Talk:Bowe Bergdahl

News report suggests error

This news report suggests that our phrase "similar to a Grand Jury hearing in civilian court," was inaccurate. Our article on Article 32 hearings seems to get it right: it's similar to a preliminary hearing, not similar to a grand jury. But I am not confident in this area, so rather than possibly make things worse, I've just removed the claim for now. Hopefully someone who knows about the military system can improve it further from this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Treatment in captivity

Those knowledgeable about Sgt. Bergdahl may be interested in this or this. Sca (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Is "traitor" NPOV?

The opening line of the article states that "Robert Bowdrie "Bowe" Bergdahl (born March 28, 1986) is a United States Army traitor". I'm not here to defend him, but as he is currently awaiting court martial, and to the best of my understanding, the charges against him don't include treason, is it NPOV/accurate to describe him as a "traitor"? I'm not going to change it without other input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaikinMan (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That was some vandalism. It was removed. It was followed by another piece of vandalism adding "hero" to the lead, that was also removed. So the universe is all at balance again. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone else has put 'hero soldier' which is equally NPOV. The person who deleted it found the need to weasel word their edit with 'minor word change' as the description. I'm finding it difficult to maintain good faith, but most of these people are probably coming off Bing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Serial Podcast - Season two is about Bowe Bergdahl

Season two of the Serial Podcast is about Bowe Bergdahl. The first episode was released today. Shouldn't this be a major heading for the article?

https://serialpodcast.org

03:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.254.138.123 (talk)

There's a bit of an edit-war going on about whether the Serial coverage should be in the top paragraph. My opinion is that it should not—it would be more appropriate in a "news coverage" section, or in "see also". But given the controversy on this, I thought it would be better for me to express my opinion here instead of making another revert... — Narsil (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Per WP:LEAD the most important aspects of the subject are summarized at the top. The podcast is not a particularly important part of Bergdahls story. – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Prisoner of War Medal

Is there any way to know whether SGT Bergdahl has been awarded this? Deltopia (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Deltopia: This Washington Post article from today remarks that he was not wearing it during arraignment today at Fort Bragg, and that this is an indication that the Army has reserved judgment in awarding it to him. I don't usually put much weight in websites like this one, which claims he has been awarded the medal, but the website is privately maintained and although it claims, "All recipients in the database are verified by source material such as official award citations, narratives and/or synopses from individuals or records from the National Archives," I don't see it pointing to any such sources here. So it looks like it has not been verifiably awarded to him. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Deltopia: The other approach to take here is to do some good ol' letter writing and contact the National Archives directly. : ) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: I guess I should have asked "Does anyone know" rather than "is there any way to know"; I did not think that the governing regulations allowed the Army any latitude in deciding whether to award it... so I looked it up. According to Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, ch 2.9 para h:

Any person convicted of misconduct or a criminal charge by a U.S. military tribunal, or who receives a less than honorable discharge based upon actions while a POW, or whose conduct was not in accord with the Code of Conduct, and whose actions are documented by U.S. military records is ineligible for the medal. The SECARMY is the authority for deciding eligibility in such cases.

According to the article, none of his actions while a POW are actually being questioned, just the circumstances that led to him being captured. So it's interesting that they would withhold the medal, or maybe it implies that they think some of his actions as a POW were questionable. AR 670-1 definitely indicates, though, that if they'd awarded it to him, he should be wearing it -- so that Washington Post photo definitely answers my question. Thanks! Deltopia (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)