Talk:Bowe Bergdahl

QUESTION: Should "the" Taliban be treated as a singular ("the faculty" as an example), presuming "it" is in agreement, or a "they" presuming they are atomized and not acting in concert?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrinchPeru (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ANyone??? GrinchPeru (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote from video

After being asked by his captors if he had a message for his people, Bergdahl answered:

To my fellow Americans who have loved ones over here, who know what it's like to miss them, you have the power to make our government bring them home. Please, please bring us home so that we can be back where we belong and not over here, wasting our time and our lives and our precious life that we could be using back in our own country. Please bring us home. It is America and American people who have that power.

Why was this quote removed as "not neutral"? The quote is directly from the BBC article, so if they think it should be mentioned, then I don't see why we should not. The video is what he is notable for, why are we not allowed to describe it? And why is "in the video Bergdahl states the date as July 14 2009" or the US military response deemed neutral enough to be included, but the above quote not? Note that we should not represent American military POV in this article, but a global and multi-sided one. Also remember WP:verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not neutral was probably a poor description of the problem here. The problem as Cshay has stated earlier is the statement was given under duress. Therefore it's relevance is questionable. If we were discussiong a statement from the Taliban or his captors, then including it would probably be appropriate but we're not Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"The problem as Cshay has stated earlier is the statement was given under duress. Therefore it's relevance is questionable." I don't understand. Whether or not it was given under duress is irrelevant (we don't even know if it was); WP:V says verifiability, not truth. Since when did we start dropping statements by someone because they may not correspond to what the source really thinks? There are lots of other articles were we are quoting what someone says while being held captive. Why is this case different? The quotation is a description of the video, so why would not be relevant? (It was deemed relevant by the BBC as well.) Offliner (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope he lives and is not harmed!

Pray or think of this man and his family!TW-RF (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)