Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The relevance of public debate

The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not irrelevant or WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the repair of any imbalance you might perceive in citations by enriching the article, not lobotomizing it. If the partisan censorship of social commentary continues, I think this page should eventually be recommended for mediation. JonDePlume (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The comments of headline grabbing politicians who wish to sidestep the Constitutional requirements of Due process are not much better than the vandals who have attacked these pages. WP:SOAP applies to these comments and WP:RECENT should be kept in mind. Wikipedia is more important that advancing such views.--S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)00:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to open this after my edits, but got sidetracked by real life. While I, at first, just trimmed the sections, I am inclined to agree, at least in part. There is no question in my mind that the politicians comments have no business here. While the media has practically convicted Manning, he hasn't even been charged yet, so the statements of those Congress people have absolutely no applicability here (i.e., we don't even know for sure that they apply to Manning yet). On the support side, I could see it being appropriate to include a few sentences (max), as long as we can source those sentences to something other than the support sites themselves (and no direct links to those sites). The reason I think those could be included (if sourced) is that we can at least confirm that they are directly related to the subject of this email. Later, once we've passe the problems of WP:RECENT, assuming Manning is the source of the leak, then we can look back in time and see which historical comments are the most important to encapsulate the story. Finally, I would argue this does not qualify for mediation--this article itself is to closely linked to ongoing current events for mediation to really help. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Eventually, the political reaction to Manning's leak will probably be something we can summarize here, as it will address his long-term significance. However, there is a very good reason that Wikipedia is not news, and we shouldn't be breathlessly reporting every asinine remark made by a mike-grabbing politician as they arrive. A little time and perspective would go a long ways on this matter. Ray^Talk 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of public debate

The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not irrelevant or WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the repair of any imbalance you might perceive in citations by enriching the article, not lobotomizing it. If the partisan censorship of social commentary continues, I think this page should eventually be recommended for mediation. JonDePlume (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The comments of headline grabbing politicians who wish to sidestep the Constitutional requirements of Due process are not much better than the vandals who have attacked these pages. WP:SOAP applies to these comments and WP:RECENT should be kept in mind. Wikipedia is more important that advancing such views.--S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)00:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to open this after my edits, but got sidetracked by real life. While I, at first, just trimmed the sections, I am inclined to agree, at least in part. There is no question in my mind that the politicians comments have no business here. While the media has practically convicted Manning, he hasn't even been charged yet, so the statements of those Congress people have absolutely no applicability here (i.e., we don't even know for sure that they apply to Manning yet). On the support side, I could see it being appropriate to include a few sentences (max), as long as we can source those sentences to something other than the support sites themselves (and no direct links to those sites). The reason I think those could be included (if sourced) is that we can at least confirm that they are directly related to the subject of this email. Later, once we've passe the problems of WP:RECENT, assuming Manning is the source of the leak, then we can look back in time and see which historical comments are the most important to encapsulate the story. Finally, I would argue this does not qualify for mediation--this article itself is to closely linked to ongoing current events for mediation to really help. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Eventually, the political reaction to Manning's leak will probably be something we can summarize here, as it will address his long-term significance. However, there is a very good reason that Wikipedia is not news, and we shouldn't be breathlessly reporting every asinine remark made by a mike-grabbing politician as they arrive. A little time and perspective would go a long ways on this matter. Ray^Talk 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Capturing the range of sentiment expressed by public figures is neither breathless reportage, nor inherently partisan. I do agree with RayAYang and S. Rich in so far as it is often difficult to tell which particular statements will have lasting social relevance; this will evolve over time. That said, when does the magical day arrive when we determine the "true" meaning or importance of anything? On what basis will we assert that we're finally capable of dispassionate retrospection? Which is greater: the risk of our future selves being deluded by the "fog of time", or the danger of not seeing the trees for the forest right here in the present? It's not always easy to tell; hence, we should err on the side of capturing more, not less, and reconciling ourselves to the need for revisiting such content periodically.

For example, consider the range of views expressed regarding former U.S. President Ronald Regan during his stay in office, and compare them to those of present-day political leaders and news commentators (be they Democrat or Republican). The Overton window has shifted. Regan's grammatical follies no longer capture the level of attention they once did. At the time however, they were used to bring his fitness for office into question, and by implication the wisdom of his decision-making. Where are we now? Are we more dispassionate and able to separate substance from noise, or have we just waded part-way across the river Lethe, and lost touch with the "feeling" of that period? We can say Regan's frequent verbal bloopers and their equally persistent caricature became part of the overall milieau. One can still argue over their meaning, but there is undoubtedly a delicate fragrance to it all that is best bottled when fresh. Anyone who has lived long enough witness the birth of a generational shift in perception realizes how difficult it can be to convey the "feeling" of a time, right down to the very marrow of their weather-predicting bones.

The view I'm advancing is that it's better to err on the side of capturing present-day perspectives on an ongoing basis than it is to omit them entirely, hoping that one day we'll all agree on what genuinely matters. We won't. People are still arguing over the "true" reasons for the Decline of the Roman Empire, whether Abstract expressionism is abstract or expresses anything, and whose opinion on any of these topics is worthy of consideration. For events to be understood in-context, sentiment within that context must be captured. If we fail to document the evolution of meaning, then we're implicitly asserting a misguided belief that The Great Pumpkin of Objectivity will arise one day to settle everything for good, or that social history has no bearing on matters of inclusion, exclusion, or depiction.

I'll grant that a section devoted to material like this could become a breathless echo chamber, or a pointless compendium of daily news articles. The problem is, that omitting public discourse in its entirety is even more dangerous. There's room for common sense here. If the section gets out of hand, or becomes imbalanced, it can be pruned. If something doesn't turn out to matter later on, it can be excised. If history goes full-circle, later authors can feel free to dig through the archives and resurrect material previously deemed inconsequential. I believe we'll be chewing, regurgitating, and redigesting the set of "notable quotations" that apply to any controversial topic for years, somewhat like a herd of bovines processing cud. Yes, this hay will make us belch and more, but the alternative is malnourishment. Therefore, we might as well start chewing on the stuff now. JonDePlume (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Not could. Will. I've seen it happen one too many times, and one of my first edits to this article was to cut out coatracking of opinions from Greenwald, Ellsberg, and other would-be commentators, so, indeed, it has already happened here. I don't object to discussing particular opinions offered, but I do object to inserting them willy-nilly into the article - indeed, the talk page is a great place for collating such material so that it is available for future Wikipedia editors. I think we would have to be convinced the opinion is significant and likely to affect the outcome of the matter, or have an enduring effect on the interpretation history places on events, before we give any particular pronouncement a place in the article. Ray^Talk 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

I added two sentences to the Background section, both with sources, and both were removed almost immediately without comment. More Wikipedia censorship I see?

FYI, the sentences dealt with the educational background and temperment (as reported by a classmate) of Manning.

I am reverting the reverts. If you don't like the changes, lets talk.

Please sign and date your comments. How is anyone supposed to know which edits you are referring to? --Duncan (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

removal of Afghan war diary cite

I note the edit summary said this was outdated. Is there a citation to support that summary? Thanks, Ray^Talk 18:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this seems to me a question of common sense. This article states that Manning has been charged and is awaiting a military trial while imprisoned at Quantico. This makes him a formal suspect, the next step up from a person of interest. Lechonero (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The following section (about the criminal charges) doesn't mention the Afghan War documents leak; it is not helpful to expunge the only mention of it from the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me, that he has been charged in the "Collateral Murder" video and in the diplomatic leaks; he is still a person of interest only w.r.t the Afghan war report leaks. Ray^Talk 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight part II

Alright, is is written below that he is homosexual. So why are you all reverting it without reason when if it is mention in the intro? --91.115.56.67 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert your last change. I apologize, as during the first revert, I hadn't read the remainder of the article. I'm not certain that inserting that part of his personal background in the introduction is necessary. It might lead a reader (who might not read the remainder of the article) to believe the page has been vandalized as there's not an appropriate citation for his sexual orientation at the point where you wished to introduce that information. Still, you're right. He's verifiably homosexual according to the remainder of the article. I'm not going to revert your changes if you choose to add that too the introduction. You might still have to persuade other editors to overcome the arguments I mentioned above.--Gnowor^T_C 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to use such an adjective in the lede. Its repeated re-inclusion has now been reverted by two different editors, which I support. I will also revert any further attempts to add it there. Please carefully read WP:BLP. -84user (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting hearing or not?

I just got off the phone with Army prosecutors and the Quantico brig. They don't have any hearing dates. I deleted the passage stating that Manning is awaiting an Article 32 hearing. If it can be sourced, it should be replaced, but I doubt any hearings have been scheduled because there's no prosecution team assigned yet. If they keep him in solitary like that, he'll be exculpated. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ginger, you really did take a truck and drive it right through the middle of our WP:OR policy, didn't you? Ray^Talk 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, if I had added, "The Army Judge Advocate General's Corps has not yet appointed anyone to participate in an Article 32 investigation," that would not violate WP:OR but it would violate WP:V. However, all I did was remove the unsourced assertion in the lead saying that he was awaiting a hearing and tag the same assertion in the body. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, just as long as you understand that, with no intention to offend, we can't take your word on your phone call as indicative of anything but rumor that we read on the Internet. Ray^Talk 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who threw the "slant" tag and why?

I don't see anything in the article, relating to recent events, that do not belong there. Is the subject of his arrest, the alleged leaks, and resulting consequences supposed to be ignored until they are a year old so they qualify as having "a historical perspective?" William (Bill) Bean (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and removed the tag. The subject is only notable for events that happened recently, so there's no reason to give equal coverage of what happened when he lived in Wales.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mother's nationality

There is no such thing as Welsh nationality. The sovereign State is the United Kingdom, the citizens of which are British. 'Welsh' is a cultural term, not a legal nationality, since Wales is not a sovereign State and therefore cannot confer (or revoke) legal nationality to anyone who resides there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.93.205 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the article has been accepted, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate/biased material

Manning was characterized as being "desperate for acceptance" and suffering from "delusions of grandeur" in his social life,[11]

This is basically the opinion of the NY Times author. It's not a quote from anyone. The quote is given as if the military or a psychiatrist described him as so. It should be removed. If it's not removed, it should at least be noted that his (supposed) "friends" afterward said this (according to the author of the source, although it's not presented as a quote), not before the leaks it's not the opinion of either the military or a psychiatrist. The government tried to do this to Daniel Ellsberg too, to quote another Wikipedia article, "In August 1971, Krogh and Young met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in a basement office in the Old Executive Office Building. Hunt and Liddy recommended a "covert operation" to get a "mother lode" of information about Ellsberg's mental state in order to discredit him. Krogh and Young sent a memo to Ehrlichman seeking his approval for a "covert operation [to] be undertaken to examine all of the medical files still held by Ellsberg’s psychiatrist." Ehrlichman approved under the condition that it be "done under your assurance that it is not traceable."[18]"

In fact, that whole sentence reads like a hit piece. The next part of the sentence says, "and he complained about being ordered to fetch coffee in the workplace.[11]"

What he actually says though, if you open the source, is that his concerns were ignored by his superiors and when he really had something important, they blew him off and asked him to fetch coffee and sweep the floors. That's far different from 'he complained about menial labor' impression the quote as given on Wiki creates.

- Sam

It is the impression of the NYT reporter, summarizing her research and the information she got from Manning's friends and other experts she may have consulted. We've actually discussed it at some length above; please read previous discussion on the subject when it is relatively recent. It is not the opinion of somebody with an axe to grind, but that of a reasonably dispassionate observer, and I think it is thus suitable for inclusion. We should not, of course, give the position of an opinion columnist or political operative with a clear agenda the same leeway. That conclusion is also reached, to varying degrees, by other reliable sources such as our Washington Post article.

As for the coffee bit, you're free to make it "and he complained his concerns were ignored by his superiors, and he was asked to fetch coffee and sweep the floors." I think the impression that he complained about menial labor is entirely accurate, and reflects his mental state. If anything, the specific details from the chat transcripts and the like were euphemized in order not to titillate and distract the reader from the main thread of the narrative.

Best, Ray^Talk 16:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since it's "the impression of the NYT reporter", put "He has been characterized by a NY Times reporter as "desperate for acceptance" .. .etc. But obviously that sounds absurd. Which is why the entire sentence should be taken out - why are we be quoting a reporter about his opinion on a guy he doesn't know? Especially when the sentence as written originally sounds like some sort of psychiatrist said it about Manning while he was active military (that is, before the leaks).

His point wasn't just about menial labor, it's that he was ignored and when he really had important concerns, instead of doing anything about it, his superiors punished him through menial labour. That's very different from the impression the quote creates out of context..

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahage22 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

solitary confinement?

Is there any information if he really is being held in solitary confinement, and if so, why? Toby Douglass (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to SBS news, yes, for the last seven months. Why wouldn't he be held in solitary confinement? The military are pretty pissed at him. Who is going to stop them? Gregcaletta (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Restricted confinement is pretty standard for espionage suspects, particularly those who had access to sensitive information. After all, the government doesn't exactly want further leakage. Ray^Talk 15:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically leaking is not espionage (espionage is secretly providing information to a rival nation; leaking is providing information to the media and general public) but I agree it's pretty standard for the US military to treat anyone who breaches their contract in this way. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually fairly uncommon for most deserters and others absent without leave; the expenses associated with solitary confinement are high. Most such cases are treated differently. Solitary tends to be used either because there is reason to fear further damage to the nation's security (usually espionage), or there is reason to believe the suspect would be a cause of violence in the general prison population. The distinction you refer to between espionage and "leaking" may be a real one for the purposes of political science, but does not exist in law. Ray^Talk 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mm. The latest Guardian article [1] suggests that solitary confinement is, in Manning's case, a case of hyperbole. He is being held in confinement, and, like all prisoners, has a limited list of visitors. Ray^Talk 14:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He has a cell to himself. He's not being held in punitive detention (like "the hole"), though. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 15:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice it's been re-added to the article again. Our sources conflict on this, and fairly reliable non-opinion reporting has been given that Manning has had access to television news and contact with lawyers and a restricted list of friends, which is not at all solitary confinement. Discuss? Ray^Talk 18:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition of a wikilink for solitary confinement is now gone. RS added which says he's under suicide watch, which explains the solitary confinement. If he really was in a punishment type solitary confinement, his attorneys would be in court lickety-split getting the confinement reviewed. This stuff about him being punished without trial is simply POV. --S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That he's in solitary confinement was confirmed by Glenn Greenwald [2]. It's an opinion piece but it gives a name of, quote, "Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard)" and "confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out." So we have a name of an official who verified that he is in solitary confinement - that seems like a sure thing then? Furthermore, Greenwald says he's not on suicide watch as do other sources if you Google it. Other sources say he is. Since Greenwald talked to an official at the facility, he probably knows but regardless I think it should be removed until there is some kind of general agreement or a reliable source about whether he is or is not on suicide watch.

Sam Blahage22 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

'Suicide Watch' is a fairly drastic thing. It means the prisoner is under -constant surveillance-. He's being watched, 24/7. This is psychologically stressful, to say the least. It also means no dangerous objects in the cell - sheets, pillows, etc. I wonder if he has been under suicide watch for all seven months? I wonder also if there was a real suicide risk - how likely is it any one particular prisoner should be suicidal? and it happens purportedly to be so in this one case where the US has been profoundly embarrassed? there were a number of cases brought in recent years by people (in civilian jails) who were placed under suicide watch - people who really were vulnerable - but there the actions taken to enact the watch were deeply intrusive, sometimes violating. One person, who was clinically depressed, was strapped naked to the floor of her cell, with a bunch of wardens present. Not nice stuff. It seems to me to be a risk that 'suicide watch' comes to mean 'whatever we want to do'. Checking Google, I note a number of stories with conflicting information. The general impression is that he was, but it's not clear when and how long for, and if he still is. I also see in a recent Guardian article, [[3]], serious accusations of harrassment and surveillance of his friends. David House, the software developer who it is said visits him every two weeks, is quoted;

House said many people were reluctant to talk about Manning's condition because of government harassment, including surveillance, warrantless computer seizures, and even bribes. "This has had such an intimidating effect that many are afraid to speak out on his behalf," House said.

also, regarding suicide watch;

"As time passed and his suicide watch was lifted, to no effect, it became clear that his time in solitary – and his lack of a pillow, sheets, the freedom to exercise, or the ability to view televised current events – were enacted as a means of punishment rather than a means of safety.

Given the known behaviour of the State in the Pentagon Papers case, it's easy to give credence to such things. The Guardian however has a rather left wing readership.

On 3 November, House, 23, said he found customs agents waiting for him when he and his girlfriend returned to the US after a short holiday in Mexico. His bags were searched and two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials said they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. The men seized all his electronic items and he was told to hand over all passwords and encryption keys – which he refused. The items have yet to be returned, said House.

That reads like abuse of customs powers to further a Federal investigation; if House had not left the country, could his property have been confiscated? Toby Douglass (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Being alone doesn't count as solitary confinement, or I could pretty well define myself as being in solitary over winter break. Does he have access to television? Books? Newspapers? Monitored email or telephone access? Glenn Greenwald is a very opinionated columnist, and the words he uses do not, to dispassionate observers, always mean what he wants them to mean. Solitary confinement has very particular meanings in the literature, and is only slightly less emotionally weighted than terms like "torture" and "barbaric treatment." I want to see something more specific before we start throwing it around. Ray^Talk 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Books are usually allowed in solitary confinement. And solitary confinement is just that, to borrow from the wiki article on it, "Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, though often with the exception of members of prison staff." That's exactly what is happening according to Salon. There is a CNN article linked that says "The suspect is in solitary confinement and is being observed in accordance with normal operating procedures, the spokesman said." And lastly, even the Globe article says he's in solitary confinement. --Blahage22 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd Lt. Villard is a public affairs officer, not a brig official, so Greenwald is inaccurate in this regard -- see http://quantico.usmc.mil/Sentry/Archives.aspx?1=0&2=0&3=0&author=33. Be that as it may, I hope Blahage22 can provide those other sources that s/he says contradicts the Globe & Mail story. Moreover, can Blahage22 explain what Manning's attorneys are doing or not doing about pre-trial solitary confinement "punishment" or inhumane conditions?--S. Rich (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald not meeting POV? You're misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, nowhere does it say that the source has to be unbiased as long as any bias is noted and it's completely irrelevant in this case because it's a factual matter: I am not claiming solitary confinement is torture/inhumane/whatever, I am saying that Greenwald spoke to an official working for this brig who confirmed that the man is in solitary confinement and who said the man is not on suicide watch. This directly contradicts the Globe. As for brig official, is that actually an official title? The guy works for the brig (a military prison), he's a PR guy, it's his job to communicate with the media which is what he did with Greenwald. By the way, Salon is already used as a source on the page. I do not need to produce you a copy of what lawyers are doing about it, there is a CNN article linked that says "The suspect is in solitary confinement and is being observed in accordance with normal operating procedures, the spokesman said." Suicide watch should be removed until its verified because there are conflicting sources. Greenwald is a perfectly good source - he gives you the name of the official he spoke to on the issue whereas the article you linked to? We have no idea who said that. I further point you to your own article from the Globe about solitary confinement: "Today, Pte. Manning is being held in solitary confinement in a military prison in Quantico, Va." To post from a source published today on a recent event when there are contradictory sources naming who they got their info from is silly; the suicide watch claim should be removed until it is verified, Greenwald updated his story saying that Lt. Villiard has read his story and it does not note him disputing anything about suicide watch. --Blahage22 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• POV comes into play when editors (and vandals) equate solitary confinement with punishment. No one denies he's sitting in the cell all by his lonesome, but when the wikilink brackets are added to solitary confinement, which describes SC as punishment, then POV is at work. Then, to remove a WP:RS that says he's on suicide watch, WP:CENSOR is raising its ugly head. Want more or newer or older sources regarding the suicide watch? Okay, here's a few: Countercurrents.org and Telegraph.co.uk or Heraldsun.com.au and news.antiwar.com --S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're saying it's censorship to remove a claim from one source which is contradicted by another source? Why don't you then at least note that there are contradictory sources? The Salon story names an official (his explicit name is given..) who works at the brig and says the guy is not on suicide watch. It was published yesterday. Greenwald makes a note that his source, the official who works at the prison, has read his story in an update and he doesn't say anything about him disputing that the guy is not on a suicide watch. It is irresponsible to say that he is on suicide watch when there are contradictory sources - wait until it's confirmed, then add it but not until then. With the links you gave, none of them have a source for their claim and they're all written on July 30th, months ago. They're probably all going off the same source but regardless, it's old and it hasn't been repeated since until the Globe today. Considering Salon names a primary source which directly contradicts the Globe, and the Globe does not name anyone, it's extremely rushed to say he is on a suicide watch. There are two sources released one day apart, one names where they got their claim from and one doesn't. You're using the one that doesn't.. I am not saying edit in 'he's not on a suicide watch', I am saying remove the claim that he is until we hear from at least a third source which isn't using one of the first two sources as reference for the claim..Blahage22 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald's updates do not change anything about the suicide watch question. E.g., they do not address the question. But even his basic story does not quote the Quantico press officer WRT suicide. Greenwald says Manning was "never" on suicide watch, but we have five (5) other sources that say he was on suicide watch and he is on suicide watch. (Moreover, you have not addressed what Manning's attorneys would normally do with improper confinement conditions.) Finally, as Manning's confinement drags on, the need for suicide watch probably becomes more acute. Sorry, the suicide watch angle on this should stay, and the wikilink to punishment goes. --S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first to address the 5 sources thing. Your news.antiwar.com and countercurrents source are using the HeraldSun source you gave so those two "sources" do not count. They are just re-linking something another source said (I can give you plenty of pages repeating Greenwald's story as well). The HeraldSun itself claims Fox News is the source and yet I can find no such story, so it's an unsourced claim. The Telegraph source is unsure, it says, quote, "who is reportedly on suicide watch" - reportedly. So what you really have is maybe one source which heard from a friend of a friend that maybe he's on a suicide watch months ago (reliable info, right?), and then another more recent source which is more credible - the Globe, but which does not cite its source (did they speak to a prison official or did they just take it from HeraldSun which claims Fox News said it but no proof or evidence anywhere and info cannot be found on Fox News' site). Then you have Gleenwald who spoke to a prison official, published yesterday. The prison official read what Greenwald said and does not dispute his comment on the suicide watch. There is clearly a difference of opinion between two reliable sources, which means it should be removed until someone settles the dispute on whether he is or not. As for the other sources, 2 of your sources are directly copying your third source, the source for which is a Fox News story that cannot be found and one says "reportedly" meaning it's just reporting on what it heard elsewhere. Blahage22 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources saying that he is not in solitary confinement that I am aware of of, and there are several saying that he is, so that's a fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently accurate descriptions of the solitary confinement Bradley Manning is submitted to are not that numerous : shouldn't it be appropriate precisely to add in the article something like "owing to the small number of testimonies on that point, it is difficult to know precisely his living conditions " . By the way, who did testify first hand on this confinement ( David House yes, and who else.... )? Did his lawyer say/write something ?The military ?... [ I would like to apologize : it is me who made a wiki link on solitary confinement at the end of the article : I had not noticed it had already been done in the introduction ] ( 8 months without a pillow or a sheet !Just for the prevention of suicide ?) Trente7cinq (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite an interesting "solitary confinement" that Manning is in -- a computer researcher from Boston (David House) gets to visit him twice a month. (Interestingly, the info that House provided about the suicide watch being lifted was not included in the edit.) Perhaps, and more importantly, are there other visitors who see him regularly? Could those other visitors include doctors, psychologists, and attorneys, or other friends, supporters, and computer researchers? My point is that WP:CHERRY is at play by various editors -- they wish to have Manning punished before trial with solitary confinement in illegally inhumane conditions. --S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the input of Toby Douglass, inserted above, it seems that Mr. House has neglected to mention that Manning "was strapped naked to the floor of [his] cell, with a bunch of wardens present" during his twice monthly visits to the Brig. Come on, wikipedia editors, consider the logical arguments behind your statements and WP:COOL.--S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Suicide watch

The following statement appears in the article right now: "...where he is under suicide watch" and a source is provided [28], but in a previous source [26], the opposite is stated. In Glenn Greenwald's column it is stated quite clearly "(he is not and never has been on suicide watch)". I tried to add something on the following lines: "where he is under suicide watch according to some sources but he is not according to others" but I am not very proficient with <refs>, got a bit lost and decided to quit. 81.39.217.234 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's easy to reword. I just removed the phrase about the suicide watch completely. :-) Because the two sources conflict, I don't think we should report it. I also don't think it's worth reporting it as a conflict. So, unless we can find something more definitive, it should remain out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, it's being discussed at length above. Although I agree, it does not belong until it is substantiated more definitively. Blahage22 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant that Manning is transgender

Consider the following excerpt from the wikileaks chat transcripts:

(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least
not now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of
my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of
having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy...
(1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind... i make no sense...
the CPU is not made for this motherboard...
(1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy
(1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh<
(1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out...
to be myself... and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone
else's expectations
(1:32:01 PM) bradass87: *and not be
(1:33:03 PM) bradass87: im just kind of drifting now...
(1:34:11 PM) bradass87: waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged...
and figure out how on earth im going to transition
(1:34:45 PM) bradass87: all while witnessing the world freak out as its
most intimate secrets are revealed
(1:35:06 PM) bradass87: its such an awkward place to be in, emotionally
and psychologically
[...]
(1:43:59 PM) bradass87: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling
in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not
offically intel anymore)

While some of the references to "transition", "self-medicating", etc., could in theory have other meanings, when taken together with the reference to having pictures plastered over the world press "as a boy", the conclusion is obvious that Manning is transgender. (Well, unless Lamo completely made up this part of the transcript, but that would be bizarre even for him.)

This is relevant to the article for at least two reasons: the DADT policy as others have pointed out, and the fact that "he" is probably the wrong pronoun. (We don't know the right pronoun; it's not necessarily "she", so I'll use singular they.) It must not be assumed that failing to mention that Manning is transgender or androphilic is somehow protecting their privacy. On the contrary, it seems that this article, in common with most of the press coverage, is doing precisely the thing that Manning would be most distressed by in portraying them as male / "a boy". --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC) (Yes, I'm transgender.)

Until Manning self-identifies as transgender, we may not not not make the article sound like it is certain that he is. I understand that a number of news organizations are drawing that conclusion (I'm personally even inclined to believe they may be right). And we can even quote or reference them as saying that. So we must make the article reflect the only thing that verified sources state, which is that he is of the male gender. You say that this article "is in common with most press coverage"--that's a good thing, because Wikipedia articles are always supposed to reflect sources, not our interpretations. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was certain that Manning was transgender, but it's overwhelmingly likely under the assumption that this part of the chat logs is accurate. (The article effectively assumes the veracity of the logs in many other places, which it perhaps shouldn't, even though they do "ring true" in many ways.)

Manning is not currently in a position to self-identify as transgender; they're being held effectively incommunicado at the moment, and previously they were constrained by the DADT policy. That puts us in a highly unusual situation. However, knowingly referring to a transgender person by their pre-transition gender pronouns is widely considered to be disrespectful and potentially offensive. (I certainly would consider it so.) So I strongly disagree with we have to follow most published sources in referring to Manning as male, given that we have good reason to believe that those sources are mistaken.

I understand the need to cite referenceable press sources. Here are two examples: http://gawker.com/5568351/is-wikileaker-bradley-manning-pre+transition-transgendered and http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107291 --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

3 different directions why I think this needs to change: 1) Policy is abundantly clear on this, and the fact that he is in no position to self-identify means we just have to wait. We can, probably, add a sentence like this: "Some media outlets, speculating the transcripts belong to Manning, indicate that Manning is pre-transition transgendered." (with the citations). 2) Practical: If a person is not clearly self-identified as transgendered, I would argue that it is not, in fact, offensive (in the sense we use the word on Wikipedia) to use masculine pronouns. What I mean is that if person A, for instance, is male-to-female transgendered, but, for personal, employment, or political reasons, Person A keeps this hidden, shouldn't Person A expect to be referred to by masculine pronouns? Obviously they would prefer to be referred to with female pronouns, but as they have made the choice to keep their identity hidden, it seems clear that they can't claim to be "offended", since others don't even know at about their gender identity. Even if Manning is transgendered, he obviously didn't intend for the transcript with Lamo to be revealed. 3) What if, after Manning is allowed to talk to the media (following release or whenever in the future Manning gets out of jail), Manning insists that they are not transgendered, whether or not that insistence is "accurate"? Wouldn't we then have been wrong to decide, no our own merits, to use "she"? What I mean is, since either pronoun has the possibility of offending, as all of this is highly speculative, we should stick with the pronouns used in the majority of reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the sentence currently in the article, ("...this article will use the pronoun "they" to refer to Bradley Manning...") must unquestionably come out. Wikipedia articles never refer to themselves--it's simply not the style that we write in. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the whole change has to be reverted. So, I'm going to stage 2 of WP:BRD--reverting the bold changes to the pronouns. Let's get consensus here before we use a pronoun not supported by sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the style issue is a good reason to revert. There are two reasons why the article needs to refer to itself in this limited way: a) it would be too confusing to just start using "they" without explanation, and b) editors and readers need to know what convention this article uses, so that they can edit or interpret it consistently. I'm open to constructive suggestions on how to handle this style issue. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If the objection is just to direct self-reference, then that's trivially fixed: how about 'the pronoun "they" will be used below to refer to Bradley Manning...', for instance? --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I also don't agree that a particular choice of pronouns needs direct support by existing sources. What needs support is the assertion that Manning is transgender (which is indeed supported); then, the choice of pronouns is a matter of English usage, which doesn't require direct support any more than the meanings of other common English words do. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The most relevant Wikipedia policy seems to be at WP:Pronoun, which says in part: "Gender-neutral pronouns should be used where the gender is not specific; see Gender-neutral language for further information." In this case, although the gender is unknown rather than non-specific, I believe the policy supports using "they". --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree. "He" should continue to be used until such time as Manning is able or chooses to address the issue publicly, and until such time, the page should defer to reliable sources.Brakoholic (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[indentation reset]

On a somewhat technical note, if Manning is transgender then they are not "pre-transition". Transition refers to the whole process of adopting a gender; it doesn't refer to SRS or coming out, or any other particular instant of time. By either a narrow or broad definition of how much is included in this, the chat logs indicate that Manning is currently in the process of transition.

You ask, "if person A, for instance, is male-to-female transgendered, but, for personal, employment, or political reasons, Person A keeps this hidden, shouldn't Person A expect to be referred to by masculine pronouns?"

It depends. Since transgender people are very often "out" in some contexts and not others, the general answer to this question is that A should be able to expect that anyone who knows what A's preferred pronouns are, will use them in those contexts. Or if the pronouns are not known exactly but it is known that A is male-to-(unknown) transgender or gender-variant, then A should at least be able to expect that known-incorrect male pronouns will not be used.

The chat logs are now public information, even if Manning didn't intend them to be. There is no putting this information back in the bottle. Instead, we have to consider what is a respectful way to refer to Manning given what we know or have strong reason to believe. The issue isn't really whether Manning can "claim to be offended"; the issue is what the right thing is to do. Recall this quote from the logs:

"i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as [a] boy..."

In a recent edit, I changed the pronouns to singular they, which is an accurate and respectful way to refer to someone whose gender is not known precisely. (Anticipating a possible objection: please let's not get into an argument about the grammatical status of singular they. It is not perfect, but it is commonly used and well-understood.) I think that addresses your point about using "she".

BTW, I sincerely hope that Manning will be allowed to talk to the media at some point before their trial, if there is one. It would be an outrage if they were not allowed to do so, "national security concerns" notwithstanding. I also hope that they will be given access to HRT medication if they need it (but I fear that they won't). Suddenly losing access to such medication can put someone, especially someone in Manning's situation, at very great risk.

Manning's Facebook page indicates that they are publically supportive of transgender rights -- and hence, we can probably assume, of the practice of referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns. Even if it turned out that we were mistaken about using pronouns other than "he", then we wouldn't have been wrong to do so, we would just have made an honest mistake. If we simply default to "he", then we're not making an honest mistake; we're making a deliberate one. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to come right at the last point, which is the key to this whole issue, and something you are avoiding: WP:V] is very clear--we don't care about "truth," we care about "verifiability." If a large number of sources started using gender neutral or female pronouns to describe Manning, I would say that our article should definitely follow suit. It's never a "mistake" for us to say what the majority of reliable sources have said, it's policy. If those sources later turn out to be wrong, then we change the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a vessel for change, it's simply a reflection of what someone(s) already said. So, the more I think about it, on the issue of pronouns, I don't think there's really any doubt that we have to follow the sources. As a final note, observe that even the Edge Boston article you sited, which proposes the idea that Manning is transgendered, uses the word "he".

Okay, all that being said, maybe it's possible to remove all, or at least most, of the pronouns from the article. I often work hard to make my own writing gender neutral, so I'll give it a shot in a minute.

But that still leaves us the question of whether or not to include the Edge and Gawker links and to explicitly state that Manning may be transgendered. To be honest, I find it very difficult to decide, because of the complex circumstances of Manning's inability to communicate, and lack of prior explicit statement on the matter. I think the best step is to ask for help; I'm going to post a question at the BLP Noticeboard when I have a chance today. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the BLP question: Gawker is not a particularly reliable source; it's a hopped-up blog, and Gawker Media sites have had particularly shady journalistic practices in the past. I wouldn't accept them as a source, especially since the majority of their work is either opinion, or repackaged content from other sites. As for the Edge article, it's unsubstantiated gossip, referring to unnamed reports to make speculations. It, too, is not a reliable source; any yahoo can say "maybe could be," but without facts to back it up, it's gossip.

The chat transcripts are also not a sufficient source. Nowhere in the transcripts does Manning make a clear, unequivocal statement about his sexuality or gender identity. Trying to read that into the transcripts—"he wouldn't have put it that way unless he was"—is prohibited synthesis.

"Unequivocal", perhaps not. Clear to anyone who knows the first thing about terms and language used in the trans community, yes. (Manning's sexuality is not the issue at hand, BTW; the article already mentions that.) In any case, the changes that were made to the article didn't say that Manning is definitely transgender; they said that we are using non-gender-specific pronouns because there is reason to believe that Manning is transgender, which there is. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The real problem, though, is that Manning is notable only because of his supposed participation in Wikileaks. His notability does not stem from his gender identity. I do not see any hard evidence from reliable sources that his sexuality or gender identity has any bearing upon the case. If the government makes an issue of it at trial, and that is duly reported in reliable sources, then it could be added without violating WP:BLP if properly cited and phrased. Reporting widespread speculation about it would merely victimize Manning, who has yet to be convicted of any crime. Victimizing the subject of a BLP violates WP:BLP.

Consider this: If someone started speculating about your gender identity when you had no way to respond to it, and someone insisted that those rumors belonged in an encyclopedia, would you find that acceptable?

For right now, it seems to me the theory that Manning's sexuality or gender identity in some way motivated him remains a fringe theory that's inappropriate for a BLP. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about Manning's gender identity motivating them? I certainly said nothing of the kind, and I don't believe that it did. That's not what this is about. The effect of the DADT policy on a transgender person, however, is entirely relevant to the article -- not necessarily to Manning's motivations, but to the circumstances under which the alleged events (or alternatively the fitting up of Manning for something they didn't do, if that is the case) took place. As the Background section already states: 'In the Army, Manning's "social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under 'don't ask, don't tell' "[8]'. This would also apply to gender identity.

To answer your question about someone "speculating" on my gender identity, in similar circumstances, I absolutely would find it acceptable. It seems that you're assuming that describing someone to be cisgender is a neutral position, while describing them as transgender (when there is evidence that they are, and when the gender that would otherwise be assumed is their pre-transition gender) somehow "victimizes" them. I think that's a complete misunderstanding and oversimplification of the ethical issues in discussing another person's gender status, especially in a case where they have already been publically "outed". (In this case, the "outing" was done by Adrian Lamo when he leaked the chat logs.) It is important to note that, if the chat logs are an accurate record of what Manning said, then it is likely that not acknowledging Manning's gender identity would likely be a source of more distress to them than acknowledging it. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not know for a fact that Manning is transgender. Whether or not he is transgender doesn't affect the victimization issue. If he is transgendered, he could feel victimized if he were made out to be cisgender. The point is, speculating on his gender identity either way carries too much risk of victimization under the BLP standards and therefore should be avoided, especially on the basis of gossip. We do not know the context of the chat logs, and it is not possible to know if Manning was being truthful in them. For that matter, as you say, we do not know if those logs are accurate. Because the chat logs are ambiguous and cannot be confirmed from available data, it seems improper to me to use them as justification to add items to this article that could potentially prove defamatory if the chat logs turn out to be false or falsely interpreted. More than anything, it would be an inhumane thing to do.

Oh... And if you would please re-read the statement of mine that you were claiming had a gender assumption, I think you'll find that it applies regardless of the gender identity of the subject or the reader. You're assuming a prejudice where none exists. //⌘macwhiz (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious someone is trying to push their own agenda and has chosen the Wikipedia article on Manning as an avenue to pursue that agenda. I find that unacceptable on all grounds. I've been following this leak and this whole gender identity issue has absolutely no bearing on anything related to his involvement in the cables leak, which is the only reason anyone outside his real life circle even knows he exists. Therefore, it's irrelevant to the article, which only exists because of said leak involvement. Furthermore, bringing his gender into the fold when it has no bearing or relevance is, in and of itself, inconsiderate and disrespectful, regardless of whether one sympathizes or not. Lastly, commas and periods go inside of quotation marks.Brakoholic (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that labelling him as a socially disaffected homosexual is a bit of a character assassination. I see a lot of words like "assume", and "could in theory have other meanings" in the above conversation so it seems people are reaching. That in mind, and the fact that the conversation is ongoing, and consensus clearly hasn't been reached, why is it represented in the current article? I'm removing it and all those claims until consensus has been reached (if anything, consensus not to include...). -Danjel (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Danjel, you're confusing transgender with homosexual - rumors of transgender activity are sufficiently dubious that no consensus has been reached. However, that he is homosexual and that this contributed to his character issues are very well sourced facts, appearing in the highest quality sources we have. There is, in fact, a constructive back and forth and re-editing of that sentence you removed, and no serious argument that it doesn't belong. I've re-inserted the edit as of OwenBlacker. Ray^Talk 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. Apologies. I had seen the above disagreements back and forth and assumed that they were related. Honestly, I'm still very very iffy about the inclusion of such information in a biographic article, but I'll take your word for it that it has been discussed and that this is the compromise position. -Danjel (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture from Bradley Manning as a child in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iougDCH-wJ8 This should refute the rumour that he is transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRauk (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Danjel here ... in reality, all the sources about Bradley's mental state regarding his homosexuality seem to stem from Lamo's chatlogs, which until the contents of which can be confirmed by Bradley as his actual statements - "character issues" relating to his being homosexual are also just conjecture and hear-say. He was obviously comfortable enough with who he was early in his life to tell people when he was young (his parents and even at one of the schools he attended) and he was clearly not afraid to "like" certain pages on Facebook (and in fact he chose to share those "likes" with Everyone, not just Friends). Such actions do not indicate a person who is uncomfortable with their sexuality - so really the labelling of him as a "socially disaffected homosexual" is more about how other people have perceived or treated him. In fact the sentence says loads more about some straight people and their socially disaffected perceptions of homosexuals. But meh ... the decision has been made to include this opinion in his article, and I doubt I'll change anyone's mind.

As to the transgender debate, I agree with Brakoholic that someone is trying to push their own agenda into this article. Again, I don't attribute much weight to these chat-logs as we only have Lamo's word, in addition to the fact that some 75% it remains unreleased. Again, without confirmation from Bradley as to the authenticity of these chats, it's all coming from one source (and a pretty questionable one at that). From my understanding, other than the pic used in this article, all other photos of him have come from his Facebook account. So for someone who doesnt want to be seen "as a boy" on the internet (if we are going to believe these chatlogs and such statements as suggesting pre-transition transgender) - Bradley certainly did a good job of posting pictures of himself "as a boy" on the internet anyway. In addition, Bradley's "likes" on his FB page do not automatically infer that he is transgender, but rather that he seeks equality for all (including Transgender; Gay Rights; LBGT; Women's Rights; Repeal Dont Ask, Don't Tell etc). Anyway, if we are looking for clarification from Bradley about his gender in his own words - On both his FB profile and his deviantART profile (indeed inactive for some 5 years, so maybe the situation has changed since) http://d-icer.deviantart.com Bradley refers to himself as "Male" and again, publically includes a picture of himself "as a boy". In both instances he could have selected "female" or even "other" if that is how he indentified. The question has been answered by the man himself. This is a dumb debate. --PoizonMyst (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding more information to Background section

I am going to add the following information (in the future) to the Manning article.

"Manning is also a high school dropout. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333982/WikiLeaks-US-Army-soldier-Bradley-Manning-prime-suspect-leaks-case.html"

The information is well sourced, and educational background is considered important for the encyclopedia articles about most people. I won't add it right away because it looks like there is too much going on with this page at the moment (vandalism, reverts, etc.) but I will add it in a few days/weeks when that has calmed down.

If anyone has an objection, let me know.

Nationality

The article as it stands shows his nationality solely as American. Being born to a British mother after 1983, I understand he would have automatically acquired British Citizenship at birth British_nationality_law#From_1983. Do we have any information about whether he ever renounced his British citizenship? MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I recall. However, his military occupational specialty was intelligence analyst, which meant he would've had to obtain a Top Secret clearance. Those are not granted to foreign nationals, so I think it's safe to presume, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that he did not take any affirmative steps to obtain or confirm status as a British subject. Ray^Talk 15:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I found : "Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. " http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html . Glenn Greenwald wrote this . Either it is just a way to put some pressure or it is the plain truth : anyway it is quite strange that such an important point has not been decided yet ! Couldn't this point be recalled in a footnote with all the relevant wariness (" waiting for the point to be settled" )?( another important point : see new section down here) Trente7cinq (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

T serve in the military and when you join the military you must for lack of better words pledge your allegiance only to the US.TucsonDavidGOD BLESS THE U.S.A. 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Greenwald/Salon article, Manning is a dual national and so might be eligible for consular protection. Under the Master Nationality Rule now he is in the US he is not, but was the British Embassy in Iraq negligent before? Or is there an issue with detention by armed forces? Extraterritoriality say? Thanks BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he is a dual citizen, but he's the one who'd have to declare UK citizenship once he reached age 18. Is there WP:V to that effect? But even if he is a dualy, he's subject to the UCMJ. (See R.C.M. 202 in the Manual for Courts-Martial.) So, first he's got to say "I'm a British subject" and then the British Embassy can make their inquiries as they see fit. The MNR does not apply. --S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting little discussion also. On Manning's FB he lists both his location and hometown as Potomac, MD in the US. However, mentioned earlier was Bradley's need to declare citizenship of Britain at age 18. I agree though with the comments regarding his military service (both the need to pledge his allegiance and being an intelligence officer) ... but I think there are probably many people who work in US "intelligence" fields that are foreign to the country - for example translating or even gathering info. I don't really know ... these are just my personal thoughts. However, I can say that at 18 years old he must have identified, at least in part, with his British half. He has listed United Kingdom as his "Location" at deviantART http://d-icer.deviantart.com/ (account 5 years inactive tho) in addition to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in the US as his "Current Residence". Just thought I'd throw his voice into the mix. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoizonMyst (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

troubled childhood ?

The article has this , just this : "He had trouble fitting in at school in what former acquaintances have described as a troubled childhood" . Another article ( http://www.channel4.com/news/wikileaks-bradley-manning-set-up-own-facebook )has this , which is not quite the same : "If something went wrong, he would speak up about it if he didn't agree with something. He would even have altercations with teachers if he thought something was not right." or again "He was opinionated but not forward on it. If he truly believed in something, he would give an opinion. That's probably because he was right in his opinion." .Shouldn't then the article add something like " ...others say Manning could not but speak up whenever he saw something that hurted his sense of justice" ? Another article departing from the only "troubled childhood picture" : http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/ . And remember school is not always paradise !Trente7cinq (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he came of age during the most rapid contraction of the developed world's middle class since the 1930s. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ginger C. , tu sembles avoir un humour dévastateur , mais - désolé- je ne suis pas certain de bien comprendre : pourrais-tu être plus explicite ? Trente7cinq (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

["You seem to have a devastating wit, but - sorry - I'm not sure I understand: could you be more explicit?"] Translation provided by --S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I added today in the article : " Manning was described by others as speaking out whenever something hurted his sense of justice" which refered to http://www.channel4.com/news/wikileaks-bradley-manning-set-up-own-facebook ( by the way ,I'll create a new section downhere about facebook )Trente7cinq (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you S. Rich for the translation . (I answered your note on my talk page about my commenting in French ). Eventually this source of information has been taken into account , since the article now has "Some described Manning as wanting to right "the injustices of the world.""( which is a bit different of what I retained since it pulls the interpretation to some folly of grandeur !!! Not being a native english reader ,I won't make a point of this . Better than nothing )Trente7cinq (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to create another new section , I would like to mention the testimonies of Manning's Aunt and Manning's father as they were reported in Wired 6 june . These testimonies are lacking in the article ; they concern more the (young)adulthood than the childhood . And I don't know how to insert them in the text . Aunt :"they had discussed his plans to enroll in college when his four-year stint in the Army was set to end in October 2011. She described him as smart and seemingly untroubled, with a natural talent for computers and a keen interest in global politics." Father :"“I was in the military for five years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been ondrugs, alcohol, nothing.”" see here [ OK it is his father ! But what if he had said he didn't want to see his son anymore...?]. Since some sort of psychological portrait has already been sketched wouldn't it be fair to add these testimonies ? Trente7cinq (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange in the lede

I've removed a quotation from Julian Assange from the lede, and I gave the annotation "Rather prejudicial statement from a highly prejudiced party. Who represents only his own point of view."

As far as I'm aware Assange is not a player in this matter but he does stand to gain from focus on this prosecution. Otherwise I see no reason why his opinion would be cited (and indeed it doesn't seem to be cited elsewhere in the article.) --TS 05:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

date of arrest

and on May 26, Manning was seized by Army authorities and put into pre-trial detention in Kuwait. (published June 10, 2010 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/) . On the charge sheet here http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-army-manning-wont.html the date for the pre-trial confinement is 29 may . Shouldn't then the article put : "Bradley Manning was arrested on May 26 and then formally put in pre-trial confinement on may 29 " ?Trente7cinq (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the article just says May 2010, which seems to be supported by the sources. If you look at the Charge Sheet, which has the date of May 29, 2010, as the date Manning's pre-trial confinement was "imposed", it also says that he violated the law between November 19, 2009, and May 27, 2010. Depending on how you read the end date, the May 26 date could then be incorrect as he couldn't have been violating the law after he was arrested. The Wired source could also be interpreted to mean that he was confined on the same day as the arrest. It seems odd that he would be arrested on a particlar day but not confinied until a later day. What happened in between? In any event, is it that important to be precise about the dates of his arrest and confinement? Perhaps if other editors believe it's important to be more precise than the month, we could say late May 2010. The sources support that, and it narrows it down.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Today I proposed to add in footnote : "Manning was reported to have been seized by Army authorities on May 26 ( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/) whereas the charge sheet for his pre-trial confinement is dated 29 may ( http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-army-manning-wont.html )" ( sorry for spelling and syntax (?) )Trente7cinq (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Court martial

It is even more relevant that Manning is to be court-martialled under the Uniform Code of Military Justice whereby, as it currently stands, he may be detained indefinitely before trial, and when the trial does begin, the court panel members are selected by the convening authority, contrary to the principle of random jury selection that applies in civilian cases. (Please see also related discussion at bottom of page and supporting citations of US Code in main article (unless these have again been reverted, prior to reaching consensus; for which, see also cui bono principle)), BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Trial section

With ref to added/reverted section on court-martial process that ran as follows, but could be reworked as a paragraph:

Pre-Trial

Upper time limit on detention before trial

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice there is currently no upper time limit on detention before trial.

[improvement would see reference to Article 32: 'no charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made.' No upper time limit is placed on the detention of the accused before trial.] BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Trial

Composition of the Court

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice members of the court-martial are selected from members of the armed forces by the convening authority. This contrasts with the principle of random jury selection in civilian cases.

Charges

When convened, the court-martial is to hear the charges brought against Manning under Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 92 concerns the violation of regulations and dereliction in the performance of duties. Article 134 concerns violation of good order and discipline and conduct bringing discredit on the armed forces.

Ok, the new content strikes me as having some problems - specifically one of original research. Most of it is sourced to US codes namely the one determining the charges brought against Manning and the legal processes under which he is currently being detained and will, at some point in the future, be tried, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) with no secondary sourcing establishing relationship, significance and details in the specific case of Manning. I understand that User:ErrantX has greater knowledge of secondary legal sources than I: perhaps he would like to adduce those that are of greatest relevance here, rather than spending his time reverting other users' attempts to improve this and related articles. I currently am a little short of time myself, not least since I keep being called on to justify such contentious edits as providing references to legal codes and external auditors' audit opinions, both of which are being reverted prior to discussion and arrival at consensus, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Wording such as This contrasts with the principle of random jury selection in civilian cases makes me think this is just original research based on the factual knowledge that Manning will be subject to court martial. I'd just like to remind BrekekekexKoaxKoax of the problems of WP:OR and suggest he/she finds secondary sources. By providing at the outset a link to the jury selection page I hoped to have obviated the possibility of such a claim, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Also; there is a serious overkill of section headers in the section, In part these are an invitation for other users with greater knowledge than I to start fleshing out a section of an article which, I imagine, will see greater attention in the coming months; as such, establishing a skeleton framework early on might seem advisable, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) so I would remove almost all of them and switch to a paragraph, per our MOS advice. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it was now (rightly IMO) removed; but the above advice for BrekekekexKoaxKoax still stands as useful Thank you, I will try to rework the content in a paragraph if consensus is against section headers at this stage, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it as off topic. We have a wikilink to court-marrtial sic? I see, User:Srich32977, that you have been editing out other users' citation of the relevant legal literature on that page also, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) in the US already in article. Should every article about a soldier, sailor, airman or marine with legal problems have such a section? I think not.--S. Rich (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) User:Srich32977, why do you think the court-martial process, by which Bradley Manning is to be tried, is 'off topic', while you do not think fit to edit out discussion of his sexuality?, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The material about how military court-martials is interesting, but not directly related to Manning. His sexuality, on the other hand, deals with how well he fit in with the army and may give some layperson insight as to why he did (or did not) release the material to Wikilinks. [Wikiwhat? or 'I prefer to include irrelevant private anecdote rather than morally dubious legal code that fortunately does not yet apply in civilian cases', BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, and I am a layperson. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)] The argument that I improperly deleted one section (with good reason) without editing another section is based on Fallacy. --S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Alternatively, see principle of cui bono, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Content tells us to be clear and concise, avoid redundancy and stay on topic. The article references the specific UCMJ Articles and a link to the charge sheet is provided. (And wikilinks are provided.) The United States Constitution empowers Congress to establish the rules for armed forces and Congress set up the system for the military that has certain differences than civilian systems. [Thank you for your fine encapsulation: I have included this on the main page, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)] This article is not the proper forum to discuss (or even explain) those differences.--S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)17:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; let's just summarise the consequences for Bradley Manning in this article, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BrekekekexKoaxKoax, I'm having a little trouble parsing all of this; in future can you please add replies after a comment (not inside it) and add a line break so it appears on a new line :) Don't worry; we all run into these issues initially. On the matter at hand; the issue I had with the content is not so much where it is sourced, but of relevance. So, the fact of how he will be court martialled might be relevant - but we decide that using secondary sources which link Manning to these other facts. Even if we have a source that says "manning will be tried under code XYZ", the content or analysis of that code is outside the scope of this article. The technical details of a court martial, unless they are unique in this case, is beyond the scope also. We have articles that should cover them --Errant ^(chat!) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We do have such a summary based on a RS -- he's looking at 50+ years in the grey bar hotel.--S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering, with reference to your defence of the inclusion of private anecdote relating to sexuality, which may or not provide germane insight to your 'layperson', whether for the same reasons some insight into the consequences for Manning of the court-martial process under the relevant US Code, namely that he may be detained indefinitely before trial and the court panel members are selected by the convening authority, might also warrant inclusion. I would have thought Corporal Punishment (Blackadder) would be at least as relevant a reference in this light as some of those you are evidently happy with. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reaction: further legal protection for whistleblowers

Now if Manning's counsel were to present a whistleblower protection defense as part of their defense strategy, then this material would apply. Two problems: 1. we have no WP:RS that says they are planning to do so. 2. In leaking 100,000-200,000+ documents, there is no way that he could say "I was legally blowing the whistle regarding the thousands of topics to which I only had tangential information." As far as the proposed admends to the law, they can be discussed in that article -- not here.--S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting points, any other views? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no way it applies here: Department of Defense Whistleblower Program

I can't imagine how they'd be planning to use it in his defense. He's not a real "whistleblower."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you Google Ellsberg Manning xerox you can find plentiful secondary sources commenting on the parallels between the two whistleblowing cases and that it is just a function of technology that the scale is so increased, as Ellsberg himself has discussed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ellsberg, amongst others, also comments that the form of dissemination chosen helps make the information available to the public in a timely manner. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography and and article on whistleblower protection falls outside the scope of WP:BLP. Indeed, it's inclusion is synthesis. V7-sport (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is synthesis, since the links are explicitly drawn by the secondary sources cited and since removed. Please refresh knowledge of WP:BLP before claiming it in defence of your deletions. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the very definition of synthesis. "Synthesis of published material that advances a position, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". The inclusion of the "whistleblower" reference indicates that he is a whistleblower entitled to protections as such instead of a "traitor" which is how others view him.V7-sport (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is any synthesis, this is by the sources cited; please take up issue with eg Washington Post. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Can more users please join in the discussion here, as currently there is no mention in the article of new measures to protect whistleblowers, on the grounds of 'consensus'. Explicit connections with Manning are numerous in the secondary literature (Google). This one for instance appears to make the connection: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106998.html Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new section on broader reception of and reaction to Manning: eg Manning as hero

I understand that the discipline and punish section 'Arrest, criminal charges, and possible court-martial' is of key relevance to Manning's freedom, but that is just one part of the reaction to his alleged whistleblowing (that of the embarrassed institution). Any takers for a further section on how other more diverse sectors of public opinion such as Berkeley City Council, Assange, Daniel Ellsberg, Facebook user groups etc are rallying around and saying, if Manning was indeed involved in what is alleged, then he is an 'unparalleled hero'? I understand that the basis for such calls is his alleged contribution to the anti-war movement as well as to transparency and accountability in government etc. Perhaps both sides could be included in a broader 'reaction to alleged disclosure' section, to keep things NPOV. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are merely editors -- WP:ISNOT restricts what we can include. So adding stuff from Facebook, the Peoples Republic of Berkeley, manning.org, etc. does not work. (For balance note that some of the earlier edits which deleted headline grabbing politicians who called for his execution.) Regarding the "embarrassed institution", I venture that the USG is more embarrassed that the classified material got into his hands. Much, much, much of the material (I understand) was classified because it dealt with operational details, and the release of the data makes it very difficult for our servicemembers to conduct their military operations against a dangerous enemy. Time is needed to sort these issues out.--S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how much of your rhetoric relates to Bradley Manning, but have heard it ventured that our brave servicemembers, to no fault of their own, have been involved in illegal wars. I imagine that the enemy is indeed 'dangerous' if so many of our servicemembers' lives, and so much public money, is being invested in their pursuit. I would be very interested to see specific references as to how exactly the data makes it difficult for military operations to be conducted - unless you mean politically and in the light of public opinion back home.

I understand from the Bradley Manning article that the classified material he is alleged to have disclosed in fact relates less directly to operational details. Other than for the Collateral Murder video, the disclosure in question is of diplomatic cables. I understand that these, e pluribus unum, reveal the US as using 'spying, threats and promises of aid' to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord on climate change, under which the US emissions pledge was the lowest by any leading nation. I imagine Time is indeed needed to sort these issues out. I also wonder whether we may be acting as editors or censors. Again may I refer you to cui bono.

For an alternative position to that of the broader embarrassed institution you venture, may I refer you to that of the founder of the whisteblowing organisation also currently under its investigation, namely that authoritarian power is maintained by want of knowledge. I understand Machiavelli once argued similarly.

I fear however we may be being distracted. In this article we must adhere to what relates most directly to Bradley Manning. Indeed you have highlighted this to me in defence of your removal of sections of US legal code that highlight how Bradley Manning may be detained indefinitely before trial, inter alia. As such, I would again venture that presenting both sides of the reception of and reaction to Bradley Manning's alleged contributions to the anti-war movement, transparency and accountability in government etc might help keep things NPOV. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide secondary sources on the material you feel needs more weight. Abductive (reasoning) 10:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

When I last looked, a Google search for 'Bradley Manning hero' documents some 1,020,000 results. I don't know whether this in itself counts as a secondary source, but it does indeed relate information originally presented elsewhere, the definition given within secondary sources. At least it helps suggest that the idea of Bradley Manning as hero is seeing some public debate, and that as such some form of inclusion may not necessarily contravene WP:undue weight.

It does, however, make initial selection of the most appropriate secondary source to cite rather problematic. Nevertheless, for those proponents I mentioned previously:

- Berkeley City Council (noted to be politically liberal and sometimes an advocate for progressive ideals): http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/14/meola.bradley.manning/?hpt=Sbin

- Julian Assange (founder and editor of whistleblowing site WikiLeaks): http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-live-online-answers

- Daniel Ellsberg (former US military analyst and celebrated Pentagon Papers whistleblower, with parallels to own case):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081305820.html

For fuller interview with media comment and analysis see also video at http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers (plays after ad) 44:20 to end, 48:22 for 'hero'.

- Facebook, rallies etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11324925 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/bradley-manning-campaign-michael-moore

I understand that care is taken to clarify that Bradley Manning is a hero if he is shown to be the one responsible for the disclosure, a distinction made also by those calling for him to be imprisoned for 50+ years for the same services. I understand that this apparent uncertainty (and reluctance to take measures that may transpire to have been at least irresponsible and premature) does not affect his current indefinite detention before trial in conditions some commentators have likened to torture:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

On topics previously under discussion, but seemingly now deemed closed with the related reverts already made:

- Bradley Manning & current provisions of UCMJ re court-martial process (self-selected court, no upper time limit for detention before trial): am currently struggling to find secondary sources, but will post asap. Somewhat bizarrely, even a legal update by Manning's own attorney fails to highlight these basic points: http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/BradleyManningLegalUpdate.htm

- Bradley Manning & protection for whistleblowers http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106998.html (with reference to the argument above that Manning is not a 'real whistleblower' because of the scale of his alleged disclosure, Ellsberg at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk (2:22 on) suggests this is a function of technology (he was Xeroxing)).

Out of interest, I stumbled upon this too (haven't had a chance to digest fully, but looks intriguing at the outset):

http://warisacrime.org/content/how-report-torture-bradley-manning-united-nations

Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I fear your viewpoint is prejudiced -- you refer to "illegal wars". The Constitution does not say "Congress shall have the Power to issue Declarations of War." Rather, it has the power "To declare War". People misread this and think just because Congress has not issued a "Declaration of War" that it has not authorized fighting, military action, war, etc. However, in both Afghanistan & Iraq, in the Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, and others, Congress said "Go to it!" and then funded the wars. With this in mind, the wars were entirely legal. (And no competent court has ruled (or could rule) otherwise.) And the servicemembers who fought and died did so with no fault attached in any sense of the word. Please accept the fact that the wars are legal -- from that point, we can have discussions and articles that address how well the wars were fought, the reasons behind the wars, the casualties and consequences, etc. of the wars. (To restate this, you cannot start off saying "I think the wars are illegal." and then go on to add POV to articles saying "Manning is considered a hero by some." This kind of editing serves to bolster POV. But the topics of legality, conduct, casualties, etc. are outside the scope of Bradley Manning's involvement and activity in the war.--S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye. Which is why all I am suggesting, rather than discussion of these extraneous topics, is inclusion of/incorporation within a section on broader reactions to Manning than solely that of the embarrassed institution. I hope I have provided sufficient documentation for the existence and prevalence of such alternative viewpoints. And my own viewpoints, which may or may not be as you have described, are irrelevant in this. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, why is my attempted contribution, after I have gone through lengthy discussion, providing many reliable sources, 'pending review', while those of other users wbo appear to have made considerably less effort to ensure the reaction section, amongst others, is kept NPOV are 'automatically accepted'? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Because this page is protected by Pending Changes. As you are not yet an autoconfirmed user any edits you make to this article must be accepted by a reviewer. I have gone out on a limb and accepted your change because it does not violate policy, other editors may disagree with your change and choose to re-edit or undo your actions. I which case you should make further attempts to reach consensus on this talk page. Pol430 talk to me 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I used to be, and seemingly am again, but thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:2010 in American politics

The category is for "Articles and events specifically related to the year 2010 in American politics." Manning is the only individual listed. How was he as an individual specifically related to the year 2010 in American politics? Everything else in the category, including the subcategories, deals with the elections and election issues. --S. Rich (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I see attempts to include WikiLeaks within the 'Political Scandals in the US' category have met with a similar reaction, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Political prisoners? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Absence of photograph

Is a pic of 'our Brad' with a smile omitted/excluded lest, like that of politicians with their families on election day, it might elicit sympathy and support? Anyone think one should be included? (See eg Sarah Palin for how persuasive these may be, with all those smiles, and how carefully curated is the public image of certain individuals.) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

photo not included because we do not have one without copyright issues. See:[4] --S. Rich (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove the new image added because it is not public domain as asserted on the commons upload page. For a start it is based on the non-free image that Srich has linked to a discussion about. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the image is from http://www.bradleymanning.org/, which states 'All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated'. I believe there is no contrary indication. I also believe, if you refer to the about section of said website, that a number of high-profile legal representatives are involved, who presumably know what they are talking about. Until it is proven otherwise, I think we should prefer such a well-backed, public declaration that the image is in the public domain to Srich's own views on the matter. Once you are satisfied, please reinstate. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, on further reflection, it is a more powerful statement if he remains faceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The manning.org is not a Reliable Source (W:RS), so their statements that the images are in the public domain requires confirmation. The widely distributed image of smiling Manning has shown up as a copyrighted picture from the AP, so using it (cropped, changed, overlayed, etc.) is not acceptable under WP:COPYVIO.--S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Brek: Please bear in mind that Wikipedia's goal is not to make a "powerful statement", but to be encyclopedic.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

David E. Coombs's site

David Coombs ,Manning's attorney has issued some information that could be useful for this article ( provided that the bias is clearly exposed). If I searched this discussion page well , his site has never been cited yet . Never too late : http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/ and http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/article-13-and-pfc-bradley-manning.html Trente7cinq (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- Mr. Coombs is not a WP:RS (not a published source). See: WP:BLPSPS.--S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Article 13 ref, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposing your reading of the rules is correct , David Coombs 's site could be used , not in the article itself but in this discussion page as a tool for clarifying some questions .For example : PFC Bradley Manning, unlike his civilian counterpart, is afforded no civil remedy for illegal restraint under either the Federal Civil Rights Act or the Federal Tort Claims Act. Similarly, the protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Article 55 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not generally apply prior to a court-martial. Thus, the only judicial recourse that is available is under Article 13 of the UCMJ. this makes clear that military facilities are not subjected to the same laws than civilian ones ( which is obvious but has to be explained and precised in the article ).Sincerly Trente7cinq (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Contextual information regarding solitary confinement by APA & ICRC

To assess the legal and medical context of prolonged 23 hour/day solitary confinement, an authoritative source is required; otherwise, the significance of such isolation is left to the uninformed imagination. Consider these obvious questions:

• Is isolation like this controversial for some reason?
• If so, on what grounds?

It turns out that relevant and credible institutions have spoken on this topic:

• The ICRC has made prior statements that detentions of this nature violate the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. This is their realm of authority.
• In the United States, the APA is recognized as one of the leading institutions regarding human psychology. While not uncontroversial, it is clear that the views of the APA matter a great deal within the United States, both legally and socially.

By analogy, suppose this were an article about a person who'd been restricted to 100 mg of potassium per day for an extended period of time. Would this imply life-endangering dietary torture, or nothing at all? Most people would not know. Experts might have a range of opinions in borderline cases, but having in-context citations of one or more leading figures is clearly more helpful to the reader than just staring at a raw number.

By the same reasoning, in order to lend some understanding of the legal/medical implications of prolonged 23 hour/day isolation, some authority must be cited; I've cited the ICRC and APA because they seem both authoritative and influential. If you think others apply, please add them.

Note: the Wikipedia deletion policy encourages you to repair any imbalance you might perceive by enriching the article further, rather than removing well-documented and relevant content... particularly when the list of references already in place is short or non-existent. For this reason, I've undone the earlier reversion by Bbb23. JonDePlume (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Drawing an analogy between Bradley Manning and Supermax prisons is POV, pure and simple. For one thing, Manning has visitors who purportedly visit him in his cell regularly. A Supermax prison has no such provision. Supermax prisons are for extremely violent, nasty people, and Manning is not treated in such a fashion as per his visitors. Moreover, the wikipedia supermax article says there is only one such facility in the federal system (albeit not a RS). Not to say that Manning's conditions are less than desirable, but one would think his lawyers would be all over the media (and in the courts) complaining if he was in supermax conditions. But have they? No. And the reason is simple -- his confinement meets acceptable standards. With this in mind, we cannot permit our BLP to go off on a tangent drawing false analogies and then discussing the consequences of supermax confinement. --S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The salient point is that both Supermax and Manning's confinement involve:

• Extended periods of strict isolation (23 hours/day for several months without interruption)
• Strict limitations on exercise (one solitary hour per day of walking in a confined figure 8 pattern)
• Intermittent sleep interruption + enforced wakefulness
• Constant surveillance

These are the factors deemed by the APA to cause psychological harm; the number of officially designated supermax facilities in the United States, and/or the nastiness/violence of the people usually placed in them has nothing to do effects of extreme isolation itself. Because both Manning's imprisonment and supermax both contain all these elements, there's nothing "POV" about citing relevant medical opinion on the topic. To the contrary, the targeted removal of such material could quite easily be interpreted as a politically motivated censorship of expert testimony. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to an absence of objections within the media; there are many critical articles and prominent figures who have raised serious concerns. This is why the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy in Geneva has announced is reviewing a complaint filed on behalf of Manning. Apparently, he's taking this matter quite seriously, and is concerned enough about what he's heard to investigate. Search google with terms like "Amnesty International solitary confinement", or "solitary confinement effects" for relevant articles. There are plenty of examples. You may also be interested in an Associated Press article that appeared in the Washington Post: UN looking into WikiLeaks suspect's treatment. My point is that because there are a large number of prominent figures and organizations expressing the seriousness of long-term 23 hour/day solitary confinement, the APA's prior commentary on exactly this same level of prolonged isolation is indeed relevant. The ICRC judgment is too, as this also relates to the level and duration of prisoner isolation, not the reasons for it, or the national origins of those involved. JonDePlume (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this content belongs at all. We should be reporting on the facts of Manning's confinement (we already do enough remote reporting on what friends of his say), not the opinions of others as to his conditions and what they might mean, and whether they violate human rights, or whether they violate military law or civil law or whatever. This article should not be a forum for this sort of thing. Because I don't think it belongs in the article at all, I am not in favor of trying to find some counterbalance to the opinions expressed. They simply don't belong here.

My understanding is that many prisons in the U.S. put prisoners in isolation (in California, for example, it's called administrative segregation) where the prisoner is kept in his cell for 23 out of 24 hours. For example, here's a quote from a federal case: "In administrative segregation, plaintiff alleges that he is confined to his cell 23-24 hours per day, and he faces many more restrictions than the general prison population." Now, under U.S. civil law (I don't know much about military law), prisoners can challenge these conditions, and perhaps they'll prevail, and perhaps they won't - it tends to be a fact-intensive inquiry. And certainly there are many human rights organizations and law professors and individuals who believe that such conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The question is not whether such a debate exists, but whether opinion about these issues belongs in this article. In my view, it does not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An important national and international question regarding Bradley Manning as a subject is: "does his treatment constitute torture?" The high-profile nature of this debate in connection to him as an individual is a noteworthy fact. Because of his actions, Manning is a precedent-setting historical figure; hence, the precedents surrounding his case are highly relevant to the article. For example, The Office of The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has been involved. Manfred Nowak is the UN's top investigator charged with assessing complaints on behalf of alleged victims of human rights violations. This immediately raises the question: "what is it about 23 hour/day solitary confinement for nearly seven months that could have triggered such an investigation?" For that reason, legal and medical background information relating to why the investigation is conducted becomes highly relevant in-context. The ICRC and the APA aren't Bradley Manning's friends. No mention was made of any particular opinion regarding Manning himself, pro or con. The references I've provided are not debating the finer points "right" or "wrong". They simply provide legal and medical context that explain the stated motivation behind why this top-level UN human rights rapporteur is conducting such an investigation. Manfred Nowak taking the allegations of potential human rights violations seriously precisely because of such medical opinions and legal precedents, so it's important to say what they actually are. If you personally believe only the political dimension of the investigation is relevant (not motivating medical or legal findings), we'll need to respectfully disagree. That said, it seems obvious Wikipedia's deletion policy should be our guide, and it is clear enough to make the case for inclusion stronger than removal here. JonDePlume (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The investigation by Nowak was prompted by a complaint by one of Manning's supporters. I have no idea how "seriously" Nowak is taking the complaint by his willingness to investigate. Different agencies have different thresholds for moving from complaint to investigation. My belief is not that only the political dimension is relevant. In fact, I'm trying to keep the article clear of political commentary. Rather, my view is the article should report on facts, not opinions about what those facts mean, unless those opinions are official. Thus, for example, a medical finding by a doctor about the state of Manning's health could be relevant. A legal finding by a court of law (not legal speculation by a lawyer) could be relevant. If we delve into what human rights organizations are saying about Manning's captivity, we open the door up to making this article into a forum for debate about the treatment of prisoners using Manning as a trigger point. That, in my view, is, at least at this point, inappropriate on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I respect your intentions as far as helping to prevent this article from devolving into factional shouting match. I ask you to respect my intention that this article does not become a disjointed collection of seemingly unrelated events. Keeping the article clear of political commentary is one thing, but actively deleting the legal and medical context of the UN investigation quite another, particularly when the parties involved play a key role in guiding the General Assembly. Human rights investigations typically begin by a complaint lodged by either the alleged victim, or an advocate. There is nothing odd about that. Speculation about what thresholds are in place at the UN is tangential. Whatever the UN standards might be, they were satisfied. In summary:

• We don't know if the claims made by Bradley Manning, David House and/or David Coombs are accurate.
• Not everybody agrees on what constitutes torture and/or a human rights abuse.
• On the basis of the claims made, the top UN expert on torture, Manfred Nowak was sent to investigate.

Now, let's suppose for a moment that the claims made did not amount to torture an anybody's opinion at the UN. In that case, there would be no point in having someone investigate torture at all, because nothing associated with it in anybody's view would have been alleged. Therefore, the opinions of at least some sufficiently motivating constituency does view the allegations as possibly amounting to torture, and would be taken seriously at the UN if true. That said:

• The APA is an accredited NGO at the United Nations. APA representatives collaborate to identify issues, organize programs, and draft statements that bring psychological science and a psychological perspective to bear on global UN policies and programs. See APA at the United Nations for details.
• The International Committee of the Red Cross has had official observer status at the UN since 1990, and is one of the most widely recognized organizations in the world. Their opinion about what constitutes torture is germane to the investigation exactly because of their privileged standing within the General Assembly.

Some information must be provided that connects the allegations made with the assignment of top UN expert on torture, Manfred Nowak. This isn't equivalent to a debate on the stance of the APA or ICRC regarding the definition of torture. Only brief, relevant legal/medical precedence were cited (not argument or testimony) in a short connecting paragraph. Each reference pertains to what it is about the allegations, in the opinion of those who shape the policy of the UN on these matters, might constitute a violation worthy of dispatching a special rapporteur. Nothing more, nothing less. JonDePlume (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.ART. 13 of UCMJ concerning Punishment prohibited before trial see: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-13.htm Trente7cinq (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Trente7cinq, the topic of this thread is whether or not it's proper to add contextual information regarding whether extended 23 hour/day solitary could be considered as torture by the UN; it's not a general discussion of what level of punishment is legal or proper according to US law. Nevertheless, the link was interesting.... Happy holidays! JonDePlume (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

About : Calls for recognition as hero

Noam Chomsky is said to have expressed support for Manning :would someone find a serious reference for that ?Trente7cinq (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So we purge the governments reaction to the release of classified information as POV and irrelivant but we search out Noam Chomsky... V7-sport (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that Chomsky's expression of support for Manning has any relevance to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)-

As per previous discussion cited below I'm pulling the current "reactions" section for the same reasons. V7-sport (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The old removed section is completely different from the current section; in particular, it has little to do directly with Manning (barely mentioned him). The current section, on the other hand, is directly related to Manning. It only has a few parts, one about Manning's stated intentions, one about the rallies, and one about Assange. Based on these differences, I don't think the archived discussion applies to the section. For those reasons, I'm going to revert your change. If you disagree, please respond here so the editors can reach some consensus on what belongs and what doesn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached. The old reactions section was removed for the identical reasons I removed the new one. It was information "added here to advance a point" WP:SOAPBOX, it could be viewed as synthesis, it gives undue weight to people who are not relevant to manning and his dilemma. Ray Yang summed it up est when he stated: "This is a biography - let's leave the discussion of the political commentary to a page on the events themselves." This is a biography and has to conform to WP:BLP standards, IE, no editorials. V7-sport (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How is information about what Manning wanted to achieve political commentary? How is a report on rallies held in support of Manning political commentary? Even the Assange comment, which is my least favorite part of the section, is not precisely political commentary, although it comes closer. Wikipedia is not endorsing any point of view by reporting on these events. Nor is the section an editorial. Now, it would be completely fair to add information to the section if there have also been rallies against Manning, but a rally is a rally. I don't see the same rationale (as before) applying here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you've reverted again. I really wish you'd wait for others to discuss this before deciding on your own that the rationale previously used for a section applies to a completely different section. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but, at least procedurally, your latest reversion in particular is inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person, as such it has a higher threshold of inclusion then a regular article. The "information about what Manning wanted to achieve" is sourced from editorials and can't be included in a BLP. The "rallies held in support of Manning" are not mannings actions and included to advance a POV, and yes, Assange's comment editorializing and meant to advance a position. I am going to revert this under the "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." This is not an inappropriate reversion for a biography of a living person and the reasoning is identical to the previous consensus. V7-sport (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The source in support of what Manning wanted to achieve is an opinion piece, but the assertions in the article are statements of fact within the piece (including quotes). The rallies are arguably political as they support Manning, but they are public rallies, not the opinion of a political commentator; therefore, as events, it's fair to report on them. Your basis for reversion is quite flawed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Respectfully; this is a Biography of a living person. I understand that opinions can differ, indeed, as you can see below I started arguing on the opposite side of the issue, but according to WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The editorials fail BLP reliable sources guidelines and the comment was removed to maintain a neutral POV. V7-sport (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a quotation, reference to rallies, and suggestions that the US official position (solitary confinement without trial) is not necessarily the only possible one. The sources for this, namely CNN, The Guardian, and video footage (on Democracy Now) are presumably sufficiently reliable. Reinstatement time methinks, 94.172.30.185 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

His confinement is pending trial, secondly those are editorials, which would be fine if the subject of the page was "the arrest of bradley manning" however since this s a biography of a living person (yes, I know that i am repeating myself) the standards are more stringent for inclusion. Please see the archived section below. V7-sport (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. And how do you know I'm a "sir"? :-) In any event, at least one other editor doesn't appear to agree with your views. But, at the risk of repeating myself, I don't intend to edit war with you, so I'll let this percolate a bit to see if it can be straightened out in a more collaborative fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry If I got the gender wrong. V7-sport (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you got it wrong. I was just poking fun at the fact that often on Wikipedia we don't know the gender of editors, and we're forced to either keep repeating the editor's username or resort to "pronouns" like s/he.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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? Ray^Talk 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System

In Acquisition and disclosure of classified material nothing is said about the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System ? see : "Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ ( by the way shouldn't it be mentionned that Wired was the first to issue the information ....and Kevin Poulsen the journalist ? )Trente7cinq (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I eventually added today "He was also said to have had access to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System " referencing to "Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter (2010 6 6)U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe"

Perhaps it could be usefull to introduce a short footnote explaining why it was apparently so easy to access to such ressources .For example ,this BBC articlehas :""After the events of 11 September 2001, agencies across the federal government understood that greater information sharing was vital to protecting our national security interests. " whereas "He told the BBC that the possibility that someone in a base in Iraq could potentially access cables about Iceland violated, the principle of "need to know" in intelligence."Trente7cinq (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Trente7cinq (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What is also interesting is the supposed access to Top Secret info. The vetting process for that sort of clearance is extensive. With Manning's unsettled childhood and discipline problems earlier in his enlistment, a TS clearance would have been problematic and/or pulled. More likely he did not have TS clearance and the info saying he did is incorrect. But Wikipedia is not about truth, so no problem if this very small bit of information persists. --S. Rich (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

S.Rich , Indeed one could wonder how the recruitment is done ( an exception !?). Some valuable infos on how Manning is supposed to have proceeded here : http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/wikileaks-one-analyst-so-many-documents/67181/ ; for example :"To transfer information from the SIPRNet to unclassified networks, analysts like Manning use proprietary computers called SNAP. About 1,500 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to TeleCommunications Systems, the company that builds them. SNAP, which stands for SIPR-NIPR Access Point, "allows you to bring stuff from the low side to the high side and vice versa, securely," one current user of the program said." Trente7cinq (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Nowak/Juan Méndez/...

In the article , it is written Former United Nations Special Rapporteur[30] Manfred Nowak is looking into allegations... . Why "former" ? :the Whashington Post used as a reference just has : "The office of Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture in Geneva" . Effectively ,here ( http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/torture/rapporteur/ )Nowak's mandate came to an end 31 October 2010 ( Juan Méndez holds the post now). It is two months from now !?? Other sources do have Juan Mendez as the man in charge with this Inquiry , whereas according to this quite official site (http://www.military.com/news/article/un-denies-manning-brig-investigation.html ) :A spokeswoman for the U.N.’s Human Rights office in Geneva said the agency has not officially asked anyone to look into the jail conditions of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, currently held awaiting court-martial in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.“Information has been received [about Manning] but we can’t talk about what it is and the methodology” of getting it, Sonya Cronin said....Cronin said in a telephone interview today that Mendez “has not even been officially advised of this case yet.”. Perhaps it should be wise to write something like :" Although some renowned newspapers have announced a UN inquiry ,the agency has not officially asked anyone to look into the jail conditions of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning" Trente7cinq (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia (editor) spin -- people complain about "media spin", but this stuff about the UNSR investigating the US Army and USMC is malarkey. The news story said the office of Nowak, the former UNSR, had been asked by a Manning supporter to investigate and the office said it would look into the request. But the news headline then says the United Nations is investigating! And of course with this backs up the POV editors come on in and say that Manning is suffering torture, psychological damage, inhumane conditions, etc. to the point where the International Community is about to condemn the United States! But isn't it amazing how and why this "American Bastille" (e.g., the Brig) is so accessible to Manning's visitors and supporters? Don't the goons (opps, guards) know that the stories about the thumb screws will come out? This stuff makes me wonder about the source that Greenwald purports to have, and why it has been put into the article as a RS?--S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

S.Rich ,information has to be checked indeed ,and sometimes renowned or otherwise trustworthy newspapers can make errors . I agree with you on that point .But I should add that ...I could not find the sources of military.com either ! I browsed on sonya/sonia Cronin without finding anything ( sorry I don't have her telephone number !).Trente7cinq (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I, too, Googled Sonia Cronin without results. But here is info on the Military.com editor -- http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,BJordan_Index,00.html. The bigger point I am trying to make is how POV pervades/infects these edits. The example is shown in this instance where one supporter of Manning asks the office of Nowak (the former UNSR) to investigate and then the story (and the article no less) is that the United Nations itself is investigating! --S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Article stability

I am frustrated by the lack of stablility of this article. Even taking into account that Manning is a highly controversial figure and therefore bound to engender all sorts of conflicting responses by Wikipedia editors, the article is a moving target, leaving me reluctant to edit it in any significant way because who knows who will do what next. For example, V7-sport strongly believed that the entire Reaction section (which is now back to the truly awful subsection header "Calls for recognition as hero") was a BLP violation and that he could remove it without discussion. I discussed this issue with V7, but no one else joined in. Now, someone reverted V7 (I haven't bothered to figure out by whom) and, not only put back the removed material but also restored it to an earlier version before I reorganized the article and S. Rich reorganized it still further. Of course, V7 may still come back and revert again as I can't tell if V7 has been on Wikipedia since the latest reversion of his reversion of my reversion - well, you get the idea.

And that's just one example of the constantly shifting sands in this article. Overall, there needs to be more discussion and fewer changes without consensus, unless we're talking about small changes or obvious errors.

As for the present state of the article, here are my thoughts:

• The section headings need to be changed, more along the lines of what I did, and the appropriate material needs to be moved to the appropriate sections, along the lines of what S. Rich did. The arrest section should be standalone. Except in the broadest sense, it's not a "reaction" and shouldn't be handled as such. The subsection Calls for recognition as a hero, as I already stated, is so POV-sounding on the surface that it must be changed. Even if you think it's not POV, it's certainly not encyclopedic.

• Manning's thoughts about what he hoped to achieve should remain. Even though the source is an opinion piece, they are statements of fact within the opinion piece, and they are certainly of interest in shedding light on his motives, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not.

• As to the other info in the "hero" section now, I would leave the rallies and remove the stuff about Ellsberg and Assange. I don't think it's relevant that Ellsberg and Assange think Manning is a "hero", anymore than I think it's relevant that so-and-so thinks Manning is a villain. The only reason that the rallies are relevant, even though they, too, express political views, is because they are rallies of large groups of people, not just individuals, and because, as events, they are more noteworthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

When I see someone saying that rallies held all over the world expressing support of a single individual who has, to some extent, changed the course of world history, are only "relevant" because they were "large groups of people", I can't help but wonder what the point is to that. Do you mean that if there were 1000 rallies of 5 people, each that isn't relevant?

When we're splitting hairs to try to remove the basic information ABOUT facts which happen to show support for the individual, I have concerns.

Ellsberg and Chomsky are household names in many parts of the world -- when Hollywood stars or political icons speak out for an individual being held in custody, it can serve to CHANGE the outcome of that individual's situation. That's relevant. I think both those extremely well known individuals who speak FOR and AGAINST should be noted. Go find the 3 opposite ones and post their words along with Chomsky, Ellsberg and Assange. AlamedaReader (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because they are household names (who are known for pushing opinion) doesn't merit inclusion. And it is definitely not the job of an encyclopedia to job to "change the outcome of an individuals situation". WP:SOAP applies. V7-sport (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:V7-sport, this appears to be another misquotation and incorrect citation of WP policies. User:AlamedaReader has pointed out the reasons why particularly well-informed commentators' views may be notable and relevant, and I don't think there is any suggestion of his getting up on a soap box and propounding his own views, nor is he making any assertion as to the function of an encyclopaedia. He seems to be suggesting that relevant material FOR and AGAINST be included. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:V7-sport: I am concerned you are unilaterally reverting other users' edits without prior discussion or reference to the discussion page, and indeed are supporting your contentious edits with seemingly bogus references to WP policies (BLP, original research, soap etc). By removing the sections on motivation, well-referenced, and reaction by anyone other than the, obviously somewhat embarrassed, US military I think the most apposite WP policy to cite is that of NPOV. Please refer to and engage in the discussion. And how exactly do BLP, original research, and soap support your edits? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have actually explained the edits I have made and have contacted you on your user page to do so. There is nothing bogus about reverting POV edits or poorly sourced edits on a BLP. See your talk page or I'll cut and paste here if you wish.V7-sport (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments you made subsequent to my query here. But, Ellsberg's words, for instance, were referenced to a video showing Ellsberg delivering Ellsberg's cited words. Don't see how that is unsourced, or poorly-sourced, or indeed in violation of BLP. References to BBC website, Guardian website, CNN about rallies, calls for support by influential commentators, all similarly deleted. Don't quite get how these are unsourced, poorly-sourced, or in violation of BLP. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cut in part from my response on your talk page: "Regardless, have a look at the archived portion of the Manning talk page for a previous discussion on the inclusion of reactions by uninvolved 3rd parties in a BLP. You will see that I initially argued for their inclusion, however i was persuaded that I was incorrect in the final consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#Reactions--U.S._Government_subsection_removal Ellesburg would be fine for inclusion if he knew manning or was a part of the infrmation release or even cited as an inspiration for it in terms of a biography. If the page was, say, "the arrest of Bradley manning" then he would be fair game. (of course that would also open up the page to speculation about his sexuality, motivations, punishment, possible other charges, etc. I think this was made into a biography in order to prevent it from degenerating into that. Putting it bluntly with no offense intended but to get some real clarity: It excludes the calls for him to be lynched because he is a gay traitor but it also eliminates the calls by Chomsky to canonize him because he screwed the USA.) Honestly, i think it is the right approach to follow the BLP guidelines. Indeed, in this case it is the parameters that we have to operate in. Hope this makes sense.V7-sport (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this archived discussion is especially germane here; I think the archived discussion relates primarily to WP:Synthesis, whereas we are here discussing WP:NPOV. The former references have now been replaced by many relating explicitly to Manning.

I also don't see anything on the matter by Chomsky about screwing the USA. I think Chomsky has said, re the cables Manning is alleged to have disclosed, 'Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service.' (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20101130.htm) I think this is very, very different from your suggestion. Chomsky is presumably referring to accountability, transparency etc, which have been a fundamental feature of progressive democracies since at least fifth-century BC Athens with its concept and institution of ευθυναι. I think this is why, at least in some circles that are pro-democracy, Manning is getting calls for support. And I think this might need to be included in the article, as we have Manning's alleged motivation, we have calls for support by those who have already helped bring one war to an end (Vietnam) by exposing the scale of government lies (see Pentagon Papers), we have reliable sources, we have due weight. We need to adduce the right material, otherwise we are guilty of synthesis, but this I believe has already been done (yet, I see, reverted). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is germane as is the reasoning for making this a biography rather then an article on manning's arrest. As such it should be kept on topic and in line with Wiki's guidelines. V7-sport (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Finding contrary opinions about Manning was not difficult for some editors -- many politicians spoke up calling for his execution, etc. Those contentious entries were removed. So, is Alameda suggesting that statements "for" an individual be left in and statements "against" be removed? I do not think so. But leaving in the "for" stuff gives us a WP:BALANCE problem. (So, looks like it's time for another tag!)--S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Srich, I think User:AlamedaReader has just suggested that those who speak FOR and AGAINST should be noted. Where these have already been researched, let's include them. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Writing from France ,where articles in French on Manning are very scarce ( but very numerous on Assange/Wikileaks ), I would be of opinion to report FOR/AGAINST arguments so that non native english speaker could have a quick overview of the case and the debates it induces ( by the way, about "And it is definitely not the job of an encyclopedia to job to "change the outcome of an individuals situation"" OK about the change but : is the Manning Case just "an individual situation" ? ...) .I am conscious that this could impair the stability of the article : couldn't special editing measures be taken concerning the "Calls for recognition as hero" section ? Trente7cinq (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My changes

Before (800 words); after (2,015 words).

• I've added quite a bit of detail about his early life, and some of the material from the chats.
• I've added infobox person, which has better parameters.
• I've made the references and date formats consistent, and checked all the sources (some had been added with the wrong headline, perhaps because the news organization had changed it; and some dates were written day first, and others month first).
• I've removed some tertiary sources, and tried to focus on the sources doing the initial, or major, reporting.
• I've delinked, per OVERLINK.
• I've added some intext attribution.
• I've removed the multiple ref tags, and used citation bundling where more than one source was useful for the same point.
• I've added a photograph of Adrian Lamo, and I'm about to look for one of Manning; we should be able to claim fair use.
• And generally I tidied some of the writing and tried to clarify the narrative flow.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Image added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this : ""If something went wrong," Dyer said, "he would speak up about it if he didn't agree with something. He would even have altercations with teachers if he thought something was not right." . Not compared the all rest . Sincerly Trente7cinq (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After some discussion no reliable sources have yet been found asserting Manning's dual citizenship. Please avoid needling other editors in discussion. --TS 01:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I keep seeing IPs adding that he has dual U.S./UK citizenship. Some of the sources do say this (e.g. Salon), but they seem to be basing it entirely on the fact that his mother is Welsh, which doesn't mean he's a British citizen. He lived there for three years as a teenager, and we can't automatically assume that he applied for citizenship during that period. Are there any reliable sources who go into this in detail, or who say they obtained confirmation of dual citizenship? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the source about his dual citizenship http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/2201/27/

Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions.

At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.

--178.32.73.111 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that confirms he holds British citizenship. The relevant British govt webpage says: " ... if you were born outside the United Kingdom or qualifying territory [on or after 1 January 1983] and one of your parents was a British citizen otherwise than by descent, you are a British citizen by descent ... If you were born before 1 July 2006 you may not qualify if your parents were not married at the time of your birth."

He was born in 1987, so he is a British citizen by descent if (a) his mother was British, but not British by descent, and (b) his parents were married at the time of his birth.

We're not in a position to judge this (see WP:NOR), so we need to find a reliable source who confirms that he has dual citizenship (a source that confirms it, rather than assumes it). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of this was discussed above under Nationality. But even if he is a dual citizen, we'd need RS showing the British taking an official interest.--S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this point is obviously of interest , I dared add a footnote - as I had previously suggested- which reads "Because his mother is British it has been assumed that Manning has a dual citizenship ( and could thus possibly benefit from British support if any ), which so far is more a speculation than a proven fact ".... waiting for confirmation/denial while expressing a question that obviously is raising some interest .Hoping this is Wikicompatible ! Trente7cinq (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Daring -- e.g., WP:BOLD -- is great, but the comment in the article was basically "talk". As discussed above, we need RS and some relevance to include the dual citizenship material. I suspect it is being raised in an effort to decry the conditions of the Brig, and as such the speculative issue should not go into the article. --S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

S.Rich , I disagree with you on that .[ I mean not on the analysis - it may be true that this issue is/will be instrumented (as well as not evoking the possibility of dual citizenship...)but on the effect of being mute on the subject ]. If my wording sounds too talkish, let's try another one . After all "footnotes serve ...to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article" see WP:footnotes Trente7cinq (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Trente, it would be helpful if you could stick to the policies and guidelines, including WP:CITE for formatting. I reverted your latest addition because I couldn't see the point of telling readers that he had not entered a plea by July 28 regarding illegal transfer of data. Also, the way you wrote it implied he might have entered a plea on some other charge. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The dual citizenship possibility and possible British inquiry is not information -- it is speculation. E.g., it is/was possible for him to apply to claim British citizenship, but we have nothing that says he did. Besides dual citizenship, there are all sorts of other possibilities that could take place, but they are not information and do not belong in the article (or footnotes). (These include, but are not limited to, pardon, a finding of not guilty, insanity, natural death, suicide, confession to all charges, etc.)--S. Rich (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to mention that possibility - which has been raised whith good/bad reasons in the press..., that's not the point - the minimum you ought to mention is the bristish citizenship of Suzan so that each attentive reader could have this possibility in mind and be free to think his way. So Instead of "Manning and his older sister, Casey, were born in Crescent, Oklahoma to an American father, Brian Manning, and his Welsh wife, Susan" the article should have : "Manning and his older sister, Casey, were born in Crescent, Oklahoma to an American father, Brian Manning, and his British wife, Susan " . That would be truthful, and more logical ( otherwise we should write born to a Californian father , a Porto Rican father or ....). I wish you 'll do this positive change Trente7cinq (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be here with an agenda, Trente, and your editing is problematic. Wales is a separate country within the UK; California is not a separate country in the United States. You want to call her British because you want to claim that he has dual nationality. But we don't know that to be true, and he has made no attempt to claim it that we know of. Satisfying a POV is not a good reason to be less specific about her origins. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin - if I might assume from your Hoxbridge Heducation that you're also British, please see your passport on this issue. The possibility you refer to, that, with reference to the Master Nationality Rule, the Brits were ?negligent? in not affording him consular protection whilst he was still in Iraq, is indeed an intriguing one. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As the next line says Manning's parents met while his father was stationed in Wales presumably that's enough to satisfy those with particularly strong Welsh predilections. (Another revert...) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't engage in OR, BKK. We don't know whether he's eligible for British citizenship by descent; I posted the rules for that elsewhere on this page, and it involves issues that none of us have knowledge of. If he is eligible, we don't know whether it's conferred automatically, or whether he has to claim it. And if the latter we don't know whether he has taken steps to do so.

This article doesn't exist to fight his case for him, or to harm him. We just report what the most knowledgeable sources are saying, so if you can find a high-quality secondary source that discusses the citizenship issue in detail in relation to Manning, by all means post it here so we can decide whether to include it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it even the EU doesn't recognise Wales (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3715512.stm), so presumably we don't need to get too worked up about such a nugatory province. 'British' by passport I would guess... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Embedded links

Hi Trente, please don't add sources using embedded links, like this: "In Hacker turns in soldier in Iraq airstrike video leak Cnet reported Lamo saying :"My plan initially was not to see him arrested. I and the FBI wanted to continue feeding him disinformation," ..." See WP:CITE#Embedded links. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,two points : 1/ I don't quite understand what is wrong with the way I referenced ( which seems like the way it has already been done )I 'll think it over 2/ you reverted the information I had added : "In Hacker turns in soldier in Iraq airstrike video leak Cnet reported Lamo saying :"My plan initially was not to see him arrested. I and the FBI wanted to continue feeding him disinformation," ...: would you give a reason for that ? I really do not understand why this could not be added .Trente7cinq (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps ,as it is just appearing to me , you did not dismissed the info but are just waiting for me - or someone else -to reference it in a more appropriate way ?Trente7cinq (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Trente, the content policies are at WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. How to write citations is at WP:CITE. And the article must also comply with WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning WP:NPOV: I do not see why the fact I reported could be POV . The info seemed important to me because a/ it confirmed the hesitations of Lamo b/It added a new info concerning the way Manning could have been ( or even was )used : OK it seems quite new and big ( but not very surprising !). Do you mean Cnet is not a reliable source ( cf your mentionning WP:NOR )? ( If so : is boingboing more reliable ?) Or, and that might have important consequences concerning the core of the article - : do you mean Lamo is not reliable ? Changing the wording could be a solution ; "a single testimony reported ..." .Since it was not widely published I wrote it in footnote : which I now guess may have been seen to be not that bold  ?

I am happy you raised WP:V - though I don't see how this applies to the Cnet article we are discussing about -: indeed verifiability is a point raised by the chat logs which have been only partially published : that point should be made clear in the article (even if one is not compelled to adopt all of Grennwald points of view/interpretations).Trente7cinq (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont really see POV point, if article is indeed V. NOR? Isn't there something in the revert policy which enjoins users not to revert but, wherever possible, to amend other users' edits they don't like so as to retain their useful contributions? On POV in general, isn't there an anecdote that runs along the lines of someone from some culture saying 'X cathedral is an acknowledged masterpiece of the gothic age', and someone else saying 'X is a building with y no of stones, that's all we consider in my culture'. (Just in case I get POV accusations too...) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Whistleblower Protection Act -- no go for 2010

The legislation dies without passage (23 Dec 2010) http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1210/122310rb1.htm. (In any event, only the media made any connection between Manning & the WBPA. In my quick reading, the act would have applied to federal employees, not servicemembers.) With this in mind, I've deleted the mention of the bill. Any further mention for 2011 would be WP:CRYSTAL.--S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see why the apparent ?temporary? scuppering of the bill by an 'anonymous lawmaker' makes its mention any less relevant/crystal-ballish. I would imagine, other than for the whole Manning=US 'political prisoner'/'torture' victim issue (vid. UN Special Rapporteur etc), which might make Manning notable on this front, on rarity grounds I would hope, the wider issue in which Manning is allegedly involved is significant/notable on the democratic whistleblowing/accountability/transparency vs. institutional protection/withholding of information front. For that reason, even if the bill were to predate Manning's alleged actions, I would imagine Manning/WikiLeaks are in the minds of a number of the distinguished gentlemen to whom the duty of passing such protection has been devolved. Since there are numerous 'reliable' secondary sources making the connection I for one am still for some kind of mention. Apparently there is protection for military whistleblowers disclosing cases of gross mismanagement/gross waste of public funds, but I understand Manning is alleged to have passed the relevant information through the incorrect channels. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this tacit agreement with some kind of inclusion? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it didn't happen, and it wasn't initiated because of him, so the connection is tenuous. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding the lawyer's website, we should rely on secondary sources, not primary, self-published ones, with rare exceptions. For the policies, see WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:PSTS. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Might this be one of those rare exceptions? I understand the crux of the WP:BLP line is 'Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.' Presumably Manning's lawyer is not overly sensationalist or titillating, and hopefully he's not out to harm anyone (?contrary to the prosecution?) On WP:BLPSPS - looks like can be ok if written by a pro, which hopefully Manning's lawyer is; under WP:BLPPRIMARY don't think this is 'misuse' of primary sources - doesn't appear eg defamatory in any way. On WP:PSTS, think article is indeed based on secondaries, though presumably were there relevant and permissible primary source material that dilatory/politically compromised secondary source providers weren't getting round to rehearsing that could be included? Anyway is this indeed a primary source? When previous relevant references to the legislation were introduced to the article, these were reverted on the grounds of OR, need secondary source showing connection to Manning etc. Now Manning's lawyer is finally ruminating on germane topics/primary code doesn't that make him the required secondary source? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The exceptions are listed on the policy pages I linked to, and wouldn't cover that personal website. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a 'personal' website? Isn't this the professional website of a professional lawyer? Is it being discredited because he's not top of the FTSE 100 or equivalent? And is it primary or secondary for the legal code in question under point raised above? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a self-published primary source, which is not allowed. This article needs to be based on secondary sources to make sure that what we're adding really is notable and doesn't amount to original research. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you Google 'Manning dismiss speedy trial' you currently get 49,000+ results. I'm clearly struggling here to distinguish adequately between primary and secondary sources so please, on this occasion, could you have a quick look yourself, find one that you agree counts as a secondary source, and either post and agree on the talk page that the requisite secondary sources have now been found, or update the article/revert your revert yourself? Sorry to be dumb, but thanks a lot, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Trente7cinq's suggestions

An inquiry under Espionage Act statutes ?

The military is investigating Martin under some of the same Espionage Act statutes as those being used to investigate Pfc. Bradley E. Manning,(bold mines) cf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607109.html?wprss=rss_nation/nationalsecurity ???Trente7cinq (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the mention of federal court and the FBI, its reasonable to assume Martin's been charged under the Espionage Act (EA). But Manning is held under charges based on the UCMJ. Different laws in that UCMJ applies to military personnel and EA applies to everyone, including military. The article you mention does not confirm that Manning is charged under the EA, only that Martin has been. (Still, investigators may have considered the EA when investigating and charging him.) In the Martin case, we have him caught red-handed in the FBI sting handing over the material to purported foreign agent. With Manning, its much less clear. Bottom Line -- adding EA to the Manning article is a no go. --S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)15:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

US diplomats say that while the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 can be used against Pte Manning, extending it to Mr Assange would come up against the formidable defence of free speech and media freedom enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. see : Friday, 17 December 2010 "Freed on bail – but US steps up efforts to charge Assange with conspiracy" the Independent. OK that's not sure ( I indeed could not find solid references!), but everybody -even diplomats- is speculating about it ...except Wiki ? Trente7cinq (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The government interprets the Espionage Act to grant wide discretion in prosecuting leaks of classified information. Whether or not it is fair and appropriate to prosecute Pfc. Manning for choosing to violate his duty as a government employee to protect properly classified information is an open question that ultimately rests on whether one thinks the public good in exposing the information outweighs the potential harm to national security and the violation of the rights of innocent third parties. As more facts regarding the matter are made public as the prosecution proceeds, this debate will continue. cf openthegovernment.orgTrente7cinq (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

S.Rich , you wrote :The article you mention does not confirm that Manning is charged under the EA, .Would you reconsider your position after reading :Manning has been charged with downloading the classified Iraq video and transmitting it to a third party, in violation of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e), a section of the act that involves passing classified information to an uncleared party, but not a foreign government.? cf http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/army-espionage-rulebook/ Trente7cinq (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought per main article current charges are under UCMJ/not EA, or am I missing something? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

About Wired , the 6 of July and chatlogs

It seems to me that the article should pay more attention to Wired . 1/ It is Wired which made the arrest Public ( in their first article dated June 6, 2010 ( it was a sunday)- http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ - they even reported that the authorities had not made any public statement yet !).At the bottom of that page, an uptdate was added which read : Update: The Defense Department issued a statement Monday morning confirming Manning’s arrest and his detention in Kuwait for allegedly leaking classified information. . I understand that monday was the 7th of June . Would be utmost important to have a link to this statement ( see : http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/army_intel_analyst_arrested_in.html )

2/ about the famous chatlogs posted by Wired : nowhere in the article is it possible to know that they posted just excerpts of it "Wired magazine has published excerpts from logs of online chats between Mr. Lamo and Private Manning. But the sections in which Private Manning is said to detail contacts with Mr. Assange are not among them. Mr. Lamo described them from memory in an interview with The Times, but he said he could not provide the full chat transcript because the F.B.I. had taken his hard drive, on which it was saved." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html) Trente7cinq (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The chats do mention his contact with Assange, in several places. For example, search here for "it took me four months to confirm that the person i was communicating was in fact assange". SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin ! Indeed you're right ( I should have checked !). [ though these remain excerpts ].By the way [it is becoming my favorite expression]:didn't Manning pretend to be the source of the “Gitmo Papers”? in the same doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trente7cinq (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by pretend. He discussed having passed on material about Guantánamo, and called it the Gitmo Papers. [5] That needn't refer to any other material with the same name. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I meant he discussed it ( but was he boasting or did he do it really ? Whatever our opinions on that , I fear we shall wait for the inquiry to get ...the truth ).So, if Manning discussed having passed such documents [which I was not sure to have correctly understood], shouldn't we report this in the article too ?Trente7cinq (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

'Professed' instead of 'pretended'? Agree, if he claims Gitmo, and reliably sourced, presumably warrants inclusion. On the Lamo front, isn't there a recent Salon article setting out how he is a 'compulsive liar', or something like that. Have to be careful on BLP front, but might be germane. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

accomplices ?

"The Pentagon suspects that Manning may have accomplices within the military." wrote Robert Winnett on Jul 29 2010 here. Even if this supposition seems to have been dropped (?), it should be recalled , shouldn't it ? Trente7cinq (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

here the accomplices are not from the military anymore "Officials tell The Daily Beast they suspect the possible civilian accomplices in the U.S. and elsewhere may have helped direct Manning to Julian Assange," ; Lamo himself had In an interview with The Daily Beast last weekend, Lamo said that he did not believe Manning, an intelligence specialist, had the sort of technical background in computers that would allow him to gather all of the information that he is believed to have turned over to Assange. Lamo has said that he is certain that Manning was the source of the more than 90,000 classified military reports from the war in Afghanistan .Trente7cinq (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A reference added by Victor Falk has been reverted by Slim Virgin . My point here is not to discuss these decisions but to mention that the document ( or another one ,but this one is at hand) may perhaps still be used . ""It should not have been physically possible for an individual private to download records at will from a classified network onto transportable media," says Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "That was asking for trouble."" . Although this doesn't speak of accomplices it questions the feasibility of such an action , two points tightly related which are not that developped in the article .( cf SNAP in this page too ). [ the reference proposed by Victor Falk lead me to [6],[7],[8] which may be of use too ]Trente7cinq (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Surfing from your links I found http://freegovinfo.info/search/node/wikileaks , (About us) ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Unwitting accomplices? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

about the introduction

1/ it is written "He has been held in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, since May 2010" which is not correct :"first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait "( as written in the article itself) he was moved later in the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico ( remembering having read 29 of june/july )... 2/ could we avoid the quasi-reiteration "...who was charged in July 2010 with the unauthorized disclosure of U.S. classified information." and "On July 5, Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for transferring classified data onto his personal computer and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source between November 19, 2009 and May 27, 2010" ? Trente7cinq (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

About 1/ : A correction has occured : it's OK. Concerning the date of arrival in the States : it is the 29 th of July see ( for example) : this"A press alert received by Boing Boing from the U.S. Army Public Affairs Office reports that PFC Bradley Manning... was today transferred from the Theater Field Confinement Facility in Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico Brig in Quantico, Virginia. . I would have preferred to link to the official press release - Baghdad Pentagon press release - which read :"US Army officials transferred PFC Bradley Manning from the Theater Field Confinement Facility in Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico Brig in Quantico, Virginia, on July 29. (He) remains in pretrial confinement pending an Article 32 investigation (like a grand jury or preliminary hearing) into the charges preferred against him on July 5." see here(if someone finds it ..) . Consequently I propose : "The 29th of July, he was moved to a military jail in Quantico, Virginia, where he was classified as a "Maximum Custody Detainee "".Trente7cinq (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC). No objection ? :I posted it today ( without the above ref)Trente7cinq (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Answering questions

(copied from SV talk)

SlimVirgin, you reverted "On the 28th of July Manning had still not entered a plea to charges of illegally transferring classified data " argumenting "can't see the point of adding this" . The point would be to reconstruct the chronology of the case , here from a legal point of view . The information I added was just a step . Thus It could be also usefull to add that , almost till the end of July " the official said Manning has invoked the Fifth Amendment and is refusing to answer questions from investigators." Trente7cinq (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Best to discuss this on talk, Trente. I'll copy the post there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

He was refusing to answer questions as of August. [9] It would be good to know whether that's still the case before adding anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin , sorry for my inappropriate posting . No much time tonight . I'll write more later . Trente7cinq (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just deposing facts concerning chronology/legal matters( cf " It would be good to know whether that's still the case before adding anything" ): Capt. Paul Bouchard was at a time manning's attorney cf http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/31/wikileaks.manning/index.html ; Maj. Thomas F. Hurley was another one cf http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html To be continued Trente7cinq (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Oups :The document referenced for Dadid Coombs nomination already mentionned "Beside Coombs... Manning has been assigned three military lawyers" ( their number/names in footnote ?) Trente7cinq (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Following on legal matters owing to boingboing.net:"According to the UCMJ, if there is pretrial confinement, “immediate steps shall be taken” to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges. Article 10, UCMJ. “We have consistently noted that Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment [and Rules for Courts-Martial 707].” United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308, 312 (C.A.A.F. 2010). RCM 707 says they have 120 days to charge him or dismiss him from pretrial confinement. That time has passed. How are they holding him without charge?

http://court-martial.com/ucmj-pretrial-restraint/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/report18&div=24&id=&page=

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1523645.html"

And happy new year to all of you Trente7cinq (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) "How are they holding him without charge?" [but Manning has been charged !]Trente7cinq (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Charged, but no trial yet as I understand it. Would have though WikiLeaks et al. would be launching a 'support the prosecution (sic) of Manning' fund, so that at least the US would be able to hire enough lawyers to get on with it rather than leaving him languishing in his brig. I know there's a link to the courts-martial in the US article, but would it be worth on the legal matters front, re an issue raised earlier but never properly resolved, spelling out some of Manning's court-martial implications for Manning (no punishment before trial/time limits on detention before trial/composition of court etc)? Manning's court-martial will presumably be increasingly topical as the US hasten to reduce the time Manning is being detained before trial, and it might be good to introduce some kind of armature for the discussion early on. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

protective custody in Kuwait

Wired - 6 june - reported that Manning was held on protective custody . Consequently I added today "Manning was at first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait [15] where he was on protective custody " . This has been reverted into "Manning was at first held in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait". I don't understand why . Has this information/protective custody since been prooven false ? If not , let's revert all what Wired said about Lamo ...? [ In this discussion page "suicide watch" was tackled , but not "protective custody" ]Trente7cinq (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"see also"

A "see also " section was created ...and rapidly reverted . What about : Espionage Act of 1917 , Freedom of the press in the United States , Mordechai Vanunu...Trente7cinq (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced ? What about Shield laws in the United States ,Journalism sourcing ,Free Flow of Information Act ,Censorship in the United States,Treason, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution...? Trente7cinq (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Project On Government Oversight,duty,Information sensitivity,Center for Public Integrity,Secrecy,Military intelligence....Trente7cinq (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Again ( last one today ! ): United States Uniformed Services Oath of OfficeTrente7cinq (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Having found Intelligence analysis I decided to re-create the "see also" section ... 77.207.64.161 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of those links sound highly relevant to wider issue for which Manning, as much as is alleged, / WikiLeaks etc are notable - accountability / transparency (social) / whistleblowing might be good too. At least no one has suggested political prisoners yet! BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the consensus that some of these be reinstated? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point of reinstating them. See alsos aren't intended as a laundry list of anything remotely connected. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the WP policy on these? Guess the rationale isn't to implant associations (whistleblowing/accountability/transparency/political prisoner) vs (treason/espionage). How do we decide? And presumably aren't some of the above, rather than 'remotely' connected, pretty much joined at the hip? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tacit agreement? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Chat logs : which ones ?

Wired published the first chat logs on June 10, 2010. In the article, they indicate that these represent roughly 25% of the logs they received from Adrian Lamo of his chats with Bradley Manning. Later, Wired’s Kevin Poulsen told Glenn Greenwald of Salon that the logs were complete with the exception of “Manning discussing personal matters that aren’t clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I’m not throwing up without vetting first.” Lamo also provided Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post with a complete version of the logs, which were also excerpted on June 10. And on June 19, BoingBoing published what was purported to be a more complete version of one section of the log. The three versions have been merged in the text below:http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/

see here the boingboing version

Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs from Greenwald

Jane Hamsher -Tuesday December 28, 2010- commented in this article : The Unlikely Story of Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning, Wired Magazine and the Federal Government Trente7cinq (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wired answered December 28, 2010 Trente7cinq (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I edited :In a series of chats whose excerpts were first published by Wired on June 10,2010 he told Lamo over a period of a week what he had done. a footnote was added :"In the issue of June 10,2010 Wired indicated that they published only 25% of the chatlogs they received from Adrian Lamo ( removing personal matters as well as sensitive information ). On that same day,Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post ,provided with a complete version of the logs too , decided to publish a slightly different version ;on June 19, BoingBoing published a slightly more complete version of one section of the log cf http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/" . All this has been reverted by SlimVirgin (23:15, 6 January 2011 ) on these grounds :removed confusing unsourced material . I dare say that I am begining to get confused by your reverting actions ! Unsourced you wrote ? That is not correct . I referenced http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/ ...which contained the urls or the different chatlogs ( so if you thought firedoglake was not appropriate, you could have amended my edit instead of reverting it ). Confusing ? Do you think it is not confusing not to mention the different versions ? Again : I put it in footnote in order not to confuse the quick reader . But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not ? Since you are prompt to raise the issue of evaluating the sources , wouldn't you help mention these different versions instead of reverting straightahead my attempts to do so ? Thank you for your answer .Trente7cinq (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're getting at, or why it would matter that the chats weren't published all at once. Also, there's no source that offers that chronology, and no source that I've found that indicates the order of publication matters. Or am I missing your point? Also, firedoglake is a blog and can't be used in a BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear : the article SHOULD mention that the chatlogs were just published in excerpts (25% of them according to Wired). That point engages the neutrality of the WHOLE article .Trente7cinq (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. By all means find a reliable secondary source that makes the points you're making, and we can discuss whether to add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"An article on Dec. 16 about the possibility of prosecuting Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, after his Web site disclosed classified government documents referred incorrectly to Wired magazine’s publishing of excerpts of Internet chat logs that may be relevant to the investigation. The excerpts, recording online conversations between the main suspect in the leaks, Pvt. Bradley Manning, and an ex-hacker who turned him in, Adrian Lamo, do in fact contain references to communications between Mr. Assange and Private Manning, and to a server for uploading files to WikiLeaks. It is not the case that Wired’s excerpts omitted mention of such contacts."[bold mines]U.S. Tries to Build Case for Conspiracy by WikiLeaks (Correction dated December 31,2010 first edition December 15,2010 ).This seems to me a valid secondary source . SlimVirgin,if you share this opinion , would you just mention in the article that the chatlogs published are just excerpts ? [Wired make no secret of this (see : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/greenwald/ )] Trente7cinq (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised this short controversy occured ,since the fact that the chatlogs were just published in excerpts appears in a document that has been cited as a reference in the article for some time [ Xeni, Jardin. "Wikileaks: a somewhat less redacted version of the Lamo/Manning logs", Boing Boing, June 19, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2010 ] So why not write it in plain words in the article itself !?Trente7cinq (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/30/wikileaks-bradley-manning-julian-assange BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that source could be used. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations BrekekekexKoaxKoax ! At last this section will come to a fruitful end : I leave it to you to add the appropriate comment , will you ? Trente7cinq (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Last thing ( before I take leave of this topic for a while ):1/ I agree with "Although Wired released only 25% of the transcript of the 'chats', its journalists have denied any kind of 'cover-up' and have said that there is nothing 'newsworthy' in the remaining 75%.[15] The full chat transcript has been taken by US government investigators.[15]" 2/ In the footnote "not newsworthy" should be made more precise cf "Wired has not published, claiming the information would infringe Manning's privacy or compromise sensitive military information." Lamo has widely said there was a word in these chats he couldn't even pronounce and was demanded to forget .Trente7cinq (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad Manning's Facebook page

Should we add a link to http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/06/bradley.manning.fbook.jpg ? [ when was his Facebook page closed ?]Trente7cinq (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

About Brad's father

In the article of Denver Nicks - which serves as reference - one can read about Brian :working with the high tech naval systems of the day. He studied computer science in California, and went to work for Hertz Rent-a-Car as an Information Technology manager; The article just has : "His father had been in the United States Navy for five years ...his father worked as an IT manager for Hertz ". Brian's capacities and experiences in high tech should be more highlighted ...all the more as editors have stressed on the conflict between father and son .( not everyone knows what an IT manager is !) [ I had also mentionned brian's testimony about his son cf Wired 6 june , which should appear in the article ]Trente7cinq (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the article implies Manning is a born leaker ?

I had edited , in footnote "Tanja Linton a spokeswoman for Fort Huachuca said that inappropriate deeds were not that exceptional among young recruits ,who , after having been "corrected", may later" do great things for the Army and the country"cf Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter WikiLeaks Suspect’s YouTube Videos Raised ‘Red Flag’ in 2008 ,Wired ,July 29, 2010" which has been reverted by SlimVirgin with the short comment "not clear what this means" . Just refer to the article of Wired : it is not that exceptional for young recruits of fort Huachuca to do inappropriate things ; it is not because you have done such things there that you will be a traitor afterwards . My intention - to make it clear - is not to diminish the facts ( that have not come to trial yet !!)but to prevent the reader to step to quick conclusions .It appears to me that this is real neutrality .If my edit is not clear, wouldn't you try to rewrite it in good english instead of reverting it ? Thank-you . Let me recall his father's words "“I was in the military for five years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been on drugs, alcohol, nothing.” OK these are the words of a father after his son has been arrested . But doesn't the article cite friends ? Should the article cite only enemies ? ....Or people who don't know him at all ?Trente7cinq (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Similarly Mathew Tully, founding partner with the Washington law firm of Tully Rinckey and an expert on military law, said ... "As for the fighting: where youth, stress and alcohol may be involved, "it is not uncommon for altercations to occur."see :http://www.tullylegal.com/pdf_2010/Tully_WikiLeaks_CNN_080210_TR.pdf ;on Tully  :http://tullylegal.com/attorneys/mtully.html Trente7cinq (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A wee misstatement

"A group has been formed, Courage to Resist, to raise money for the legal costs, but it said on December 8 that Wikileaks had so far not made a contribution."

The group formed specifically around Bradley Manning's case is called the Bradley Manning Support Network. Courage to Resist is our organizational partner for fundraising and some other matters. Not editing since I'm involved. 89.173.83.101 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack point, but if you are from Manning Network, with ref to discussion above on dual nationality, do you have any info on this? Does Manning have a British (?Welsh?) passport?

Will have a look at your point too... Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have attempted clarification. Also, has the WikiLeaks cash arrived yet - i.e. is the next point in the article now out of date? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the statement about wikileaks cash , as according to BMSN,the case has arrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Balance in Account of Conditions of Imprisonment

This article carries various statements critical of Manning's conditions of imprisonment. A US army spokesman, in an interview with The New York Times, has provided a different explanation of these terms of imprisonment. Where different points of view exist, Wikipedia expects its articles to provide a balanced account, and so I have added a summary of the army spokeman's statements to The Times. Nandt1 (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that your edit has made the article more neutral. It has the effect of painting the reports about maltreatment of Manning, including the induction of a psychiatric condition through an environment without any stimulation and prevention of proper exercise, as somehow incorrect, even though it does not contradict the actual facts.

It is a well known fact that conditions in many prisons in the US are from meeting international standards for humane treatment of prisoners. In the light of this fact the claim that the "conditions of confinement were dictated by brig rules" is essentially meaningless, because even if true this leaves open the possibility that the relevant "brig rules" severely contradict the most basic human rights requirements.

I hope that an editor with more time and a better overview over the reliable sources can rectify this problem. Hans Adler 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been a contentious subject amongst editors with POVs. His confinement was described as "solitary confinement" with wikilinks to the article describing SC as punishment. The implication being that he was being punished without trial. In fact (e.g., truth) the confinement was not solitary -- otherwise friends would not be able to visit him (and make their reports to Glen Greenwald). The fact that we have a military spokesperson speaking to the NYT tells us that the brig is up-front about the confinement. In any event I've combined the reports into one paragraph and deleted some of the redundant material.--S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Is the problem a lack of reliable sources that demonstrate one way or the other that the "'brig rules' severely contradict the most basic human rights requirements"?16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The problem was that the edit created the following storyline: "Some people claim that he is maltreated. But actually that's not true because..." I do not believe that this storyline appropriately reflected the evidence as it is presented in reliable sources.

Your edit seems to have improved the situation, but I am not sure they have rectified the problem completely. E.g. it's problematic to end the discussion of the conditions with the following quotation: "His treatment is firm, fair and respectful." This statement is entirely consistent with most of the allegations (under a self-serving interpretation of "fair") but invalidates them in the minds of inattentive readers. Hans Adler 18:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit introduced some distortions into the account of what the Colonel said. He did not, for example, dismiss "the UN's concerns" as Poppycock. but "accusations that Manning has been mistreated"; likewise, the army did not state that Manning's "conditions" were the same as everyone in the brig -- not everyone is on maximum custody -- but that he was being "treated" the same as everyone, and the follow-up phrase makes it clear that by that the army meant "firm, fair and respectful". Especially when feelings run high, sources need to be reflected acurately. I have tried to rectify this, while still keeping the account of the army's statement shorter that when it was first added to this article.Nandt1 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

'Accusations' is a 'weasel word'. Reports of the conditions of his detention have resulted in the UN submitting a formal inquiry to the United States Department of State. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) "Accusations" is, in the present case, a direct quotation.

(2) Whatever the UN may or may not have have done is not really the issue here. The issue is that you have reinstated statements which, as already pointed out above, are misquotations and misrepresentations of the statements actually made in the New York Times article. Please, before you do this again (and again), would you kindly read the article and try to avoid misquoting/misrepresenting it again. Nandt1 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Nandt1's attempt to 'seek balance': New section: According to a report carried by The New York Times, the military rejects accusations that Private Manning has been mistreated. Colonel T. V. Johnson, a Quantico spokesman, told The Times that conditions of confinement were dictated by brig rules. According to Col. Johnson, Manning has been designated for “maximum custody” — because his escape would pose a national security risk — and placed on “prevention-of-injury watch.” Johnson denied that Private Manning was in solitary confinement, saying that he could talk with guards and with prisoners in nearby cells, though he could not see them. Manning leaves his cell for a daily hour of exercise, and for showers, phone calls, meetings with his lawyer and weekend visits by friends and relatives, the colonel continued. Manning can read and watch television and correspond with people on an approved list. “Pfc. Manning is being treated just like every other detainee in the brig,” said an internal military review which was read to a Times reporter by Col. Johnson. “His treatment is firm, fair and respectful.”

Lede: He is being held in what military spokesman Col. T.V. Johnson has described as "maximum custody" (distinguishing this from "solitary confinement" in that Manning can speak to guards and to prisoners in other cells)

My attempt to seek balance: Colonel T. V. Johnson, a Quantico spokesman, dismissed reports that Manning has been mistreated, and consequent UN formal inquiries, as 'Poppycock', explaining that Manning's conditions were the same as those of all in the brig.

I would invite other users to assess which is more balanced and attentive to WP:Due weight. Perhaps conditions can be corrected to treatment if you would like. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would indeed be happy to have others actually read the NYT article and see which version is a more accurate representation of what is there. (A) Certainly, Col. Johnson says nothing whatsoever about the UN. (B) Certainly, too, he is not talking about Manning's conditions of imprisonment -- the remark about treatment is quite clearly referring to the claim that this is "firm , fair and respectful". So these are both misrepresentations. Beyond this, BrekekekexKoaxKoax's edits have repeatedly just deleted specific statements made by the military in the NYT about Manning's terms of imprisonment and what he is allowed to do. Whatever our views about the rights and wrongs of this case, we have as editors a responsibility to reflect the contents of our sources accurately. I have never tried to rewrite the various complaints made by Manning's supporters about his imprisonment. It would be very welcome if, in return, BrekekekexKoaxKoax would reciprocate by affording the US army the same right to speak for themselves, instead of insisting on repeatedly caricaturing their statements. Nandt1 (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, BrekekekexKoaxKoax, could you stop trying to "spin" the New York Times story about Manning. Your latest effort was to insert into the account a statement, not found in the original source, that Col. Johnson's statement on Mannings terms of imprisonment applies "as of 13 January 2011" in a way that implies that his conditions might suddenly have been changed. There is no basis whatsover for any such imputation in the original source. Please just let the story speak for itself. Nandt1 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "as of 13 January 2011" makes no sense. The reference doesn't make that implication, and we know that he had been able to see outside visitors (like that blogger) for a long time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On another front, it turns out that the quote which had reported the New Statesman as describing Manning as pre-eminent among political prisoners actually came from a New Statesman interview with Julian Assange! I originally thought to keep the quote while clarifying its actual status within the article, but then I saw that Assange's views are in fact discussed fairly fully later on in the article, so have just dropped the New Statesman reference as being essentially repetitive of Assange's opinions on Manning.Nandt1 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

'POV WARRIOR' :) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. To elaborate, may I inquire (1) whether one David House is afforded due weight; (2) why supporting citations for BNSN & CTR have been replaced with tags; (3) whether evident blasphemy of WikiLeaks re payment is misplaced in an article about Manning; (4) why you don't simply google dead links to update rather than lazily tag them (re UN torture proof), if your primary concern is indeed the quality of Wikipedia; (5) whether your removal of clear documentation of 'world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience' by the international press, including NYT and NS, is not somewhat questionable. Pourriez vous m'expliquer/revert as 'disruptive edits'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the substantive questions above which relate to my own edits: Question (1) I am not sure I understand the question, but Mr. House's testimony on Manning's health (which is the only testimony on this point that is actually reported in the source that was cited) is now reported in the present Wikipedia article in precisely the same terms originally used to describe (undefined) friends and supporters; Question (5) As already explained on this page just above here, the NS quote on "prisoner of conscience" turned out not to represent an editorial viewpoint of the NS itself but a report of an interview with Julian Assange (while the NYT quote on this point was in turn a quotation of the same NS interview). Nandt1 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll address (2) as I did the tagging. Inclusion of the websites for BMSN & CTR violates WP:NOTADVOCATE. That is, the citations were spam and self-published. No-nos when it comes to BLPs. They were not WP:RS. They were back door efforts to promote the organizations. Rather than delete the mention of BMSN & CTR completely, which would be appropriate, I left them and tagged as needing citations. Provide acceptable sources, that is all that is required. (But don't be surprised if or when references to them get deleted altogether.) Regarding point (3), it is difficult to understand what this means. Regarding (4), editors can choose what they wish to research. Saying "You didn't do such-and-such, so you're the bad one!" is an Ad hominem and extremely weak argument. --S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I believe more of an argumentum ad homunculum/os, but the erstwhile humunculi now appear to have taken at least some of these points on board. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me make a somewhat broader point. We need to be rather careful to avoid the article automatically make the connection that if (a) Manning is having mental health problems, then it must necessarily follow that (b) Manning is being "mistreated". These are two separate issues.

There are several pieces of evidence in the article which suggest that Manning might well be suffering from depression. The army testimony is that he is on a "prevention of injury" watch, including frequent monitoring. If we assume that the Greewald article is accurate as to his physical conditions of imprisonment, this concern could also explain why he is not, for example, allowed sheets (danger of hanging) and why he is being given anti-depressants (although I note that Greewald states he is not officially on a suicide watch). A prisoner's depression is not, however, per se evidence of "mistreatment". Here we have a 23 year old, with -- it would appear -- some personality issues even prior to the leaks (assaulting a fellow serviceman, etc.), who now has ample time to reflect on his earlier (possibly not very carefully thought-through) actions in leaking his country's secrets. Whether he is having second thoughts about the ethics of his actions, or just facing up to the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, who wouldn't be depressed in his shoes? But unless one assumes (as some of his supporters sincerely do assume) that the alternative is to allow one who has leaked national secrets to walk free, it is not self-evident that any mental health issues are per se evidence of "mistreatment". Nandt1 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Nandt1. After all, all those Nazis were simply 'following orders'. I believe there is good historic precedent for the elimination of 'whistleblowers'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This comment is gratuitous. I dare say it infringes any number of Wikipedia policies. More to the point, it sullies efforts at civil discourse on issues which we both take seriously but happen to disagree about. Nandt1 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nandt1 is being too kind. The comment was a snide insult to those who are doing their work with honor, respect, and integrity. There was no reason to say "concur with" because that comment subtly includes the many volunteer editors who have worked to improve the article when they push to upright the WP:POLE. Sadly, pillar of WP:CIVILITY was violated. Perhaps reading DON'T BE A WP:FANATIC will help. --S. Rich (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You entirely misunderstand. I am simply citing a WP:RS. Please see John Pilger article, which makes the connection in no uncertain terms: http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2011/01/14/the-war-on-wikileaks/ In particular, with reference to young Pfc Bradley Manning and the apparently shocking treatment he is receiving in some quarters, including the complete disregard of habeas corpus, instead of the universal gratitude for his bravery in disclosing abuse on a massive scale that he deserves, 'At 23, Private Manning is the world’s pre-eminent prisoner of conscience, having remained true to the Nuremberg Principle that every soldier has the right to "a moral choice." His suffering mocks the notion of the land of the free.' This is the section of the NYT/NS/Article that User:Nandt1, in his assiduity, attributed to Assange and equated with 'political prisoner'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of this talk page (and the content pages) as a forum

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (WP:NOT#FORUM) make it clear that the sort of comments above are "unacceptable" (WP:TALKNO). The editor has an agenda which s/he pushes persistently and openly. Neither this page nor the content page have benefited much from these edits and POV comments. I wish the comments would stop. --S. Rich (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Like Manning, allegedly (but the doubt does not mean he has not spent many months in detention, without trial, in conditions the UN torture rapporteurs are investigating) I believe all things should be done 'openly'. I wonder whether cries of 'POV' may sometimes be the equivalent of citing 'national security' or 'costs lives', for the credibility of which see United States Department of Homeland Security inter alia, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The concern is not one of suppressing any discussion of topics, but of where topics are best discussed. Wikipedia has a policy to keep POVs out of articles and out of the pages which discuss the articles. If you do not like this policy, you should take your discussions to other forums. Wikipedia is not your encyclopedia, and you are not the WP:OWNER of any article with freedom to flout the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Stop trying to WP:RGW -- such actions WP:DISRUPT the improvement of Wikipedia. There is no problem for anyone to find forums in order to "openly" discuss the topic. Again, please find another forum for your POV. --S. Rich (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Your comment shows you are ignoring the information in the Manning article. The UN SR's are not investigating the confinement conditions. One's term of office expired (and his office said they had received no requests to look into the matter). The other simply sent a letter to the US DoS. Indeed, the UNSRs have no authority to investigate the US government. --S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly not. The US Government does indeed appear accountable to no one, though perhaps it will be to history; certainly not their citizenry (see expenditure sections in United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Homeland Security etc), not their allies, not even the United Nations. Previously on this page you questioned whether these wars were illegal, citing something called 'Congress'. I don't know what that is, but I think it shows a limitation on one's point of view to even think of some kind of, I imagine, parochial clique, or to say the UN has no authority vis a vis some cabal. I was thinking more of the ius belli (or, at a squeeze, the United Nations), but I guess if one's perspective is limited by one's government's suppression of information then one might be excused for this. Shall we drop it and get on with Manning? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do not drop it, and continue to discuss things unrelated to the article like you just did in the above (1:01) edit, I or perhaps others will simply begin removing your comments from this article per WP:NOTFORUM and consider warning you for disruptive editing. The only thing that may be discussed here is what should or shouldn't be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article about Manning, not Manning himself, his actions, or the universe we share with him.--S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What Orders?

An editor had added to John Pilger's statement that "every soldier has the right to "a moral choice"" the additional words "when given orders". But Pilger himself was too careful in his writing to make this latter statement, and I have deleted it. Not to be legalistic about this but just precise, it is not clear from anything that is said in our article (or that I have read elsewhere) that even Manning himself claims to have received any of the "illegal" orders that are the specific focus of the Nurenburg principles. I recognize the likely retort that if one is (implicitly or explicitly) ordered not to divulge restricted information, and this information includes evidence of a crime (as with the video), the Nurenburg principle could be said to apply, but it is not clear how this would cover vacuuming up vast quantities of restricted material and leaking it willy nilly. While the piece by Paul Craig Roberts raises similar logical problems, it is at least quoted accurately, and I have left it in place. Nandt1 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

With reference to Nuremberg (in English I understand typically sic - see etymology for elucidation), I understand that it was a most historic city, centre of the German Renaissance, before being indiscriminately obliterated by the RAF and USAF. Apparently there was a 'cathedral of light' - interesting parallels with other professed beacons perhaps. I understand that Nuremberg was also incidentally the site of what, to date, has been the most publicized international investigation of war crimes. Thank you for highlighting this: I shall make the appropriate changes. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask what changes you're talking about? I have to be honest, I'm not seeing a connection between your reply and the original post, or this article.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Nuremberg defense will enlighten you. ("Nuremberg" refers to the Nuremberg Trials)^walk victor falk ^talk 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what the nuremburg trials are. Would you then explain the connection between Manning and the Cathedral of Light and/or the RAF & USAF bombing campaign.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's get back on track: e.g., what is WP:REL to the article as it serves the reader? The discussion on Nuremberg is a side-track. Soldiers make moral choices every day -- from signing up because they might need a job, to the decision to pull the trigger and kill another human being. What General Pace said was that when there are clearly immoral or illegal orders given, soldiers have the obligation to disobey those specific orders and report such orders up the chain of command. But was Manning given any such orders? No. Rather, he was ordered to follow the rules regarding the security of classified information. Were those orders illegal or immoral? This is a more difficult question, indeed. Regardless of the difficulty, what Manning is alleged to have done was take information he had about what he thought were war crimes from some time back and not report them through the chain of command, but reveal information about the specific illegal (or legal) events to the media (via Wikileaks). Moreover, he is alleged to have released even more information not related to war crimes. And this has upset a lot of people because these revelations have made their jobs a lot harder and more dangerous. So, was Manning properly fulfilling a higher moral obligation when he released the war crimes info? Arguably, yes. But was he properly fulfilling a higher moral obligation when he released the non-war crime information in contravention to the orders he had received? Arguably, no. With these two points in mind, our editing becomes problematic when we seek to promote one argument over the other. That is, we have one group of editors who say "Manning is right because he revealed such-and-such bad things about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan (and it does not matter if he also revealed info about non-bad things}." Other editors are saying "Manning is wrong because he revealed a lot of non-bad things (the non-war crime info) -- along with a few bad things." One side wants to say "The Nuremberg Principle applies" and the other says "No way." The result is that the article suffers because of each editor pushing the short-term, near horizon POV instead of taking an encyclopedic view of editing. Bottom line -- this stuff about Nuremberg, etc., can wait till later. Let Manning's lawyer bring it up if he likes. Let historians figure it out. Let opinion writers write their opinions in their Op-Ed pieces. But let Wikipedia be an encyclopedia and not a forum.--S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about the article, not complain about the contradicting laws. We all know this is complicated and paradoxical (otherwise we would have already figured it out), but some reliable sources have questioned Manning's choice while other reliable sources countered that he did the most practical favor, and our job discussing is to find the best argument for both sides to quote, not determining which side is correct. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Manning the 'Intellectual' and interrogator of societal norms

I understand that a previous user thought fit to delete an indicator of Manning's preferred reading. I would contend that one's preferred reading fodder is indicative of one's interests and character, and since the connection has also been made in a 'WP:RS', presumably this might be retained. Here's the info in full: Mr. Coombs shared a list of books Private Manning had asked his family to buy him, which included: “ Decision Points,” by George W. Bush; “The Critique of Practical Reason” and “The Critique of Pure Reason,” by Immanuel Kant; “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays; “The Selfish Gene,” by Richard Dawkins; “A People’s History of the United States,” by Howard Zinn; “The Art of War,” by Sun Tzu; “The Good Soldiers,” by David Finkel and “On War,” by Carl von Clausewitz. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/lawyer-describes-solitary-confinement-of-suspected-wikileaks-source/?ref=world

I also see, to my surprise, that Manning's 'orientation' is deemed relevant for mention in the article, although this content has been reduced and toned down somewhat over the past month or so, through User:SRich's best efforts to do Manning justice, I understand. Apparently, according to Michel Foucault's multi-tome 'History of Sexuality', this kind of discourse is a hiccup and that, typically, moderation in one's behaviour has been the issue, in accordance with the Delphic principle of μηδεν αγαν, 'nothing in excess'. That Manning apparently chooses his 'partners' on the basis of their character rather than their body shape is perhaps a further indicator of his own character, seemingly deemed a fit subject for conjecture and caricature in this article, and transcendence of the limited visions of those around him. Unfortunately I myself am not so free-thinking, and it would be interesting to have others' views and suggestions on how best to incorporate this - perhaps a reference to Foucault's work in the bibliography? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again I fail to see your point. How is Foucault's work connected to Bredley Manning.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it is a succinct distillation of the discourse on 'orientation', apparently often pejorative, that is deemed fit for inclusion in an article on young Bredley (sic). I understand under the applicable WP policies bibliography is allowed - and there is no such at the moment. Perhaps a full list of Manning's reading, as far as is known, also? Presumably similarly relevant to young Bredley, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I had a typo, no need to repeat it. If your point is that Manning may be of a certain sexual orientation, and this other guy wrote a book about that orientation, than it's inclusion is precluded by policy. I know it's been mentioned before but I'd encourage you to not only read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH but think about how it applies to this article.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand other Manning-related issues were 'precluded by policy', but point taken, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, a list of "favorite reading materials" is absolutely unacceptable. It has literally zero to do with what makes him notable (which is, being a prisoner and allegedly committing a crime). Any insertion of that material would be unencyclopedic. Furthermore, I highly doubt you could substantiate it enough to meet WP:BLP. Going further and commenting on it or implying any connection to his behavior would violate WP:OR. The only way I could imagine including such information would be if more than one reliable source identified one or more books he had read, and further explicitly stated some connection with his notability. Even then, I would be highly likely to argue that an inclusion of such an opinion would violate WP:DUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, contrary to a User:Qwertyrxian, were someone to be reading Kant's works on Practical Reasoning (ie self-serving careerism) and Pure Reasoning (ie the transcendent and universal obligation to disclose abuse) that might suggest some kind of awareness of conflicting demands, indeed those very ones that make this Bradley Manning notable. That not only a professional lawyer thinks this is highly relevant and indicative of Manning but none other than the reputable New York Times thinks fit to include such matters in its hallowed publications should surely be preferred to the individual views on the matter of a User:Qwertyxian, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, these are books Manning has asked his family to try to get for him. I don't think we know if he has actually read them yet. Beyond this, obviously, what (even) the New York Times thinks newsworthy for a single story on a specific day is not per se automatically grist for the mill of an encyclopedia article, which needs to apply the higher degree of selectivity associated with a longer shelf life. Nandt1 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice one :)) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion here, at least not in the way you mean. I'm explaining essentially the same thing Nandt1 is. We are an encyclopedia, not a data aggregator. Our goal is not to collect every single piece of information published on Manning. Our goal is to present information that presents a broad picture of Manning, focusing on what makes him notable. What his lawyer thinks is irrelevant to our concerns. That the NYT pubished something is more relevant, but if it was a single article, or a single section in a single article, it doesn't rise to the level of importance necessary to appear in the Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Try googling 'Bradley Manning Kant Reasoning' - will find many many discussions of this, many of which predate the NYT article. Don't see what's quite so objectionable about a brief mention, but anyway, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit: "Amongst a number of books Manning has requested from his family whilst in the brig are 'The Critique of Practical Reasoning' and 'The Critique of Pure Reasoning' by Immanuel Kant." BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, all I see is are the Daily Beast original interview, that article reposted in bltway.ms, plus the NYT article that takes its info from the Daily Beast interview). You're not doing a plain Google search, right? The number of bloggers and other self-publishers discussing this or reposting the story is irrelevant for our concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a non-vanilla google search? Then I'll try one of those... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant searching one of Google's specialized searches, such as Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, etc. I think that in this case, Google News is the relevant search. Using a "regular" Google search is fine, as long as you look carefully at the results. Some news sources appear on regular google results; also, some websites can meet our reliable sources guidelines. But you have to be careful to wade through the countless repostings, blog commentary, self-published sources, etc. In addition, Google is a bit, um, "weird" in how it does its searches, especially once you get past the first few pages, and especially when you're using multiple search terms. Later hits very often may include only a subset of the chosen words, and it gets very difficult when you start using operators (like NOT). Again, using Google search is a great way to do research, you just can't take the fact that "I got a lot of results" means anything useful for our purposes. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This report that Manning has requested various books to read while in the brig is a red herring blowing hot air full of sound and fury etc. Manning has not penned any noteworthy commentary or discussion regarding Kant, et al. Indeed, we do not know if he has actually read them. Perhaps he is simply very pessimistic about achieving a not-guilty verdict and so intends to get a head start on achieving a correspondence course B.A. degree to complete while he spends the next 52 years at Ft. Leavenworth. Let's drop this top-ten list of books perhaps read by Bradley Manning discussion and return to improving the content of the article. --S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the google clarification. User:SRich, other than for the chats, has the young hero 'penned' any of the matter in this article himself? On the basis we can include what the TV colonel has to say about Manning, can we not include what Manning has to say about himself (ie I'm interested in Kant)? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

BrekekekxKoaxKoax, could you please start using indentation properly? When you edit, you can see how we use colons (:) to indent text--this makes it much easier to follow discussions. In any event, this doesn't say "I'm interesting in Kant". It merely says that "one of the books I have requested is a book by Kant". Maybe his lawyer recommended it. Maybe he wanted to sound smart. Maybe it's not actually what he thinks it is. Maybe he's going to become a great scholar of philosophy. I don't know. Furthermore, this isn't the only book he requested, and we don't even know all of the one's he requested. And, anyway, none of this matters. Many prisoners read books. Some of them read a lot of them. That we have a list of some books that Manning requested and may or may not have read (note the article even says it's not certain that he'll be allowed to read any of the books he requested) does not mean it belongs in the Wikipedia article. This discussion is rapidly becoming tendentious. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the relevance of Manning's 'orientation' - that's deemed relevant, why not his intellectual leanings? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit undone for no clear reason

Anyone see any clear reason why my edit[10] was undone? Unless there isn't a consensus what he released was controversial, I see no reason to abstain from adding it. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The word seems pretty useless in this context. Show, don't tell applies to well-written non-fiction as well as fiction, unless a characterisation is actually noteworthy in the context. In this case any reader who missed the story can infer from the fact that the video was named "Collateral Murder" video that it must be controversial. The word itself doesn't add anything. It's also a relatively fuzzy word that leaves open the possibility that the controversy would have been only in the publishing. Given that encyclopedias should be brief, I think it's better without the word.

With that said, I don't know the editor who removed the word, and it seems possible that this editor is a rather too strict follower of the often somewhat dubious advice in WP:LABEL. Hans Adler 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Virtually everything that has been leaked has been given controversial-appearing titles. It doesn't hurt to use one word to show it is more controversial than the other, apparently pointless, leaks in Wiki Leaks. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The person who actually did the reverting or someone else who earnestly believes my edit can do any damage really needs to come discuss. Meanwhile, I'll temporary put it back, don't see why not. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote describing conditions

I added a quote to the "Complaints of mistreatment in detention" section, thus;

Life for PFC Manning, however, is not much better now that he has been returned to POI watch. Like suicide risk, he is held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, he will sit in his cell. The guards will check on him every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning will be required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see him clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure that he is okay. He will receive each of his meals in his cell. He will not be allowed to have a pillow or sheets. He will not be allowed to have any personal items in his cell. He will only be allowed to have one book or one magazine at any given time to read. The book or magazine will be taken away from him at the end of the day before he goes to sleep. He will be prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempts to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he will be forced to stop. He will receive one hour of exercise outside of his cell daily. The guards will take him to an empty room and allow him to walk. He will usually just walk in figure eights around the room until his hour is complete. When he goes to sleep, he will be required to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothing to the guards.

— Attorney David C. Coombs

This was removed by Qwyrxian on the basis that it is too long.

I do not agree, on the basis that a paragraph of the same length containing a near-identical description of conditions should be acceptable. It seems to me to make no sense that if I take what Coombs wrote, give it a ref and re-write it to describe conditions, it is acceptable, but if I merely quote Coombs directly, it is not; especially since the latter is more informative than the former. In the absence of disagreement, I will in a day or two re-add the quote. Toby Douglass (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

First, we just don't provide long quotes--it's not the style of an encyclopedia. Second, it actually would not be correct for you to rewrite the whole thing and include all of the details. We work in summary style, providing only the information that is useful for a long term understanding of the subjects of our articles. We are not trying to provide an exhaustive list of every single detail, and we do not replicate the news. Furthermore, including so much information from a single biased source is strongly pushing the POV of the article in a single direction. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure, is Coombs 'biased'? (btw, are there BLP issues re describing the honourable lawyer, worthy of his own article, as such?) As far as I can make out the good TV colonel was at one point allowed at least as much space for his balanced assessment. Is this alternative assessment, reported in a seemingly entirely neutral manner, by an impartial lawyer not preferable even to the professions of those in the brig responsible for Manning's (mis)treatment? Where details are relevant, should they not be included under the applicable WP policies? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)