Talk:Bowe Bergdahl/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Taliban

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)

The Taliban article uses the singular. I've always heard the term used in the singular (mostly). --Elliskev 18:58, 23 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)

Can you show other articles where we include random quotes made in a video released by the captors of a person who is being held captive without access to lawyers, and other things considered basic human rights, particular of a BLP? I would like to see such articles, as I would like to remove these quotes. The issue here again is not truth, but of relevance and weight. There's no clear relevance of the quotes. Do they say something about Bowe Bergdahl? No? Do they say something about his captivity? No. Are they a statement from his captors? Maybe, but we don't know. Your claim on the BBC is frankly irrelevant. They also mentioned:

"I miss them and I'm afraid that I might never see them again, and that I'll never be able to tell them that I love them again, and I'll never be able to hug them,"

Which we don't mention. If I look harder, I may be able to find out further quotes in other articles by other media, perhaps even ending up with effectively a whole transcript. There's clearly NO reason to include the entire tape in the article. Therefore we should only include any relevants parts. Issues like the date, his current condition, how/why he was captured may have some relevance. Random other things to do not. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a description of what is on the video. This is relevant. You can include other things from the video if you want, but their absence is not a reason for removing this. Also, can you point out on which Wikipedia guideline you are basing your deletion? Offliner (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you genuinely telling me you think there is merit to include a transcript of the entire video? If so, I hate to tell you this, but you are in the wrong place. Please go to wikisource. Once you start making sense, then we can talk Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you genuinely telling me you think there is merit to include a transcript of the entire video? - no, I'm not. Offliner (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then can you explain to me why you believe this detail belong in this article, and not other details? Why not "Well I'm scared, scared I won't be able to go home. It is very unnerving to be a prisoner." Or mention he is hoping to marry his girlfriend? Would you prefer we just copy the BBC article and every other reliable source we can find? Please don't tell me to add them, I don't believe they belong, any more then the quote you want to add. Since you believe the original quote belongs, I'm trying to understand why. All you've really said is it exists in a reliable source, but so do many other details we exclude for articles every day, including many here as I've demonstated. (If I wanted to be mean, I could ask you to try and include every single detail mentioned in any reliable source about Britney Spears to her article and the same for the Paris Hilton and Diana of Wales articles if you genuinely believe every detail in a RS belongs but I won't since we have enough here.) So if you feel these belong, then please add them or at least agree you feel they belong, then perhaps we can enlist wider review or perhaps you'd realise it's a bit silly to mention in this article that Bowe Bergdahl hopes to marry his girlfriend, was scared and missed his family, at least according to a propaganda video made while he was being held captive by unknown people without any apparent consideration of what are generally considered normal human rights. Either way, we'd be getting somewhere... If you don't believe these belong then explain to me why you feel the quote is of more importance or relevance to the article, then these other details, from the BBC and other sources (taken from the video) that you are excluding. How do they significantly improve the readers understanding of the subject, the subject being primarily Bowe Bergdahl, and not even his capture (since this is an article on him, not his capture, not that I get how they improve the readers understanding of his capture either). P.S. In case you think I'm some deranged American full of love for his country, I'm not, I dislike many things the US does and they've shown themselves not much better in their treatment of people in Guantanamo Bay. But we don't tend to include random quotes from people held in Guantanamo Bay released by Americans in articles about these people either Nil Einne (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He also wants to learn more about Islam and believes the morale of the US military is low and the war is hard incidentally. We also forgot to mention that parts of the video showed him sitting cross legged and also parts showed him eating. Probably we should also mention his non-decript gray outfit and of course his "start of a beard" and shaven head I guess. [1] Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the quote from the video be included?

Should the quote which is discussed in the section above be included in the article? Offliner (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How he was captured

On a somewhat different issue, has intrigued me. Have the US military ever given further details then "walking off his base in eastern Afghanistan with three Afghan counterparts"? Have any RS discussed the fact which seems to me anyway that the details provided the US military fit more closely with the alleged Taliban's version, then with Bergdahl's version given in the video? Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A recent article in the May 28 issue of Time (which is online here) brings this up. Here are the relevant bits:

How Bergdahl fell into the hands of the Haqqani network remains unclear. Within days of his disappearance on June 30, a Taliban commander crowed to the media that his group had captured a drunken American soldier outside his base. Two and a half weeks later, they released a video. Bergdahl, dressed in local garb and showing the beginnings of a wispy beard, said he had been captured after falling behind on a routine foot patrol. Unnamed soldiers from his base, however, told international media outlets that he had wandered into the scrub-covered mountains on his own with his journal and a supply of water, leaving his weapons and armor behind. An unidentified U.S. official told the Associated Press at the time that he had "just walked off" after his guard shift was over.

For the Bergdahls and the Hailey community, Bowe's return would mark the end of a long journey. But for Bowe, who has been criticized by many for the circumstances surrounding his capture and his appearance in propaganda videos, it would be just the start. "He will always be separate from everyone else--not an outcast, but isolated," says Vadn Dyk, who is still haunted by his own experience. "And it won't be right, but he will be called a traitor. He has a long road ahead."

This should be incorporated into the article but I don't know the process. -- 97.154.220.19 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What is really interesting to me is that Bowe wrote an 8000 word email to his family just prior to being captured. That email details his distaste for how the military is run. And then he was captured. This is described in a Rolling Stone article that was just printed. Mylittlezach (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let it be noted that this page is unreliable

Per previous Wikipedia censorship on kidnapping issues, it should be noted that information on this page is unreliable, and potentialy incomplete. Caution is advised. Reports regarding Bergdahl will not make it on the page... David Rohde --E2039 (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See also removed

The See also to three bios on Iraqi war POWs who were tortured and mutilated before being killed is insensitive and disrespectful to family and friends who may come across this BLP. The very peripheral relationship between these bios, (American soldiers captured) is outweighed by the dissimilarities - different countries, different wars, different militants, different US administrations, AND the sensitivity and respect issues discussed above. Readers can easily access information that is actually more closely related to the Bowe Bergdahl bio by clicking on the Category:War in Afghanistan at the bottom of the page.

I have removed it. If you would like to discuss this further, please discuss this below and get consensus before restoring. KeptSouth (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have any strong feelings on this. But perhaps you have more similar blps that you would like to add instead?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am sorry that you don't have any strong feelings on this. Many Americans do care about the sensitivities of the families and friends of our soldiers. Regardless, I am thankful that your feelings are not leading you to re-add the links. KeptSouth (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF.173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Bergdahl Jewish???

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

---

Is Bergdahl Jewish??? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.31.248 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I heard that his family is Calvinist, and his name is of Scandinavian origin: it could be Danish, Swedish or Norwegian. 76.70.38.192 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

DOD speech

I didn't see this document cited, Sept 16, 2011 speech which identifies Bowe as "captured".

http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/news/speeches/documents/panetta_2011_pow_mia.pdf 71.82.148.223 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Israeli press referred to him as the "The American Gilad Shalit"

[2] Is there anyway to insert this to the article? caus the comparison of the two cases keeps the Israeli press buissy...? --Midrashah (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why an article on this US soldier but not on the prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay

I don't understand this - why is this American soldier "Wikipedia-worthy" but not those 5 people who had been imprisoned in America's Guantanamo Bay detention camp? To me, neither side deserves a dedicated Wikipedia article. Of course, Fox, CNN and other MSM puppets will highlight the soldier's release and subdue the release of the 5 prisoners (because that brings spotlight to Gitmo). Rishabh Singla (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several articles on this topic. The very last sentence of this article states: The Taliban detainees – known as the "Taliban five" – who were transferred from Guantanamo Bay, Cube to custody in Doha, Qatar, are Mohammad Fazl, Khairullah Khairkhwa, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Norullah Noori, and Mohammad Nabi Omari. That sentence itself contains links to six different Wikipedia articles: one on the "Taliban five" and one for each of the five members of the "Taliban five". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Deserter?

Several high quality sources are reporting that there is mixed reaction about Bergdahl's release amongst members of the military, whom feel that he was shirking his duty and Bergdahl should be held accountable for the events leading to his being captured. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

His squad members are saying he abandoned his post and that's why he was captured. The Army has already said he probably wont be charged with any formal UCMJ violations. -OberRanks (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

CNN is reporting that many of Bergdahl's fellow troops said they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Former Pfc. Jose Baggett also told CNN that: He walked off and left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is, he was there to protect us, and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources, and some of those resources were soldiers' lives. It seems that his fellow soldiers all pretty much agree he walked off, but at least one seems unsure what his motives to do so were.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

POW Medal

This was almost immediately reverted. He will be getting the POW Medal almost for certain, according to Army reports on this matter.

Under Army regulations, Bergdahl's captivity automatically entitles him to the Prisoner of War Medal [3]. If so awarded, he would join a small group of American service members who have been presented this award in the 21st century, most notably Jessica Lynch whose repatriation made international headlines.

Unsure why it was taken out. It should probably be restored. -OberRanks (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What are the sources making that analysis (and comparison to Lynch). It may be true, but it was WP:OR and probably WP:SYNTH. Provide sources making this analysis and it can probably stick. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary had two factors (albeit unclear): 1. OR/SYN. 2. repatriation and rescue are two different processes. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably would be best to wait until he actually gets it to add the info. The latest news is talk that he may have abandoned his post and defected. In which case, the medal would not be issued. Not passing judgement, of course, will just need to let the story play out. -OberRanks (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Most certainly the Army did an investigation when he went MIA/POW. Statements from his unit were taken at the time, in which case these news reports (especially the recent ones) are speculation. A decision to charge him under the UCMJ would await an Article 32 hearing. If he gets charged and convicted of desertion or even AWOL, then (probably) no medal and no back pay for his time outside the wire. But who made the announcement of his release and who notified his family? Wasn't it the CINC? Well, it would be a bit awkward to charge him now. So I'd bet he'll get the medal for sure. – S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the alternative would be quite embarrassing for the administration, particularly in light of some of Bergdahl's earlier statements, the tweet from his father etc. I expect this to get swept under the rug as quickly as possible. In any case, for wiki purposes WP:CRYSTAL ball WP:OR is no acceptable. When he gets an award, or at a mimimum reliable sources speculate and discuss about him getting an award, we can talk about it. Until then its not suitable for the wiki. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am confused. I thought it was almost a near certainty that he would be charged with desertion or some other crime. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The article can only reflect what actually happens. We have to wait for an RS to comment on it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

National Defense Authorization Act reference

Should the reference to the 30 day notification requirement in the NDAA be more specific? The Act specifically names the Secretary of Defense and being the government official who must notify Congress.

It doesn't seem super needed to dig into that level of detail, particularly as the administration has stipulated the action did not comply with the legal requirement so there is no need to split hairs on what the law actually does or doesn't require. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Six soldiers killed (allegedly)

In the sub-section "Search efforts", the article currently states that At least six soldiers were killed searching for Bergdahl. However, FoxNews is reporting that - Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said it's "impossible" to confirm right now whether anybody's death was directly linked to the hunt for Bergdahl.[4]. The article also says that Fox News has confirmed that all six died in Afghanistan, though any connection to the search is unclear. I realize the current content is sourced, but a contradictory source from a pentagon spokesperson seems relevant enought to add. All six names are the same from both articles as well. Should we add the word "allegedly" in front of killed? Went ahead and added statement from pentagon spokesman.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The cited source on this actually only clearly said 2 soldiers were killed, and said some tangential stuff about other deaths that would not be easy to clearly and succinctly reflect. Rephrased the article prose. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The cited CNN source explicitly states "six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for him". Please read the CNN source again. Sy9045 (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that summary elsewhere in the article and I did miss it before. However, before, we had our WP article reporting six deaths by name in CNN's editorial voice when only two deaths were explicitly and clearly linked to the Bergdahl search in the CNN text. Another editor has since changed it to accurately reflect CNN's attribution of the claim to soldiers familiar with the incident. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Six deaths

The cited CNN article in "Search efforts" says this explicitly: "At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for him, according to soldiers involved in the operations to find him." I have no idea why 6 deaths were removed in favor of "2 deaths". Why are these being edited without reading the sources? Sy9045 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back to six as that is what the source says. There may be expansion needed on this point to fully express correct WP:NPOV for correlation vs causation. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it says six, not two. I tweaked the wording to include that the fellow soldiers – not CNN – are making this claim (of six related deaths). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"confirmed that he may have"

What on earth is that supposed to mean? To "confirm" something means to affirm that it is true, but to affirm that someone might have done something is absurd. I can confirm indisputably that Cirrus Editor may have jumped over the moon, that s/he may have purple eyes, and that s/he may have eaten a kitten for dinner. While that statement is true, does it make any sense at all?? No, and neither does "a Defense Department source confirmed to Fox News that he may have also been an active collaborator with the enemy". 32.218.46.205 (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I do see your point. But, in this scenario, I don't think it's an issue. The statement essentially says/means: "a Defense Department source confirmed to Fox News that [they are investigating the possibility that] he may have also been an active collaborator with the enemy". That's my read on it. I don't think it's problematic. But, yes, it could have been phrased better, I agree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Father's tweet

Several mainstream RS have picked up on the tweets by Bergdahl's father, 4 days prior to the transfer. Fit for inclusion somewhere?

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/02/the-curious-case-of-bob-bergdahls-apparent-tweet-to-the-taliban/?tid=pm_pop
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brothers-arms-bash-bowe-bergdahl-traitor-article-1.1814106
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/2/bowe-bergdahls-father-tweets-release-tunisian-gitm/
• http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/sgt_bowe_bergdahls_father_tweets_controversial_message_at_pro-taliban_group.html
• http://www.inquisitr.com/1279171/bowe-bergdahl-dads-pro-afghan-tweets-spark-controversy/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10871130/Bergdahl-release-deal-critics-focus-on-fathers-bushy-beard-and-utterances-in-Arabic-and-Pashtu.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646764/Bearded-Pashto-speaking-father-Bowe-Bergdahl-fire-tweeting-Taliban-spokesman-God-repay-death-Afghan-child.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definitely fit for inclusion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014

Please add a citation-needed tag for the sentence that starts with "Though U.S. federal law states that..." because this is an un-cited claim. 50.200.221.190 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done I copied a reference from lower that sources this. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Added {{Cn}} tag as requested. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Split

Should this article be split into a more pure WP:BLP and an WP:EVENT for the Release of Bowe Berdgdahl or some other such article? The content about his release and about various laws and policies and criticisms of administration, and their defenses etc are not really part of a biography of Bergdahl. (Although obviously some more summarized version would need to remain). The remaining BLP would be pretty spartan as we don't have much on the guy himself, which I suppose is an argument to convert this more to a WP:BLP1E WP:EVENT article and not have a BLP at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No. IMO Taliban Five can cover the controversy in that event. – S. Rich (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This article kind of reminds me of the Chelsea Manning article. It's a BLP while also having content in the article space of an EVENT nature. There have been several articles created as a result of her leaks and her trial was a separate article, but I think overall, the article looks good the way it is. As far as this article is concerned, I think there is plenty of content to support a separate article for "the release", so I guess the question is - should we, or as S. Rich suggests, migrate content into existing articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I agree. The release of Bowe Bergdahl is definitely a stand-alone subject and situation, and contrary to what Isa wrote, this matter goes beyond just the "Taliban Five". There should be (by now) a separate stand-alone WP article on the matter of the release and controversy, beyond his biography, and beyond the Taliban Five...since the matter itself is at this point somewhat separate and stand-alone. As well as copiously sourced. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maps

The maps have the place names in red, which I haven't seen in other articles. Is there a reason for this? Would it be better to use the normal black (which is used for the other words)? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The region of the map is highlighted in red and I chose to highlight the corresponding text (name of location) in red as well. The maps are only a tool to help the reader visualize the approximate location of the areas where he was captured and then released. I actually got the idea from Additonal caption formatting options, which just simply says that: Additional caption formatting options are possible. I was lead to the editing guideline via an essay which said that maps that are used for illustrations follow the same rules as pictures that are used as illustrations. Since this map is being used to illustrate an approximate location, I chose to utilize the "additional caption formatting option" and highlight the text (name of location) in red to correspond with the area of the map highlighted in red. I have not checked every article on WP that includes a map or image used for illustrative purposes, but I find it hard to believe that I am the first editor that has read an editing guideline, and then chosen to utilize a formatting option that is permitted for us to use.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just something I've never seen before. Based on the guidelines, there's no need to change the maps. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The maps have been fixed. I clicked the red names because I thought they were redlinks. The two province articles are now linked. – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Father

Where is all the info about the father ... his emails and tweets; his beard growth; etc.? Was this removed? If so, why? Or was it moved elsewhere? I can't seem to find it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed here [5] along with [6] which also may need to be replaced. Both are very well soruced, by highly reliable sources, so I don't see a BLP reason for scrubbing. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If it is to be included, is there some reason we couldn't expand the content to put more context into describing how he arrived at the decision to do some of the things that pundits and commentators are characterizing as "controversial". I can understand an editor having an issue with this sentence: Bergdahl's father grew a beard to better understand the Taliban. There are sources that include more detail than - "to better understand the Taliban". For instance, this source says that He resolved to do whatever he could to facilitate his son’s release, which included: scouring websites and chat rooms for rumors about his son’s captors, teaching himself Pashto and Urdu and growing a beard. and his pastor and friends have commented about his beard as well saying that he was doing whatever he could to ensure his son’s release, and he grew his beard as a chronology marking the time that his son was missing and he also did it in a bid to win any small measure of sympathy from his son’s captors.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It was removed because it has nothing to do with Bergdahl himself, and is a clear attempt to suggest some sort of guilt by association. His father's actions cannot be used to imply anything about him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it has something to do with Bergdahl, he's the father of the subject and sourcing is what we use to determine it's relevance to the subject and/or the events surrounding the subject of the article. Not only do we have current sources about the father and his actions, but there is sourcing dating back to 2012 when TIME talked to him about his actions and why he grew the beard. I also agree that WP shouldn't be implying anything about the father's actions, but we can report what reliable sourcing is saying about the father's actions in a NPOV and also include what the father has told sources about his action's in a NPOV. WP:BLP allows us to cover controversial material as long it is sourced, verifiable, relevant, notable and presented in a NPOV. BLP also encourages us to include statements that the subject has made about the controversy, and in this situation, it would appear that we have the sourcing to comply with BLP and present the content in a NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Date format

Why are the dates written in British and not American format (for example, "5 June 2014" versus "June 5, 2014")? This is an article about an American. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary points out the use of military date format over American date format. The fact that Bergdahl was a member of the military should not dictate the change from American date format to military date format. See, for example, two articles cited in the "See also" section of this very article: Ahmed Kousay al-Taie and Scott Speicher. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it to the American format. There was a similar spat on the Bradley Manning article over the date format. The consensus was to use the American style since Manning is an American subject. --Tocino 12:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. There is a strong consensus on this project that US military subjects (which the subject of this article is) use dmy dates. An alleged local consensus from another article has no bearing on this. --John (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying? Where is the strong consensus for this article? This is the only section of the Talk Page that I see about the date format. Is there some prior discussion in the archived Talk Pages, in which a consensus was reached to use military dates? Also, other articles about military figures (for example, Ahmed Kousay al-Taie and Scott Speicher) use American date format. This point is indeed relevant to – and does have bearing on – this article. Wikipedia should be consistent across articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, even if there are two competing consensuses for different topics - I think there is a strong argument to be made that local consensus could decide which topic Bergdahl falls into. He is an American BLP involved in military matters. Either format is technically "right". In my personal opinion, more of the content is about, and sourced by, non military sources. If the entire article was about military operations, and when they took place, the military format would have a stronger argument - but the majority of the argument is talking about stuff that was done by people outside of the military and being discussed by people outside the military, and frankly the "American" format is a lot easier for our readers to consume. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Remind me, what is Bergdahl notable for? --John (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

He is known for several different things. You didn't answer my above question. What were you referring to when you said this article had strong consensus for military format? I didn't understand what you meant. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to project Military History? They can recommend, but there was a review on this sort of issue over two years ago, and local consensus could trump a Project's recommendations on articles.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Breaking news

I saw this "exclusive" breaking news: EXCLUSIVE: Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show. Incorporate as needed into the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account" generated by an organization led by someone convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal. Pardon me if I suggest that we be skeptical and cautious about using any of this in his biography. The fact that even FOX News is calling it "purported" speaks volumes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For such a serious allegation, there needs to be multiple sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If this was "breaking news", other sources will begin to pick up on it and dig deeper. And, as such, many other sources will start to either confirm or refute this information. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. NorthBySouthBaranof gives it away. If it's FOX News, it can't be a good source! --Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Fox is considered a Reliable Source at Wikipedia - don't confuse editorial comments by the likes of MSNBC, ABC, CBS and Fox with "front page" news articles, which almost always report facts as are known at the time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

See alsos

I have removed two "See also" links from the page. Firstly, the link to the fictional TV series is entirely inappropriate as it clearly is intended to suggest that somehow Bergdahl is related to or like the character in that show, which has not even been alleged much less proven. Secondly, the link to "Bureau of Counterterrorism" is completely unexplained and a quick search found zero sources describing any sort of link between Bergdahl and that organization. There must be some sort of relationship to justify a "See also" link, and that needs to be explained. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A "See also" link does not have to be directly related to Bergdahl or his case. There certainly does not need to be an outside source indicating a link between Bergdahl and the Bureau of Counterterrorism. Per the MOS: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.". Furthermore, read the article on the Bureau of Counterterrorism. It discusses the issue of whether or not the US engages in negotiations with terrorists. It discusses how the US government deals with international diplomacy when a US hostage is taken. Etc. Those issues are, at the very least, tangentially related topics. In fact, they are the very epitome of a tangentially related topic to this article. I am reinserting this link. I have no idea what that TV show is all about. So I am not reinserting that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That explanation is all I was looking for. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to provide that info. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone probably inserted the link to the television show because of news items like this (watch CNN video). As a side note, I think this was definitely a good revert. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I did not put the homeland link in, and do not plan on restoring it, the comparison is pretty obvious. Us soldier? Check. Held by enemy for multiple years? check. confusion/controversy over allegiance? check. The comparison is being made by multiple reliable sources [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the comparison might be "obvious" does not relieve us of the obligation under BLP to avoid speculative negative connotations. I note that those links are largely, if not exclusively, opinion columns and tabloids. To quote Kathleen Parker, "Until the Army provides answers, we’ll have to make do with speculation." Wikipedia does not traffic in negative speculation about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It certainly does, when that speculation is being made by reliable sources. You have removed multiple bits of info that are being discussed in gold standard reliable sources. I'm busy at the moment, but I'll make some RFCs on it tomorrow. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Father's name

According to news reports, his father's name is Bob Bergdalh, not Robert Berdahl. Can someone explain this? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Bob's a common nickname for Robert. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

First name Bowdrie

Throughout news releases, Bergdahl is named as Bowe Bergdahl, but the obituary "Recent Obituaries". Syvnews.com. 25 February 2007. Retrieved 31 May 2014. (reference 9) lists Bergdahl's name as Bowdrie, suggesting that Bowe is a nickname for Bowdrie. Before changing the NAME to Bowdrie and listing 'Bowe' as his nickname, with Robert (his father's name) as his nickname, some research may be necessary. MaynardClark (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. With all the news about this guy, one would think that this (i.e., his "real" name) would have surfaced by now? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The obit mentioned is for Dr. Craig L. Larson, and mentions Bowdrie. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the eleventh one down, if I counted correctly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This source also lists his name as "Bowdrie": Taliban Prisoner Has Deep SYV Roots. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bowe Bergdahl#Last e-mail to parents

That section seems a bit cherry picked for maximum editorial effect. Either publish the entire email or paraphrase. Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the link to page 4 of the article where the email is located at and it appears that the block quote in that section is actually the whole email minus a sentence that was probably left out because of BLP reasons, so I don't see an issue with WP:NPOV per se with the text of the email, unless you think having it blocked out like that skews the articles NPOV by being WP:UNDUE. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the neutrality of that section, since it appears to be the whole email. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be? How do you know that? Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I am able to read. I have no idea whether it is the entire email or not. That's not the point, the point is does the block quote in our article accurately reflect what the sourcing says, and it does. If you have some sourcing that would indicate that this is not the entire email, then we can discuss that, but otherwise we follow the sources that we do have.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is my addition of the missing parts enough to satisfy any NPOV concerns? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Still not NPOV. The Rolling Stones Magazine is known to be very anti-military in its editorial control. The email content in ins entirety is not available, we only have what the journalist decided to print. The way to make this NPOV is to paraphrase rather than to quote. Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Rolling Stones" are probably less than interested in this entire affair - off at their local, probably. I think you mean Rolling Stone magazine, and since this an extract from an email and not an editorial opinion, your point is hard to see. Reading this in context of the article was for me purely informational, and did not give me any pro or con type impressions. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the section to make it very clear that a report by Hastings is being cited, and to distinguish more carefully between verbatim quoted text and reported speech (a blockquote is not appropriate). I've removed the npov; there is no editor's pov here, it simply reports what information is available, with careful attribution. It obviously is Bergdahl's pov, but that's the point. Possibly the full text will ultimately become available (maybe it already is? Does anybody know), and can replace or add to this section. Pol098 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Deployment date?

Per CNN, Bergdahl was deployed to Afghanistan in May, 2009. Is there any disagreement with that, or is there any reason it shouldn't go into the article? Thanks!Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone finds a conflicting report, it should go in. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I added it in the Career section.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

before US Army

before enlisting US Army Bergdahl tried to join French Foreign Legion according to several newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.102.254.253 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Short shrift

In the lead of the article, it states: "This exchange quickly became a major political controversy within the U.S." However, the article never really gets into the controversy at all. It has a mildly worded "debate over the negotiations" section. But that section does not seem to do justice to the extent of the controversy. This has become a huge deal. There were/are Congressional hearings and testimony. Various officials (Senators, Kerry, Hagel, Obama, etc.) have commented on the appropriateness or lack thereof of the exchange. This is really a big deal. At present, this article is named "Bowe Bergdahl" and, thus, is a bio of that individual. So, should there be a separate article on "the Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange" or should that topic just be more fleshed out in this article? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a similar proposal above at Talk:Bowe_Bergdahl#Split which seemed to have lukewarm support. I think the WP:EVENT clearly passes WP:GNG tho, so there should be no problem if such an article is created. The question would be how much stays in this article - biographical content on Bergdahl is pretty sparse, so if we truly split, it would not leave much here. I'd almost be in favor of moving the entire article per WP:BLP1E Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's sort of my point. Do we really need an article on the bio of Bergdahl? Is he really "notable"? (Other than the whole POW exchange thing?) I am not quite sure. I think the exchange is notable and could have its own article. I am not 100% convinced that Bergdahl as an individual is notable (but I probably can be swayed that he is). However, if we remove all the info about the prisoner exchange from this article, what would be left? Pretty much nothing. Right? And isn't that an indication that he himself, perhaps, is not notable? And it's just the exchange that is? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full agreeent, but as this topic is of national/international controversy at the moment, we might want to do something a bit more formal. Perhaps an RFC or formal RM to get wider input rather than just the handful of editors that have been on the article thus far. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say that his time in captivity and possible communications prior to him becoming a POW should also be part of such an article to provide context. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Coast Guard

Given how short Bergdahl's stint in the Coast Guard was, should it be mentioned in the service/branch part of the infobox? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No. He got through 50% of the Recruit Training cycle (normally 8 weeks). – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur. People who don't graduate from boot camp aren't usually considered veterans. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect of the Infobox parameter is its description, e.g., "years of service". Putting in 2006 implies he served the year, not just in the year. Adding "4 weeks" to clarify the actual period would be a distraction. Also, the training was provided so that he might have served had he completed it. The mention in the text is sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

BUT mention in text does not mean categorization as USCG is appropriate. "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article." (WP:CAT) Washing out from recruit training does not make him a USCG personnel as a defining charateristic. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Note or no note?

The wording of "Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan, and was leaving to start a new life.[17] According to Senator Saxby Chambliss, the White House denied the existence of a note.[18]" is a bit odd to me. I am not familiar with this type of article, should it say "allegedly" if the Whitehouse denied it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrededits (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For a disputed fact, identifying the sources of the opposing positions works well. E.g., "X reports that sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan, and was leaving to start a new life. However, according to Senator Saxby Chambliss, the White House denied the existence of a note." WP shouldn't be in the position of determining which of two positions is accurate, especially where there is a good fath dispute. John2510 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion, but changed the wording yesterday; I don't think this remains an issue. Pol098 (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Captured while using latrine

A wikileaks document (released in 2009) has a signal intercept that shows he was captured while using the latrine. This probably should be added to the article.

"1- WE WERE ATTACKING THE POST HE WAS SITTING TAKING EXPLETIVE HE HAD NO GUN WITH HIM. HE WAS TAKING EXPLETIVE, HE HAS NOT CLEANED HIS BUTT YET. 2- WHAT SHEAM FOR THEM. 1- I DONT THINK HE W 2-YES LOOK THEY HAVE ALL AMERICANS, ANA HELICOPTERS THE PLANES ARE LOOKING FOR HIM. 1- I THINK HE IS BIG SHOT THAT WHY THEY ARE LOOKING FOR HIM. 3-CAN YOU GUYS MAKE A VIDEO OF HIM AND ANNOUNCE IT ALL OVER AFGHANISTAN THAT WE HAVE ONE OF THE AMERICANS. 1- WE ALREADY HAVE A VIDEO OF HIM."

http://wikileaks.org/afg/event/2009/06/AFG20090630n1790.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetterRip (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

desertion charges

I don't think this is suitable for the article quite yet, we can wait for the official announcments, but just giving people a heads up. " U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion for disappearing from his base in Afghanistan in 2009, NBC News reported on Tuesday."

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/us-usa-bergdahl-idUSKBN0L01XS20150127?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
• http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-be-charged-desertion-officials-say-n294466

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Army's denying it, but he's pretty well fucked. WeldNeck (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As of March 25, 2015, it's official. Karnage2015 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)