This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Please read the first paragraph of WP:TALK again:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

Therefore a Wikipedia article talk page is not an appropriate place to call for donations or otherwise campaign for a cause, however noble it might appear to us. As you indicate yourself, this post was not in any way a contribution to an useful discussion about the article's content, it was just abusing the talk page for advertising.

You also ignored the concern that this posting was likely a copyright violation, as the text was a) published elsewhere on the web before (see link below) b) if your conjecture is correct (it is plausible) and this if from an email sent by Wikileaks, 81.190.109.249 likely did not obtain permission from Assange to put the text under a CC-BY-SA license (which one does by inserting it here).

Even if copyright issues are absent, talk pages are not dumping grounds for fulltext sources. To adress the possibility that someone might need the text for research, I have provided a link to a copy on the Nabble.org mailing list archive below.

Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks may be under attack.

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

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

Julian Assange Editor in Chief

WIKILEAKS

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.109.249 ( talk) 14:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the parts in WP:TALK when it discusses under which circumstances deletion of other people's entries is acceptable: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations; or Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism OK". This one doesn't seem to fall under either category. It certainly doesn't seem like Assange is the only one here with an agenda. I explained why I thought it my be useful "for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page" due to the claims and information included therein, despite the fact that it is also an call for donation. But if you really, want to delete it, I won't argue further. Thanks for at least providing a link so that editors still have access to the message. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Read what you quote. "Copyright violations" was one of the reasons I described (I even linked to Wikipedia:Copyright violations for your convenience).

You seem to imply that it was Assange who posted this. I don't think that is true. Also, it is of course perfectly fine for him to send out such letters, they just don't belong on this page. And what other agenda do you mean?

Regards, HaeB ( talk) 03:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read closely enough. I'm surprised that even generic automated email responses are also considered under copyright. By other agenda, I meant that although the person putting this comment up had an agenda, the military industrial complex which Wikileaks threatens also has an agenda and would like to have to comment taken down, not to imply that you are working for such an agenda. I know you have a good history here on Wikipedia. I'm sure you believe there may be copyright violations and you may be right, although it is not as if there would be any real danger of Wikileaks actually taking Wikipedia to court of displaying such an e-mail. I just meant to point out that bias against Wikileaks is more likely to be a problem than bias for Wikileaks, and that I don't see how the e-mail was reducing the quality of the talk page. But again, I think leaving a link to the e-mail is a good compromise. Gregcaletta ( talk) 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Highly edited sources of information are worth slightly more than a pile of shit and slighly less than a piece of garbage.

I agree that they are worth slightly more than a piece of shit, but I disagree that they are worth less than a piece of garbage. Unfortunately, that's all the major media organisations are using as their source, so that's what we have to use at Wikipedia. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if the military would present us with some better evidence. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I have added the charges in. Let me know if I missed something. I'd like to get info on how many years he is potentially in for but can't find it in a reliable source, though the charge sheet here shows it could potentially be a life sentence. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that charge sheet does not give sentence periods, but this analysis does. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he's probably in for 5-20 years, unless there is a massive public uproar and they manage to get him off on the first amendment, but that's probably unlikely in the current legal climate. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The FBI have not said anything about anything to my knowledge. The CID only said one thing in the month or so up until the charges this week and that is that Manning had been arrested, was being held in Kuwait, and had not been charged. All of our other information comes from Poulsen via Lamo himself. However, Manning was being held in Kuwait for more than a month without charge. I don't like to imagine what the Army were doing to him in this time, but I expect they managed to get some kind of confession out of him so that they would not have to base their whole case on Lamo's questionable chat logs. According to WIkileaks, he was denied access to civilian lawyers during his time under arrest. Gregcaletta ( talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing you aren't engaging in asinine speculation concerning this case. Oh, wait, you are. My bad. But hey, maybe I shouldn't question you. You obviously know so much about the case you can authoritatively weigh in on the "questionableness" of chat logs you haven't seen AND provide commentary on the UCMJ in regards to Manning's access to attorneys. And obviously, Wikileaks is a completely unimpeachable source.

The talk page is a perfectly acceptable place for speculation, particularly in response to a question. Gregcaletta ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see any such POV problems, though I'm admittedly kind of biased myself. Perhaps Adrian could explain why he added the tag? Thanks. –  Hysteria18 ^{( Talk • Contributions)} 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The heavy usage of quotes from Wikileaks, as well as (especially) the quotes from Greenwald, show heavy bias in favor of Bradley Manning. Perhaps the fine editors here could think of a way to add rebuttal comments and a more neutral POV? It reads like a Libertarian newsletter right now. As I am, in fact, somewhat of a Libertarian myself, I would know. 66.74.76.107 ( talk) 09:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article also includes lengthy statements by US Government officials. Which significant POV do you feel is missing from the article? Gregcaletta ( talk) 09:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Commentary section is pure garbage. It reads like a brief written by Manning's defense attorney. Moreover, the mere act of adding a Commentary, a word used to describe an individual's particular point of view on a subject(and as such it is inherently biased), to an article that is supposed to be encyclopedic is ridiculous. It takes about two seconds of reading to figure which point of view is represented, to the exclusion of all others, in the "Commentary". That someone actually thought that section presented a neutral point of view is absolutely laughable. Moreover, the portion of the asinine Commentary section that discusses State Dept. action toward Wikileaks back in 2008 has no relevance to this case, at all. If you want to write paragraphs about the earth-shattering importance of Wikileaks, do it on your own site, alongside your ramblings about the military-industrial complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 02:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see a non-neutral point of view here, you are completely blind. The statements from Glenn "sockpuppet" Greenwald (as if that clown is in the position to question anyone's credibility)concerning the conttents of the chat logs are nothing but pure speculation. Neither Greenwald, nor any other commentator or journalist for that matter, has been given access to the unedited chat logs, so statements about what is or isn't in them are speculative and should be removed, as should statements pertaining to any person's supposed lack of credibility that use the incomplete chat logs as "evidence" . But of course that won't happen because the people who wrote this article are too busy inveighing against the so-called "military-industrial complex". Individuals are using what is supposed to be an encyclopedia (what a total freakin joke)to launch speculative attacks on the credibility of those with whom they disagree, quoting sources on only one side of the story and practically hero-worshipping in print those whom they deem to be right in the Manning case. The Commentary section is a perfect crystallization of the bias of the "authors" of this piece of crap entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 03:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that press briefing from the State Department is from 11 June 2010, and he was asked questions specifically about this case. Again, if you know of any significant POVs that are missing, or underrepresented in the article, and you have reliable sources to cite for them, feel free to present them. Gregcaletta ( talk) 11:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, wrong. I am not talking about the June State Dept. release, I am talking about the following statement, taken from the grossly biased "Commentary" section. It reads as follows:

"In 2008, Wikileaks released a classified report of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center discussing ways to destroy WikiLeaks's reputation and efficacy.[15] The report said 'successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions'.[20] Greenwald wrote about this: 'exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here.'"

The first two words of the first sentence read "In 2008". State Dept. actions two years before Manning's arrest have absolutely nothing, at all, to do with this case, and claims otherwise are suppported by absolutely no evidence(and Greenwald's speculative allegations don't even remotely rise to that level). And of course, what would a portion of this laughably biased, supposedly "encyclopedic" entry be without more unsupported speculation by Glenn Greenwald? Greenwald's musings on this topic have no place in an article that is supposed to be unbiased and encyclopedic in nature. It is bad enough that Greenwald's speculative pontifications in regards to the contents of highly edited and redacted chat logs are being used to question the credibility of Adrian Lamo; even more unfounded speculation shouldn't be added on top of it. Greenwald has absolutely no evidence of ulterior motives on the part of the U.S. Government in this case; he can't possibly know, as he is not privy to any of the information regarding the government's arrest of Manning, other than severely edited chat logs. Repeating his unfounded allegations (unless you can back them up, and you can't), as if they were fact, in an article that purports to be encyclopedic is a joke. As I mention in other posts on this talk page, it is quite obvious that you, and the other "authors" of this "entry" are trying to imply (and the inclusion of Greenwald's comments almost makes it explicit)that Manning was not arrested because he ILLEGALLY leaked classified data, rather he is merely being persecuted in order to destroy the credibility of Wikileaks. Quoting the individual who leaked the Pentagon Papers only makes the motives of this entry's "authors" even more transparent. The whole Commentary section should be scrapped immediately, because, for one, it is one person's commentary, which by its very nature is nothing but pure opinion, but also because it seems to be included solely to guide the reader to the conclusion the "author" of this entry wants the reader to reach, just in case someone reading about Manning's infractions comes to the conclusion that, hey, maybe he did break the law. It seems the goal is to convince the reader that the "military-industrial complex" arrested Manning, a brave whistleblower in the mold of Daniel Ellsberg (please, give us a break), to destroy the credibility of Wikileaks, rather than the because he broke the law. Including a quote from Ellsberg, who accuses the United States of engaging in "highly murderous and corrupt operations" makes the bias that much more obvious (and please, don't even try to claim that his statements aren't biased and that you included a contrary point of view). Of course, if the bias became any more obvious than it already is, it would rise to the level of parody. Continuing to claim that this article is not biased is such pure bullshit, I seriously can't believe anyone would continue to repeat such nonsense. The Commentary section is a complete joke, and is nothing but pure speculation; including unfounded allegations of "murder" and "corruption". There is not one factual statement that can be backed up in that entire portion. Not one. At the very least, the Commentary should be scrapped. Ideally, this whole entry should be rewritten by someone who can write about the KNOWN FACTS of the case rather than merely including speculation from political commentators concerning the US government's motives and unfounded smears directed at Adrian Lamo based upon incomplete chat log entries. Please, quit insulting our intelligence by claiming you have included all relevant POV's because anyone who is even semi-literate can see that such a statement is a bald-faced lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the State Department comments. The link to events in 2008 is not one made by me but by Greenwald. I don't understand your objection to a commentary section. WP:NPOV states that all POVs should be represented in the article, as long as they appear in significant mainstream publication. If you know of alternative points of view that have been discussed in equally significant publications, you are free to present them here. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald is the only person I know of to have conducted an extensive interview with Adrian Lamo, and published the whole interview on the webpage for his article. I wish there were more journalists doing this kind of investigative journalism. If you could find some alternative investigative journalism or commentary from an alternative POV I would be very grateful. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My problem continues to be with the Commentary section. Greenwald's quote in the Commentary section is pure speculation, plain and simple. Attempting to balance that statement with conflicting statements only compounds the problem as it would be presenting more speculation, this time only from the other side of the political spectrum. Furthermore, the quote from Daniel Ellsberg has no business being in an article on something that is supposed to be encyclopedic. It is inflammatory to say the least, as it makes accusations of murder and corruption. If someone doesn't change the content of the Commentary section it is going to get deleted. It has no business at all being in an encyclopedic entry. It reads more like an entry on a left wing blog than it does an online encyclopedia. It implies there is some sort of conspiracy behind Manning's arrest and it puts forth the notion that Manning's arrest was done not only to smear Wikileaks but also to hide murderous actions of the US government. Such unsourced allegations, especially ones so inflammatory, have no place in an encyclopedia. It needs to be deleted, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree that commentary is generally a bad thing in encyclopaedia articles. An encyclopaedic article on a controversial topic would be incomplete without include the controversy. Greenwald's statements are not a fringe theory. As far as I can tell, no one has actually denied the statements that he has made. But even if he what he is saying is not true, it does not make it unencyclopedic to include the comments as quotations, because we are merely sating that Greenwald (and Ellsberg) said these things, not that they are necessarily true. Also, by your logic, we would also have to remove the statements made by Government officials, of which there is about twice as much than the Greenwald stuff. For example, the state official's said the leal of the documents would be "a serious breach of our security and can cause potential damage to our national security interests". I would say this is also "speculation" and also quite unlikely, but I included it because the fact that he said it is in itself significant. In fact, the State department official was actually asked the allegations of Greenwald you referred to were true, and the government official avoided denying it. Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In short, everything in the article is a fact, backed up by a reliable source. Not everything in quotation marks in necessarily a fact, but it at least a fact these these things were said. This is why it is not unencyclopaedic to include commentary in this way. The first sentence of WP:NPOV says that articles should include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If you are worried about POV, you will have to find more significant sources representing alternative POVs. Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that undue weight is given to the commentary of the obviously biased Greenwald. He himself claims that "a definitive understanding of what really happened is virtually impossible to acquire...". Therefore, his claims that "...Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security." and that "...Lamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions" are pure speculation on his part. In addition, to say that he is a "reliable source" might be a bit premature based on his speculation. His (Greenwald's) 'significant view' has been established here ten times over despite this. While I understand that little reliable sources have been found for this particular topic, I believe that it shouldn't carry undue weight in Manning's favor. Please consider the fact that the majority of the quotes are in his defense, and the fact that the only quotes in response are about the material in question. This Wikipedia article is not a tabloid for conspiracy theories about the government ("...exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here"), nor is it the collection bin for supporting comments and defense. I urge the editors here to revise this article. 66.74.76.107 ( talk) 09:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see how the removal of the commentary by Greenwald would improve the quality of the article. L"Undue wight" refers to a disproportionate representation of a particular viewpoint based on the prevalence of that viewpoint among significant sources. In other words, it can only be "undue weight" if Greenwald's view is held by a very small minority among significant sources. Unfortunately, Greenwald appears to be the only journalist who has investigated this matter to my knowledge. If you know of any alternative viewpoints on this in significant sources, please present them.

In response to your point about this being "speculation". Lamo said in his interview with Greenwald that there were important parts of the chat logs that Wired did not release. Either Lamo is lying or he is telling the truth. Therefore, the statement "Lamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions" is clearly true. Greenwald made the full audio of the interview available at the bottom of his article so you can verify this for yourself. No significant sources have disputed this, but even if there were, we would just include those sources in the article, rather than removing the stuff from Greenwald. Gregcaletta ( talk) 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't have 20 min to read you guys' whole thing but in skimming I noticed someone wondering about other interviews w/Lamo. Here's one. Starts around 17:30. Btw anyone for an indent reset? Anyone else feeling cramped?

-- Qwerty0 ( talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely indent reset. Lamo has done a few interviews for the mainstream media, but no one has really asked him the hard questions apart from Greenwald. Greenwald is a lawyer as well as a journalist so the interview is very interesting to listen two if you have the time. It becomes pretty clear that Lamo is making at least some stuff up, but it is hard to tell exactly what. Gregcaletta ( talk) 11:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Clear in what way that Lamo is making stuff up? Evidently it is not too obvious or you would not have any problem telling us "exactly what" is being made up by Lamo. Greenwald is a political partisan and that is evident in his wrting. The notion that he is a non-biased source providing non-biased commentary on the truthfulness of Lamo's assertion is asinine. As for Greenwald's speculation, he cannot back up his claims that Lamo is "extremely untrustworthy". Furthermore, his assertion that Lamo may have violated the law by possibly breaking a promise to Manning that his correspondence would be confidential is absolutely absurd. Exactly which laws did Lamo break? Lamo is not a doctor or a lawyer; there are no laws protecting confidentiality that apply to Lamo in regards to his interactions with Manning. Furthermore, even if there are, an individual is required to break his silence if he knows of a pending crime. As for Greenwald's assertions that nothing Manning leaked is damaging to national security, well hindsight has made him an ignorant jackass on that one. Greenwald's interviews with Lamo may be relevant because they shed some light on Lamo's interactions with Manning, but Greenwald's opinionated musings on the case aren't relevant, and he certainly doesn't deserve to have a whole section devoted to him. Statements he has made concerning Lamo and this case, particularly his implication that Manning was arrested as a way to destroy Wikileaks, show that he is extremely biased; his utterings are given entirely too much weight in this article. Greenwald's opinion concerning Lamo's trustworthiness is not worthy of mention in this article, particularly when you consider he has no evidence that Lamo is lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All commentary and opinion is "biased" whether it is partisan or not. WP:NPOV does not state not to include opinion, it just says not to state opinion as fact, and to include opinion only if it comes from a significant publication.

If you are interested in my own opinion, I think it is clear from the recording that Lamo was making a lot of stuff up in the interview, but that is my opinion and you should check for yourself by listening to the interview. But neither your opinion or my opinion on this is relevant to the article. What is relevant to the article is anything which has appeared in a significant publication on the topic of the "Arrest of Bradley Manning". The only question, is where and how to present the material. I have moved the Greenwald material to the "commentary" section as a compromise. Gregcaletta ( talk) 02:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guess what, if your opinion on whether Lamo is a liar has no place in a supposedly encyclopedic article, NEITHER DOES GREENWALD'S. It should be excised completely. It seems you are absolutely hell bent on including biased opinions that have absolutely no place in this article. Greenwald's statement about Lamo's trustworthiness seems to pretty definitively state that Lamo is a liar. If that is not opinion presented as fact, I don't know what is. There is quite simply no reason why Greenwald's opinions on this matter should have an entire section devoted to them. His interviews with Lamo can be incorporated into this article withouth having a separate sectioned headlined with Greenwald's name in bold, capital letters. The latter half of this article, which is nothing more than attempts to smear Lamo, is about as neutral as a Red Sox fan at a Yankees game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 05:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's important to understand the distinction between presenting opinion as fact, and presenting fact about opinion. For example, if we said this in the article, without quotation marks, it would be stating opinion as fact:

"Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manning that are (a) extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Manning's personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c) are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired."

But if we place it in quotation marks and write

"Greenwald wrote that "Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manning that are (a) extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Manning's personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c) are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired.""

Then it is a fact about an opinion i.e. it is a fact that Greenwald said this. The reason his opinion deserves to be in the article and not mine or yours is that it appears in a significant publication, as do all of the other facts and opinions in the article. The article can only be considered "POV" if there are significantly different POVs which appear in significant sources but which do not appear in the article. If you can provide such alternative POVs, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, your criticisms are not useful. Gregcaletta ( talk) 04:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"In 2008, Wikileaks released a classified report of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center discussing ways to destroy WikiLeaks's reputation and efficacy.[15] The report said 'successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions'.[20] Greenwald wrote about this: 'exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here.'": I think that, although the article is ok without the paragraph, it should be added because there is nothing wrong with it. It is biased the way it looks now, but if instead of removing it all, we work on making it clear this is what Greenwald believe and not what Wikipedia (as a whole) believes, will prevent it from being biased. Remember: Being neutral means not having opinions, but it does not mean you cannot describe other people's opinions. A neutral encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia that never talks about people's opinions, but an one that talks about people's opinions (that is information for encyclopedias too) but makes it clear it is an opinion. Just because someone is biased doesn't mean he can't be quoted in an encyclopedia. Example here: Criticism of the War on Terror: "The remark, 'You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror,' by U.S. President Bush in November 2001,[18] has been a source of criticism." has a biased quote from George Bush but does not make the article biased. Also, being 2 years before the arrest doesn't mean it is irreverent, because all plans are made before there are executed. 75.147.179.37 ( talk) 06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• "WikiLeaks Mysteries Deepen", Shane Harris, Washingtonian, June 8
• "Was alleged Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning's crisis also one of personal identity?", Xeni Jardin, Boing Boing, June 20
• "Is Alleged Wikileaker Bradley Manning Pre-Transition Transgendered?", Max Read, Gawker, June 20
• "Was Wikileaker Bradley Manning Betrayed By His Queer Identity?", Adrian Chen, Gawker, June 23
• "Is Notorious Army Secrets Leaker Gay - Or Transgendered?", Kilian Melloy, Edge, June 24 ( WP:RS?)

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

I would say not. As you said yourself, it is "speculation", and you will notice that the articles above put a question mark at the end of the title. As it is gossip, I would not think it worthy of including until someone (preferably an actual newspaper) actually reports it as a fact. Even if reliable sources stated it as a fact, we would have to address whether it is relevant to the "Address of Bradley M anning""Arrest of Bradley Manning". Gregcaletta ( talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's gossip, so it isn't worth adding to the article, but your commentary about State Dept. actions in 2008 that have no connection to Bradley Manning do merit inclusion? Give me a break. Someone who is a little less insanely biased needs to write the entry on Manning. Anyone who tries to imply, by mentioning State Dept. actions over 2 years before Manning's arrest, some sort of ridiculous conspiracy is occurring in which Manning is a pawn being used for the purpose of smearing Wikileaks has no business anywhere near this supposedly encyclopedic entry. There is a reason people scoff at the value of Wikipedia. The entry on Manning provides a perfect example. Quit using Wikipedia as your own personal political platform to smear individuals or institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 ( talk) 02:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The State Department press briefing is from 2010, and they directly discuss the documents and arrest in question. Gregcaletta ( talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the comparison. The article is the "Arrest of Bradley Manning". Speculation about gender issues based on fairly innocuous statements in unsubstantiated chat logs are not relevant. Speculations about the motive of the government in arresting and prosecuting such individuals is highly relevant. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This sort of scandal-mongering is flagrantly out of line for a BLP. I've been involved in a big dispute at Johnny Weir, where many were maintaining that Wikipedia couldn't mention that some sportscasters had mocked him as gay in a widely carried broadcast, or even quote comments he made in response to them. There the people trying to "clean up" the article went much too far, but WP:BLP does say in no uncertain terms that we don't publish scandal sheet articles that don't even present the thing they're alleging as true. (i.e. the above references) This should go double-triple for a case where a disinformation campaign is quite likely to be in play, perhaps serving as propaganda against don't ask, don't tell repeal in the bargain. Wnt ( talk) 17:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well put. Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I suppose I should add in a link to the USS Iowa turret explosion to clarify why I'm particularly suspicious. Wnt ( talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

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

Another source says he's openly gay. I might agree the others may not be RSs, but this one is.

The fact that he's politically outspoken on U.S. and/or military policy is highly relevant to this article. That would be true regardless of what the policy is that he's critical of.

-- Randy2063 ( talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he's politically outspoken on U.S. and/or military policy is already included in the article, in the form of the chat logs, but you can include that source if you like. Whether or not he his gay is not really relevant to this arrest. Gregcaletta ( talk) 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm convinced: the CNN article [2] (and two other articles that looked genuine but were both spam-blacklisted...!) and the Telegraph source above are certainly enough to mention in the article, as they describe an alleged motive. Though I'm still highly suspicious that there's some kind of deception going on here. I'm supposed to believe that the military left someone with gay postings using his own name on Facebook, who'd been reprimanded for fighting, and demoted, and outspoken against military policy, was left with unrestricted access not just to the basic SIPRNet but also JWICS, and still nobody noticed he downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he had no business looking at? I'm starting to believe he really is innocent, and being framed, because it's the least astonishing explanation for everything. Wnt ( talk) 03:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I still can't think how we would work it into the article. It seems to be a fairly extraneous detail, unrelated to his arrest. I doubt that articles about legal cases generally mention the sexuality of the accused unless it is directly relevant to the case. Gregcaletta ( talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the material about him being gay because I do not see the relevance to his arrest. I am worried it may violate the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, and at least the spirit of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources. It is certainly best to err on the side of caution when referring to living people, and this article is not even about Manning himself (due to WP:BLP1E). WP:BLP1E suggests having articles about events (such as his arrest and charges) rather than the person in the event, specifically to avoided cases like this. It seems to me to be gossip included in these articles to make them seem more exciting (i.e. building up a character in order to create a narrative, a rhetorical technique), but not at all relevant to the article. Gregcaletta ( talk) 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Manning's disaffection with the military life due to the DADT policy is very, very relevant. He was alienated from the Army, and found a new social outlet in a group that included not only his boyfriend, but also "politically motivated computer hackers." It isn't just gossip either. It's sourced in both The New York Times and The Daily Telegraph. See also my comments here regarding WP:BLP1E. The conditions described by Sterrettc at the top of this subsection are satisfied: "his sexual identity ... might have caused him to do what he is accused of doing." That's why I've reverted the removal of this material. If we choose to create a separate article about Manning, then it belongs in that article. Until that time, it belongs here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevance to the criminal case (if one believes it) is that Manning was angry about sexuality discrimination and this was a motive to divulge the information. And that article title is ludicrous - ostensibly, an article about the "arrest of Bradley Manning" rules out general biographic detail of Bradley Manning and details of the alleged crime and prosecution. If you do a search at the Main Page for "Arrest of" and look at the items that come up, most of them have been renamed, e.g. Arrest of Roman Polanski -> "Roman Polanski sexual abuse case". Wnt ( talk) 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that this article refered specifically to a breakup with his girlfriend. The fact is that he had a breakup with his boyfriend, Tyler Watkins, and wrote about it... and there are two articles cited. Why is it acceptable for someone to falsely claim he broke up with his 'girlfriend'? Why is it unacceptable to state that broke up with is boyfriend? I guess we're going to discriminate against homosexuals by pretending they don't exist? There is nothing unacceptable about saying that Bradley Manning was gay, that he dated Tyler Watkins, and that, according to his own writing, his boyfriend broke up with him shortly before he leaked classified documents? There seems to be a double standard when we can talk about someone breaking up with their heterosexual partner but to suggest that someone broke up with a homosexual partner is off limits.

The fact is that he broke up with his boyfriend shortly before he released classified documents and the media has widely speculated that this has motivated his actions. If you're really so intolerant that you cannot discuss his sexuality openly then please use the term 'partner' but using saying he broke up with a girlfriend is just false. 71.175.13.145 ( talk) 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, a descriptive narrative voice would mean interpreting the primary sources which would be original research. Merely presenting the quotes directly is not original research. Gregcaletta ( talk) 08:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Presenting the sources entire, raw, is not our job. It's a job for, well, Wired and other news sources. Publishing an edited version to advance some kind of narrative description without a secondary source is a straightforward example of original research, particularly of synthesis. I think we need to strike those transcripts and the paragraphs based on them, replacing them with secondary source reporting. Ray ^Talk 14:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a missinterpretation of WP:OR. Original research means anding one's own interpretation or opinions that appear nowhere in the source. Gregcaletta ( talk) 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, selectively quoting original source material to convey one's desired impression counts as interpretation. Unless we publish the full transcripts, we can't help but selectively quote. We cannot publish the full transcripts, as a) that is not the purpose of Wikipedia b) that would cause all sorts of copyright issues. This stuff has to go. Ray ^Talk 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't count as interpretation, just as choosing which facts from secondary sources to include in the article and which not to include does not count as interpretation, although both can lead to bias. The solution to this is to work towards a consensus on which quotations or facts are the most relevant to the subject (in this case "Bradley Manning") rather than just removing all material on the belief than presenting any such material is original research (you won't find any part of the policy which suggests that using selected quotations is original research). Gregcaletta ( talk) 02:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Add links of the excised information:

• Bradley Manning's legal expenses benefit fund
• Bradley Manning's support homepage

-- IQinn ( talk) 01:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Mm. It is listed on the AP website as an undated file photo - the language says that the AP "obtained" it, rather than taking it. It seems we're going to have to wait for arraignment photos or something similar to get PD images. Ray ^Talk 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Second remark - I can see a fair use claim being made for keeping the image temporarily, until a PD image becomes available. WP:NFCC normally abjures the use of nonfree images of living people, but in this case, the subject of the photograph is in prison, and so it seems unlikely that a free alternative will be forthcoming for some time. Ray ^Talk 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Other sources credit the image to www.bradleymanning.org. This is his support website that states that "All material on this website is released into the public domain unless otherwise indicated. Link and attribution appreciated.". IQinn ( talk) 12:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That picture does not origination with bradleymanning.org. I took it from the AP article. My guess is that AP or Wired obtained a copy of it from a family member interviewed very early on. The other photos of Manning floating around come from his Facebook profile. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗ C• @• T↗} 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I originally wrote that sentence, I was intentionally vague under some feeling that the sadder details of Manning's life were best euphemized. You have correctly pointed out that, while my motive may have been kind and respectful of Manning's privacy, it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's stern mandate to provide our readers with the most relevant, encyclopedic treatment of material that is reliably sourced. I have re-inserted such of the details from the NYT article as I think are relevant to giving the reader an understanding of Manning's situation. Ray ^Talk 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee for officers.

...

And now some of those friends say they wonder whether his desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur — may have led him to disclose the largest trove of government secrets since the Pentagon Papers.

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

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

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

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

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

The Manning article will disappear sooner or later as a BLP notable for one event. For now, though, resentment over fetching coffee should stay as it gives amateur insight as to his motivations. The source is New York Times, which is WP:RS enough when compared to People. (Perhaps if the coffee were Starbucks he'd have less to complain about?) -- S. Rich ( talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)