already 22.9 million Google hits for "Afghanistan Wikileaks." This is an enormous story and the national security implications are simply huge. The example given at BLP1E is the Hinckley case. Consider how much this resembles that case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. If and when Manning himself is notable enough to have his own article, he can, and meanwhile it can redirect to something like the above. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Per the above, the real impact and notability surrounds the leak, not the person, and not the arrest. Of course, how Manning's isolation caused or may have contributed to his state of mind and to releasing the documents is important part of the background, but it seems that the current focus on his arrest is just plain wrong. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions

How about starting a new article on just Bradley Manning? Bio, edu, notoriety [linked to here for full story], etc... Gordonlighter (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there has been much reporting so far on Bradley Manning as a person, but if you can find enough reliable sources then feel free to create such an article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear at this point in time whether Bradley Manning the person warrants a separate article, though I'd say the trend seems to be heading in that direction. What is clear, however, is that the current name of this article misses the boat, since it's about far more than merely his arrest. I've been trying to come up with a good name for it, but that's easier said than done. I'd like to know what folks think of one or the other of these names: "Bradley Manning classified documents [release] case". Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see any problem with the current name of the article. All of the article content is related to his arrest. Also, he has not actually been convicted of anything yet, so we cannot really go much further than "arrest" for BLP reasons. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let me try this again. It is simply not the case that "All of the article content is related to his arrest". His arrest was a discrete event, which is covered in no more than a couple of lines of the article. All of the rest of the article deals with other, larger issues -- all centered on the US Army's belief that he released the air strike video, and possibly other classified material, to Wikileaks. So again, I would like to know what you and other editors think of the name/s I suggested above. Cgingold (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A problem I have with a title such as 'Bradley Manning classified documents release case or Bradley Manning classified documents leak is that to me it almost implies that he did actually leak the documents, which of course we can't do until he is actually tried and pronounced guilty for obvious BLP reasons (and it's not even officially going to trial yet; although it almost certainly will, they won't announce that officially until there is some kind of "review"'). Just using Bradley Manning case might be better, but again I prefer the word "arrest" to "case", mainly because I think the word "arrest" is a tangible real word event whereas the word "case" is less clear. Someone would be more likely to use the word "case" if they were to discuss moral or legal issues in an opinion column, but it is not used much in the sources cited, perhaps partly because "case" might often imply "trial" and a trial has not yet been announced.
Again, I don't really see understand your problem with the current title. To me it's all related pretty directly to his arrest, and all of the articles cited are reporting on or reacting to his arrest. I can't find the parts in the article that deal with "other, larger issues -- all centered on the US Army's belief that he released the air strike video, and possibly other classified material, to Wikileaks". As far as I can tell government officials have not mentioned Manning, Wikileaks, and the collateral murder video in the same breath. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Another alternative would be Arrest and charges of Bradley Manning, which I would be perfectly fine with, although to me "arrest" usually implies "charges" anyway (although in this case there was more than a month between arrest and charge), and as I said, I don't really see any problem with the current title. I am happy to continue discussing if you want to explain you objections to the current titles further, or if you have other suggestions, and hopefully we will get some opinions from other editors. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The move of Arrest of Roman Polanski to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case is a great example for why it should stay as "arrest" for now. It can only be referred to as "case" once there is a trial, and in this case, I explain above, a trial has not even been announced yet, because military procedure says that first it has to go to some kind of review. Your fact that the current title "rules out general biographic detail of Bradley Manning", as you point out, is actually the exact reason for the current title and policies like WP:BLP1E. Manning is not generally notable, so specific details about his life are not generally encyclopaedia worthy. However, I dispute that the word "arrest" rules out "details of the alleged crime and prosecution". I think that "arrest" very specifically implies allegations of crime and the eventual possibility' prosecution, as it should, but of course, we can't actually say there was a "crime" until he is actually pronounced guilty, for obvious living person legal issues. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

reporter or psychiatrist?

In the New York Times article [3], certain Ben Fenwick, a contributing reporter, writes a psychological profile of this living person based on selective quotes from his friends. Having in mind WP:BLP, I would be very cautious about giving this tabloid like piece an undue weight, which it seems to receive in this moment. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the single article receives undue weight. In my opinion, the article should never have been moved. There is simply not enough reliable information on Manning's life to warrant a biographical article. He is not notable as an individual, only for this particular event, so the article should have been left at Arrest of Bradley Manning or moved to the Bradley Manning leaks case as explained in the policy WP:BLP1E. THe whole point of that policy is to avoid tabloid like commentary as in that New York Times article. Gregcaletta (talk)

Reactions--U.S. Government subsection removal

I just boldly removed the "U.S. Government" subsection of the Reaction section from the article (moving one sentence related to Manning to the Arrest & Trial section). None of that had anything to do with Manning. The reference being used mentions Manning exactly once, and only in an attempt to confirm that the hard drives (in the investigation being briefed about) had belonged to Manning--which, in fact, the U.S. spokesperson didn't verify. That whole section appears to be synthesis, in that it was information unrelated to Manning, added here to advance a point. That info could certainly go into another article (like Afghan war diaries), but I don't think it belongs here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I boldly restored it. it isn't synthesis because it pertains to the sole reason Manning is notable. If that is pulled the other reactions, Ellesburg, et al also should be removed for the same reason.V7-sport (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No, because the other reactions, as you can see, are about Manning himself. I recommend you take a look at WP:SYNTHESIS. Since that section, and the reference it cites, are not about Manning, I don't believe the section is appropriate. That is, it's not a U.S. reaction to Manning, it's a reaction to the leaking and publishing of the documents. It heavily implies the point of view that Manning should not have done the leaking (if, in fact, he is the one responsible). That's classic synthesis. I won't re-delete, though, until I hear other opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
We wouldn't have any idea who manning was had he not released these documents. Delete it if you must, but you should also delete the Ellsberg reference and the rest of the "reactions" because they too are "not about Manning himself", but what he has done and they heavily imply that he was justified in doing what he did. V7-sport (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I went through the reaction section and scaled it back. I hope this addresses the synthesis question and my own opinion that it showed undue weight to people like Ellsberg & Greenwad. V7-sport (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason that is there is that the article used to be called Arrest of Bradley Manning/ That was actually a better name for the article, because he is only notable for this one event. Cited material like this should never be removed if it is not relevant, but rather moved to an article or section where it is more relevant. In this case, so such article exists. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So you are arguing for the inclusion of irrelevant material? Sorry, I disagree. At the very least I don't think the "reactions" from other parties that weren't involved should be included and certaintly shouldn't be given the weight that they are.V7-sport (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No I am arguing that it never should have been moved from Arrest of Bradley Manning if virtually the entire article dealt with a single event and all the move did is give people an excuse for removing cited material, and adding a small amount of detail from his "early life" as an attack on his character. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of removing the reaction section, as it currently exists, altogether. First of all, any reactions are a subset of reactions to the broader Wikileaks mess, and would fit better there. Secondly, as people have pointed out, the US government reaction portion is necessarily synthesis until and unless the government definitively identifies Manning as the source for the leaks in question. Thirdly, we really give undue weight to particular random commentators at the expense of others (Greenwald and Ellsberg?), violating both WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX. This is a biography - let's leave the discussion of the political commentary to a page on the events themselves? RayTalk 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading the section, I'm inclined to agree with RayaYang. Gregcaletta is absolutely wrong to say that cited material should never be removed. We remove cited material all the time from articles, it it isn't relevant, if it violates WP:DUE or WP:SYN, if it's superseded by newer or better info, or even just if consensus decides it isn't necessary. I've seen otherwise with this mistaken notion that anything that has been properly referenced should/must remain in Wikipedia somewhere, but that's a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V. Verification is the minimum requirement for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but just because something can be verified doesn't mean it must be in an article somewhere. I think that there are some tidbits from the section that could be integrated into other sections--for example, I think that in 2 sentences in the arrest section we could summarize Greenwald's view that the arrest is part of an intentional plan on the part of the U.S. government to discredit Wikileaks. But given it a huge section all its own violates WP:DUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to Ginger Thomspson

The article by Ginger Thompson currently receives undue weight. The article has blatantly been designed to paint Manning as an unstable, bitter and angst-ridden individual and distract from his own stated democratic motives for leaking the material. It certainly does not deserve the entire paragraph of unsubstantiated quotes that it currently receives. I request that it be reduced, removed or complemented by other articles describing Manning's belief in transparency and freedom of information as an integral part of democracy. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done some serious revising of that section. While there was a good deal of worthwhile reporting in the piece, we should try to summarize the useful and relevant information contained therein rather than selecting juicy quotes which may give an overly sensationalized picture removed from context. RayTalk 06:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Chat transcripts

The chat transcripts are pretty clearly primary source material, and drawing conclusions from them violates our policy on original research. The section as a whole is a mess. Does anybody want to take a stab at rewriting it in a descriptive, narrative voice rather than piecing together quotes? RayTalk 07:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, a descriptive narrative voice would mean interpreting the primary sources which would be original research. Merely presenting the quotes directly is not original research. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Presenting the sources entire, raw, is not our job. It's a job for, well, Wired and other news sources. Publishing an edited version to advance some kind of narrative description without a secondary source is a straightforward example of original research, particularly of synthesis. I think we need to strike those transcripts and the paragraphs based on them, replacing them with secondary source reporting. RayTalk 14:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No, that's a missinterpretation of WP:OR. Original research means anding one's own interpretation or opinions that appear nowhere in the source. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Last I checked, selectively quoting original source material to convey one's desired impression counts as interpretation. Unless we publish the full transcripts, we can't help but selectively quote. We cannot publish the full transcripts, as a) that is not the purpose of Wikipedia b) that would cause all sorts of copyright issues. This stuff has to go. RayTalk 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No, that doesn't count as interpretation, just as choosing which facts from secondary sources to include in the article and which not to include does not count as interpretation, although both can lead to bias. The solution to this is to work towards a consensus on which quotations or facts are the most relevant to the subject (in this case "Bradley Manning") rather than just removing all material on the belief than presenting any such material is original research (you won't find any part of the policy which suggests that using selected quotations is original research). Gregcaletta (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed the external links. The person who re-added pointed me to WP:ELYES, which is surprising to me, because it's exactly what I would have pointed to (along with WP:ELNO) as proof that they cannot be in the article. The first one is pure spam--it's a site soliciting funds for his legal defense. It doesn't matter that it's not a corporate site--it's still selling something. We don't ever allow links to pages like this, except in the cases of the main page of a charity on the article about the charity itself. If someone the "Bradley Manning Legal Defense Fund" became it's own page (which it won't), then this EL would be acceptable there. The second link is Manning's "Support" page. But this page was not made by Manning. It's the equivalent in this case of a fan site. The only page acceptable like this would be one Manning himself created--of course, that's obviously not happening right now. This links are clearly and unambiguously not allowed per WP:EL, so I will re-remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Add links of the excised information:
-- IQinn (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As the founder of the website and group mentioned in Iqinn's second link above, I won't involve myself in making edits to the page. However, should someone want to include information regarding our efforts to support Manning (and, for example, the ~$100k we've raised toward his defense), I'm happy to take questions. I'm not an active Wikipedia editor any more, tough, so if you'd like to get a hold of me you can find my contact details on my-surname-dot-com. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The image shown looks like http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/09/us/09manning2.html . In any event, it is not a US government image. Photos of soldiers taken at basic training do not have them leaning so casually (Smiles are OK), so I doubt this is a public image. The image is tagged, but I've also obscured the image with an editors comment until the copyright issue is resolved.--S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mm. It is listed on the AP website as an undated file photo - the language says that the AP "obtained" it, rather than taking it. It seems we're going to have to wait for arraignment photos or something similar to get PD images. RayTalk 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Second remark - I can see a fair use claim being made for keeping the image temporarily, until a PD image becomes available. WP:NFCC normally abjures the use of nonfree images of living people, but in this case, the subject of the photograph is in prison, and so it seems unlikely that a free alternative will be forthcoming for some time. RayTalk 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Other sources credit the image to www.bradleymanning.org. This is his support website that states that "All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated. Link and attribution appreciated.". IQinn (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That picture does not origination with bradleymanning.org. I took it from the AP article. My guess is that AP or Wired obtained a copy of it from a family member interviewed very early on. The other photos of Manning floating around come from his Facebook profile. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

[sic] in "Partial release of chat logs and stated motivations"

In paragraph 4 of "Partial release of chat logs and stated motivations," there is a [sic] in "...if you had free reign [sic] over..." I'm going to remove it, seeing as free reign is common usage. If anyone sees why not, then feel free... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codster925 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Consensus may be to split if and when this is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning → Alleged leaks of Bradley Manning — (or Arrest and charges of Bradley Manning) This is a fairly typical case of WP:BLP1E (Subjects notable only for one event). There is not enough biographical information available on Manning as a person to warrant a biographical article. If there ever is, a biographical article should be created as well and the event article, never instead, as is made fairly clear by WP:BLP1E. I am flexible on possible alternative names. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was previously moved from Arrest of Bradley Manning because many editors misinterpreted WP:BLP1E when it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate". This refers to situations where there is enough material on the subject notable for one event to warrant a biographical article as well as the article for the event, but never instead of the article for the event. Please notice that there is almost no material in the article not related the alleged leaks and the subsequent arrest and charges. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose this one. We've long since blown past the standard needed to have a proper bio: the event in question (that is to say, the broader Wikileaks debacle) is of great historic significance, and Manning's role in the event is critical. There has already been significant coverage of Manning the person: in fact, there's even been a controversial piece in the NYT dedicated to psychoanalyzing his childhood [4]. As for creating a separate event article, I believe that any such article would be highly redundant with the various articles on the Wikileaks leaks, and duplicate the information contained therein. RayTalk 07:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This article was previously moved from Arrest of Bradley Manning because many editors misinterpreted WP:BLP1E when it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate". This refers to situations where there is enough material on the subject notable for one event to warrant a biographical article as well as the article for the event, but never instead of the article for the event. Please notice that there is almost no material in the article not related the alleged leaks and the subsequent arrest and charges, apart from the NYT hit piece. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, a significant amount of cited material has been removed, or proposed to be removed, under the rationale that it is not relevant enough to Manning as a person. This would not be a problem if the article were about the event. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E is very clear that the article for the event should replace the article for the person if there is not enough material for two separate articles. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that a separate article about the event would be warranted. It was the move (rather than fork) aspect I was opposing, since I do think there's enough for a decent start on a bio of Manning. The NYT, Washington Post, Daily Mail, and numerous other publications have profiled him to a greater or lesser extent. That's more than enough to create a decent biographical sketch, even leaving out the more intrusive and sensational details. I note that BLP1E doesn't say anything about removing the biography - it says specifically, and I quote, "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." Manning fits this description to a T. I think, like Aldrich Ames, Daniel Ellsberg, or Robert Hanssen, he is destined to become infamous in the annals of American security failures. RayTalk 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
OK then so why not support moving this article which is almost entirely dedicated to the event and create a new article for Manning? Gregcaletta (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Because as it exists, this is an article dedicated mostly to Manning, with only peripheral RS reporting on the leaks, once you discount the OR in the motivation and transcript section. RayTalk 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Since the investigation into these leaks and the persecution of Manning is likely to be an ongoing affair for some time into the future, it's obvious to me at least that the basis for an article about Manning exists. __meco (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason to oppose the move. That's a reason to support the move and propose a new article on Manning. This article has very little on Manning, and a huge amount about the leaking and subsequent arrest and charges. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a very unwieldy way of dealing with this situation. A simple split-off would be gentler. __meco (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. I can go ahead and create a separate article for the event. But almost all of the information here refers to the leaking and the related arrest and charges, which would mean virtually all of the material on this article would have to be deleted from this article and moved to that one. Now THAT is is what I call unwieldy, but I'll do that if you really think it is better. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invalid Source

The source provided at the end of the second paragraph is invalid. The reason I checked is because exactly which "release" that was being referred to was not clear. In actuality, the entire last sentence is a word-for-word copy of a section from a blog post from Hold Congress Accountable from last Saturday.

I didn't change the source myself because I don't know how and don't want to screw it up, but this CNN article is indeed valid. I did, however, slightly alter the wording of the sentence to remove ambiguity as to which release the quote was referring to. 68.116.252.187 (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've chopped it down. The lead paragraphs are supposed to be summary style, anyhow, and were getting unwieldy. The detailed information is in the article proper. RayTalk 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sloppy wording of a sentence (in this encyclopedia)

"Manning had social difficulties in the Army, which were attributed to the problems of being homosexual under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy."

Comment: It is not universally agreed upon, what are "the problems" of being homosexual under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. The sentence needs a rewrite, at least. But shit-canning (some English-speaking soldiers use that term informally, meaning to throw something into a garbage pale) the sentence would be even better.

For now the text has been removed, and the reference ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 ) has become an external link, in the article. --80.203.20.178 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

When I originally wrote that sentence, I was intentionally vague under some feeling that the sadder details of Manning's life were best euphemized. You have correctly pointed out that, while my motive may have been kind and respectful of Manning's privacy, it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's stern mandate to provide our readers with the most relevant, encyclopedic treatment of material that is reliably sourced. I have re-inserted such of the details from the NYT article as I think are relevant to giving the reader an understanding of Manning's situation. RayTalk 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • More sloppy editing? The NYT article does not say friends were commenting about Manning's problems as gay in the military, but the WP sentence implies this. Also, the NYT article repeats comments from friends about acceptance and delusions, again implying that these feelings arose during his Army experience, but were actually part of his pre-Army personality and experience. Is this "sloppy" editing inaccuracy actually a subtle POV poke-in-the-eye at DADT?--S. Rich (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's sloppy at all. The NYT article provides a clear narrative arc - from his occluded social life, attributed by friends to DADT, to "finally seemed to have found a place where he fit in" among hackers and drag queens, to being desperate for acceptance and having delusions of grandeur. That's the narrative sequencing of the article. I think that I summarized that portion of the article fairly decently. There's no implication in the NYT article that delusions of grandeur were part of his pre-existing personality, although such implications can be found in other sources. Since delusions of grandeur and desperation for acceptance were listed next to each other, I think it's clear the article meant for us to consider them as arising from the same source. If you don't like my wording what would you suggest? RayTalk 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • My latest edit is a small effort to clean this up. Editors note in text points out the two sources (Wired & Wash Post) contradict each other regarding early discharge. (Perhaps he anticipated an early discharge, but the WP story said he did not face an early discharge.) Also changed text regarding assault. He hit a fellow (enlisted) soldier (or so it seems), not an officer. To repeat my concern expressed above, combining the problems in one sentence (or one sentence following another) incorrectly implies that these problems were part of his Army service, when they really pre-existed his enlistment. This is simply my food for thought right now. As this is a very topical article, for now I'll let other editors contemplate POV aspects and improve. In any event, I thank you for your edits! --S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)
I've removed the {{failed verification}} call, rewording slightly around it, and added the NYT reference to the DADT statement. The NYT piece says both, quite clearly (I've highlighted relevant chunks with {{xt}}:

Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee for officers.
...
And now some of those friends say they wonder whether his desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur — may have led him to disclose the largest trove of government secrets since the Pentagon Papers.

— OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable text?

"and he complained about being ordered to fetch coffee in the workplace".

This is not notable, in an article about a person in the US military. (Now if he had been charged for refusing to "get coffee"/disobeying a lawful command from superiors, then that quite possibly would have been notable.)

Also, there is no record that he complained to his "US congressman. Such a complaint might be notable, rather than being annoyed for a day (or a series of them) at the office, and then complaining to "friends".

This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip-column or "People magazine". The non-notable text has been removed (while the reference stays in the article, because it is used in other parts of the article.) --80.203.20.178 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Manning article will disappear sooner or later as a BLP notable for one event. For now, though, resentment over fetching coffee should stay as it gives amateur insight as to his motivations. The source is New York Times, which is WP:RS enough when compared to People. (Perhaps if the coffee were Starbucks he'd have less to complain about?) --S. Rich (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning/Archive_1&oldid=1136607557"