Talk:Chelsea Manning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.74.76.107 (talk) at 09:41, 29 July 2010 (→‎NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


WikiLeaks automated response

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

NPOV

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am of the opinion that undue weight is given to the commentary of the obviously biased Greenwald. He himself claims that a "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)[reply]

highly edited chat logs

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Manning's sexuality/gender identity

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

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

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

Manning Charged

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

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

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

Lamo's credibility

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bradley Manning Article?

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

I don't think there has been much reporting so far on Bradley Manning as a person, but if you can find enough reliable sources then feel free to create such an article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=376059951"