Talk:Chelsea Manning/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adjwilley (talk · contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC) I am excited to be reviewing this article, and I'll try to make it my first priority for the duration of the review. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

"Quick-fail" test

The article seems to pass the "quick-fail" test, in that it:

1. Has plenty of reliable sources, although I was surprised and a little concerned about this video being used as a source. It's not that I think PBS is unreliable, it's just I've not seen anything sourced to a video before. I'll have to check WP guidelines, but my gut is that a print source would certainly be preferable. I'm also a bit concerned with the sourcing directly to Manning's chats, Facebook posts, etc.
2. Doesn't have any glaring NPOV problems,
3. Doesn't have any cleanup banners or citation needed tags, though I may place a few myself,
4. Seems to be relatively stable,
5. Though it does concern an unfolding current event, I think things have slowed down to a point where we can continue the review.

~Adjwilley (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know whether I'm allowed to comment here; if not please feel free to remove. Just wanted to note that I've fixed the PBS video ref by adding transcripts to the two key interviews -- with the father and with a friend of Mannings (diff). Regarding sourcing material to his chats and Facebook, both have been published by secondary sources. So they are primary sources, but are widely referenced by secondary sources, and we're not using them in a way that provides an unusual analysis. It's all just descriptive, per WP:PSTS. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm happy to have you or anyone comment here. Thank you for your edits, and if I screw something up, feel free to revert and let me know what I did wrong. I agree that Primary sources can be used per WP:PSTS which you cited, however we need to be extra careful since this is a living person (WP:BLPPRIMARY). I expect we'll be talking about this more later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

I accept the fair use rationale for File:Bradley Manning in elementary school.JPG, however, I'm not quite convinced that File:Manning Billboard.jpg is tagged properly. It's a photograph of a billboard, which I believe could be considered a work of art, however the photo is licensed under the Creative Commons 2 license without any mention of the copyright status of the billboard. I'm no copyright expert, but is there someone here who has experience with this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying, but in this case both the billboard and the photograph of it were created and released by the Bradley Manning Support Campaign. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's good to know. Is there a link somewhere that could be included on the image page as proof that the billboard has been released? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a link to Flickr on the image page saying the network released the image and that they erected the billboard (article here). I could write to them to ask them for an explicit release in Wikipedia's terms of the billboard itself, but I'd very much prefer not to do that because it would sound odd. The image is on Commons and was reviewed there (I only copied it so we had a local copy) so I'm sure it's fine. The people who created it and photographed it want publicity for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied the image issue has been resolved. Thanks for your work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

Adjwilley, just noting that the article doesn't use templates, uses bundled refs (see WP:CITEBUNDLE), and tends to use short refs (Smith 2012) when the reference is used several times. There are full citations in the References section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask about the citations. I've bundled citations before, but I've never seen them bundled the way they are in this article (all citations at the end of the paragraph). It certainly makes for a pleasant read, but it makes it hard to know what is cited and what isn't. For instance, there could be a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that isn't cited to anything, and it would be very difficult to discover.

Is there any particular reason why you don't want to use citation templates in this article? They make citation maintenance so much easier, in my opinion. I've a huge fan of the short forms of Harvard citation templates (Harvtxt, etc). Anyway, I'm not saying you have to change everything, but as it is, I'm having a hard time telling the difference between what's a blog, book, newspaper, video, etc. without following the links to the actual sources (some of which are blocked by my University's firewall because of redirects or something). ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I never use templates, Adjwilley. They slow load time (considerably where there are lots of them), add clutter in edit mode, and produce an unpleasant citation style in read mode. And they cause cancer. :)

As for bundling, I make clear which ref is for which point (For A, see X). If there's anything you think isn't referenced, let me know and I'll make the footnote more explicit.

It should be easy to tell what's a book, and if there's a link even easier. If there's no link, it's a book, though some of the book pages are on Google, so in those cases I do link in the footnote, though with a page number it's almost always going to be a book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, to each his (or her) own. I haven't noticed a huge difference in loading times, even in articles with hundreds of citation templates, but I'm not going to try to force my citation style on you :-) It would be nice though to have the long citations in the References section in templates so they can be maintained by bots, etc, but again, it's not that big of a deal to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not convicted yet (BLP issue)

There are a few problems that are worrying me, and I don't know whether to label them as "neutrality" problems or what. Here's an example: The article reads,

Manning was also the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak, originally obtained by WikiLeaks, and published by The New York Times over a year later on April 24, 2011.

This bugged me at first because Manning hasn't been tried yet, and the statement seems to imply that he is absolutely guilty (which would be a serious BLP issue). When I checked the source on that, I found the following:

The Guantánamo files are among hundreds of thousands of documents US soldier Bradley Manning is accused of having turned over to the WikiLeaks website more than a year ago.

The source is much more neutral, and I think we should follow its example of not declaring guilt before the trial's over.

This, of course, is only one example, but I fear there are many others in the article. A quick search turned up these:

• "Twelve days later, he began the series of chats with Adrian Lamo in which he confessed to leaking material to WikiLeaks." (a search of the source listed only turns up the word "confess" once: "He confessed his sense of rejection to his mother.")
• "In a series of chats from May 21 until May 25/26, Manning – using the handle "bradass87" – told Lamo that he had leaked classified material."

Anyway, I think there are other problems, especially surrounding the chats, (which I think may have a WP:DUE issue as well). The problems can probably be solved by a healthy dose of WP:SAID with perhaps a couple allegeds or accuseds. More on this later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adjwilley, there is no reasonable doubt that Manning took part in those chats and that the leaks were as he described them. Even his lawyer has acknowledged this (indirectly) by addressing the issue of what harm the leaks actually did. The legal issue now is whether Manning is guilty of the particular charges -- plus the separate issue as to what the sentence should be if he is found guilty -- but the basic facts are not in dispute. It would be obtuse of us to go around writing "allegedy," "accused," "said," etc, when our readers can see clearly from our article and from others that the basic allegations are correct.

Denver Nicks (an excellent journalist who is sympathetic to Manning) has addressed precisely this issue in his Private (2012), Manning's biography, writing "Inserting the journalist's rote 'allegedly' throughout the text would, I believe, fail in its purpose to keep the question open in the mind of the reader" (p. x). So I am following that advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course he's guilty. But that's not the point. The point is that for Wikipedia's purposes, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court." (WP:BLPCRIME) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's important not to confuse the charges with the facts. The facts are not in dispute. The question is what he should be charged with and convicted of, if anything. If someone knocks a person down with a car, and this is seen by witnesses, recorded on camera, and acknowledged by the driver, it is still the case that the driver is innocent of any particular charge (driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, etc) until convicted. But the legal issue does not change the fact that he knocked a person down with a car. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this true in a verifiable sense? Are the facts not disputed? It is common for defense lawyers to say "If the court find the defendant guilty to the accusations, in the remote chance that happens, the low harm factor should mitigate the sentence". That is not a acknowledged of guilt, but rather sound legal argument in defense of his client. Its the job of a defense lawyer to argue in the defense of his client. Belorn (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The basic facts are not in dispute, but whether they will lead to a conviction is a separate question. His lawyer's position is that the government overcharged in order to pressurize Manning into giving up other people (presumably Assange, though the lawyer implied that rather than stating it). How the lawyer will handle the factual issues in court is anyone's guess (acknowledge and explain them, or leave them unacknowledged, though it would be hard to see how the latter would work). But in terms of writing this article, I've been following the lead of the best and most comprehensive of the reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When searching around, basically all large news sources use the word "accused" and "charged". The ones I checked was The guardian, bbc and abc. Is there reliable sources that makes claim of facts about Mannings acts in the events around Wikileak? Belorn (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is written quite carefully; I've been using phrases like "Manning told Lamo he was responsible for X," and "the material is thought to have included Y." If you're looking for a good source to read up about this, I recommend Denver Nicks's Private, the first major biography of Manning. It has only just been published so I don't know whether it's in libraries yet, but if you get a chance to read it, it's the best source so far. It will give you an idea of the way the journalists who have studied this case are approaching it.

A good online source is this Washington Post article. Note the way she writes – "an e-mail from Manning popped up in Sacramento on the laptop screen of Adrian Lamo," and "... Manning referred extensively to what he said he found in the networks, including the quarter-million State Department cables ..." No use of "allegedly." She also writes: "[t]he logs ... have been authenticated by Army investigators ... the investigators matched the logs on Lamo’s hard drives with logs found on Manning’s hard drive."

There comes a point in stories like this where it's clear the horse has bolted, and the aim thereafter is to write about the issues in as fair a way as possible, while acknowledging the basic facts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We should at least follow the same style that the Washington Post article does, where who makes what claims is included. If a statement is derived from the chat logs of Adrian Lamo, it should say so. The army investigator's - that is, the prosecuting side - claim that the logs are authentic should naturally also be in the article. The Washington Post article does not try to make any direct authoritative claims of what exactly happened, but rather reports what others have said. Belorn (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article does the same (more so than the Washington Post -- note how the Post writes: "an e-mail from Manning popped up in Sacramento on the laptop screen of Adrian Lamo." Not "according to Lamo, or according to army investigators, an e-mail popped up"). Our article contains a lot of in-text attribution -- Manning told Lamo, Lamo said, according to the logs, according to Greenwald, Nicks argues, the Washington Post writes, etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a Washington Post writer slipped a couple times isn't important here. The choice of a biographer to insert an explanatory note that he's not going to use "allegedly" throughout the text doesn't change or circumvent Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Even if there is no reasonable doubt that Manning leaked the information, BLP unambiguously states that, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court." For the purposes of Wikipedia, Manning is still "not guilty". Obtuse or not, we still need to follow Wikipedia's policy by using alleged, said, and accused, where appropriate. The three statements I listed above, and others like them, need to be fixed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're asking me to write this article as though we have the knowledge we did in 2010 when he was arrested. But things have moved on considerably, and I am following the most informed sources (as I have to, per V and NOR).

The full chats have been published, the army has confirmed their authenticity, Manning's computer has been checked and the things he confessed to did indeed happen, Manning's lawyer has begun his defence strategy of arguing that the leaks were not as harmful as the government is claiming, and that Manning has been overcharged because the government wants him to testify against Assange. No one -- not the up-to-date sources (including his sympathizers), not the army, and not his own lawyer - is still wondering whether the chats and the confession were real. So Wikipedia can't put itself out on a limb by pretending this might not have happened (that would be original research), or make itself sound as though it's not familiar with the source material.

That factual issue is an entirely separate matter from whether he is guilty of that particular set of charges (e.g. "aiding the enemy," the most serious of the charges, which could attract a life sentence). The court will decide that, and there is nothing in this article that prejudges that decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Some edits

Just noting here that I've changed the "confessed" sentence that Belorn didn't like to: "Twelve days later, he began the series of chats in which he told Adrian Lamo he had leaked material to WikiLeaks." I've clarified in the lead that the 295 Americans included prominent American legal scholars, and added another source explaining the significance.

I've also added some more in-text attribution, e.g. "Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – one of them said it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army ..." (new words in bold). And instead of "Manning was also thought to have been the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak ...," it's now "[David] Leigh writes that Manning is also thought to have been ..."

If there are other sentences that need in-text attribution or tweaking, please list them here so I can address them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I didn't have a problem with the statement "Manning is thought to have been the soruce of the Guantanamo..." so you can take off the "Leigh writes" bit if you want. I had a problem with how the sentence originally read, which was "Manning was also the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak..." It looks like you fixed that one three days ago in this edit. I'll let you know if I see any other BLP issues, but I think you already got the worst of them.

As a completely unrelated note, I noticed that the CPU motherboard quote shows up twice in different sections. Was that intentional? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the gender confusion section, and repeated in the chat logs to show the sequence and context of the acknowledgements.

As for "Leigh writes," I've removed it (thank you). I'm trying to accommodate suggestions, but some of them (from Belorn and Meowy) for extra in-text attribution are not helping the writing or accuracy. I can add "according to X," but often it's according to multiple people, and singling out X is misleading, and makes it seem less solid than it is – rather like saying "X argues that human beings evolved through natural selection," as though X is alone in that regard.

Similarly with "liberal commentators" comparing Manning to Ellsberg, I was asked to be more precise, so now it's one named journalist, but in fact lots of people made the comparison (it's an obvious comparison to make). The truth – whether people think it's weasely or not – is that liberal commentators made the comparison. Anyway, my point is that in-text attribution doesn't always increase accuracy, as WP:INTEXT warns, and adding too much will date the article very quickly (and is already dating it) - in the sense that when the rest of the world has widely accepted that A, B, and C are demonstrably true, this article will still be saying "according to X." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your problem. I had the same issue with the ACTA article on the Swedish WP where the list of organizations who had voiced criticism spanned several lines, and became mostly a huge blob of text. We couldn't use labels like "Large portion of European countries" or "most human right organizations" for mostly the same reason I suggest we can not use the "liberal commentators" here. Terms like that lack the specification needed for a good article. I had to remove a sentenced that said "most commercial companies supported acta", for being way too unspecific and overreaching.

My hope here is that we can find a solution to the problem without loosing specificity. Maybe we can use something like this: "[the most prominent example] are among other commentators[x][y][z] saying that manning is the most important whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg...". In that way we keep the list short, retain some specificity, while at the same time not excluding other who has voiced similar.

Or maybe you can figure out a better one SlimVirgin. You have done very good with the article so far with keeping the article precise, so this shouldn't be an impossible task :). Belorn (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Belorn. I think the examples so far are okay for now. I've removed liberal commentators entirely from the lead, and replaced it with another juxtaposition courtesy of Denver Nicks. And in the last section, I've said Glenn Greenwald compared Manning to Ellsberg, so that should do. I just wanted to sound a general note of caution about producing an article that attributes everything, because it can make for awkward reading and ends up being outdated quickly. I've tried to write this article so that it's not into too much recentism -- so that, in a year's time, lots of the sections will still be fine. But the more attribution I add, the harder that becomes, because it makes things sound doubtful that aren't in doubt, if you see what I mean -- and the more the case develops, the odder that starts to look. But perhaps I'm just complaining about the extra work, so I'll shut up now. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to Breanna Manning

The move of this article to Breanna Manning throws a spanner into the works of this review as it has made the article a little unstable. If the nominator and reviewer agree wsith the move then the GA review page should be moved as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As the page mover, I would argue for the suspension of any GA listing until the issue is settled. I personally would not list it as a GA were the article at Bradley Manning (and would immediately send it to GAR were it listed), as gendering Manning as male is a severe BLP violation. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles are meant not to be subject to edit wars to obtain GA status, but the opposing positions have to be at least possible to adopt. Your position has no hope of being adopted as things stand (though I am personally very sympathetic toward it). All we know is that Manning wanted to transition as of 2009–2010. We have no idea whether that's his position as of 2012, and his lawyer has made no mention of it – except perhaps to undermine it by calling Breanna a "female alter-ego," which suggests a degree of distancing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to collapse this section, as I see it as having little bearing on the GA review. I note that the discussion has hopped from forum to forum (Manning talk page, BLP noticeboard, Village pump (policy), AndyTheGrump's talk page, and currently AN/I) and is not closed yet, but I see the move as having little chance of success, so I'm collapsing this section so we can better focus on the other issues. If the move discussion comes back here again I'll put the GA review on hold until the dust settles again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead (question)

The Lead seems to do a good job of following the guidelines of WP:LEAD. It borders on the long side, but is reasonable for an article of this length, I believe. There is one part I have a question about. It is,

In April 2011, 295 academics signed a letter arguing that the detention conditions violated the United States Constitution. Later that month the Pentagon transferred him to a medium-security jail at Fort Leavenworth, allowing him to interact with other detainees.

The statement seems oddly specific. I know there were a number of petitions/protests about Manning's incarceration. Is there any indication that this particular letter was more notable than the others? Also, the juxtaposition here seems to imply a cause and effect. Is there support for that in the sources? Based on what I know, I think that the various petitions should be mentioned in general, and the 295 letter could possibly be mentioned in the footnote as a specific example. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That letter was extremely important, especially as one of the people organizing it taught law to Obama; most of the academics were American legal professors. For them to come straight out and call the detention conditions unconstitutional was obviously a major embarrassment, so it's clear there was cause and effect, though I've kept the two issues as separate sentences because the government didn't confirm (and obviously would never have confirmed) that the letter was a causal factor. As for other petitions, I'm not aware of any that might have made a difference. Do you have examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Something more should then be said about who those 295 academics were, so that the notability of the letter becomes clearer and the statement no longer appears "oddly specific". Meowy 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, Thank you for clarifying that. I'm satisfied now that the letter was the most notable petition and that it deserves its spot in the Lead. (The other examples of petitions/protests, etc. that I had in mind are in the second to last paragraph of the article.) @Meowy, I wouldn't mind a little revision, especially in the footnote, but don't have any specific suggestions there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of a petition in the second-to-last paragraph, Adjwilley -- can you clarify? There have been multiple demonstrations, but I'm not aware of any petitions, at least not notable ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. The letter seems to be the only petition in the article. I guess in my mind I had lumped the petitions/protests/cyberattacks into one. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chat logs

If you look at the checklist above, you'll see that I have passed everything except: No original research, Focused, and Neutral (Fair representation without bias). The reason for this is because there's been a problem nagging at me that I'm not quite sure how to categorize. This comment by User:Baseball Bugs is part of what I've been feeling: that parts of the article read like it's prosecution evidence being submitted to a jury. The section I'm most concerned with is the Chats with Adrian Lamo section where there are several excerpts taken from the Manning-Lamo chat logs. While it is interesting to read the chats, the section doesn't read like an encyclopedia.

No original research

All the chats are sourced directly to the wired.com website that originally published the logs. Although wired published the transcripts, the page cited doesn't provide a secondary analysis of these transcripts, which makes the chats a primary source (creating a problem with WP:BLPPRIMARY). As far as I can tell, the portions of the chats that are reproduced here are based on editor discretion, and perhaps interpretation, as I couldn't find a secondary source that published the logs the way we are doing.

Note, however, that Nakashima quotes a couple of short excerpts, but they are much more integrated into the narrative. Nymag published a few short excerpts as part of the narrative, but not the same ones, and not as long. Caesar probably quotes the excerpts the most, however, he is doing it to analyze Manning, whereas the Wikipedia reads a little like it's presenting evidence. For instance, Caesar quotes the same "sold to Russia or China" quote that we do, but does it to further his argument that Manning was dealing with weighty ethical issues and felt like he was doing the right thing.

Focus

Again, it is an interesting read, but it is a lengthy deviation from Manning the person. If I'm writing an article about Thomas Jefferson, I don't include a lengthy synopsis of the Declaration of Independence, even though it's his best-known work. The section is also very long.

Neutrality

This seems like an undue amount of emphasis on the chat material, which admittedly is the most damning evidence against Manning, but at the same time, it seems to go against the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, which goes so far as to suggest that editors should consider leaving out material suggesting the person has committed a crime, until after a conviction is secured.

Anyway, I hope editors will not take this as an attack on my part, as it is certainly not meant that way. I understand that this is a controversial article that many are invested in. As a solution, I would recommend trimming back the section, particularly the portions that are only sourced to Wired, and getting rid of most–if not all–of the quote boxes. I do think the information is valuable, and it could probably find a home in a new article like Manning-Lamo chat logs or something of the sort. If there is consensus for this change but nobody wants to do the grunt work, I'd be happy to do it myself, but I'll hold back for the moment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR because it's WP:PSTS-compliant (that is the policy), and because these have been widely published. I could add Nicks as a secondary source throughout -- he does publish them in detail -- but it would be pointless. It's certainly not UNDUE, because it's the heart of the case. Were it not for these chat logs, it's doubtful we would have heard of him, unless he had been found out in some other way. And it's has nothing to do with prosecuting the case either (please note the distinction, which is vital, between fact and law). On the contrary, the logs offer some mitigation. Now that they have triggered his arrest, they are also his best defence.

Explanation of each selection written up:

1. Box 1, May 21: Shows that he almost immediately moved into the admission (bear in mind that he had already tried confessing to at least two other people, and had even tried to direct the army to what he was doing). He did this even though he had never had any contact with Lamo, and Lamo wasn't even responding. Highly significant.
2. Box 2, May 22: This is where the basic facts are covered.
3. Box 3, May 22: This shows his distress and begins to discuss his motivation, as does the paragraph below it which is not in a box. The paragraph below the box also shows Lamo continuing to offer him confidentiality after the FBI had been informed.
4. Box 4, May 25: This goes to the heart of the motivation, that information wants to be free (I am going to add a sentence to that effect, though he expresses it as "information should be free." He is even referenced in the article about that slogan as one of its notable proponents.

The logs show clearly that he was not doing this for profit, or out of malice, or to cause harm, but out of a conviction, which was causing him deep distress, that secrecy is harmful. Given that the facts are not in dispute, the motivation becomes the central issue.

As for the complaint that no one has published this exact sequence, no one his published this exact article. Please read WP:SYN. A synthesis is only a violation of policy if it seeks to advance a position not advanced by any sources. But the only position being advanced is that he admitted X, and here are his stated motivations. Those facts and those motives are so widely discussed by secondary sources we could produce a library full of the stuff.

As for creating a new article with the chat logs, I can't see how that would work or why you would want it. We can't reproduce them all. So in any new article you could again reproduce only some. You would have to add background and analysis (you couldn't just publish logs), but the background and analysis are already in this article. So I would strongly oppose that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added Nicks 2012 as a secondary source for the chat logs, though it isn't needed per PSTS, but it's there now anyway. He quotes them in a little more detail, but it's basically the same sequence. I've also added "information should be free" (as Manning put it), and added a paragraph on its significance, per Nicks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

While reading up on who the army investigators was, I notice that a large portion of this article (the logs, technical methods used, who has confirmed what, ...) is based on information from the December 2011 pre-trial hearing. Doing so I noticed that Bradley Manning has made no statements in regards to the accusations. The information we have come from either the prosecution side (The army and hired contractors) or the defense lawyer. This fact do sound to be very important to highlight, maybe even add it to the lead. I suspect that WP:BLP (get the article right) encourage this, but it might also be in conflict with WP:OR since few third party reporters has made note of it. Belorn (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The technical information about what was found on Manning's or the army's computers/storage devices comes from the army's Computer Crime Investigative Unit (CCIU). The chat logs don't come from there; they come from Adrian Lamo, though the logs were also found on Manning's personal computer, according to the CCIU.

Some of the other acknowledgments Manning made came from people journalists have interviewed (e.g. his ex-partner, and the novelist he contacted). It's all attributed so far as I can see (according to the army, according to journalist X, according to the chats with Lamo, etc). If you have any particular sentence in mind, could you post it here?

Not sure what you mean about adding sources to the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was, Manning himself has not made any statements in regards to the accusations. Other people have argued in favor or against the accusation but he himself has said nothing. Why this is so would be pure speculations and not suited here, but the fact that "Bradley Manning made no statement" during the pre-trial hearing (or for the matter, any other time) sounds important for the article, maybe even the lead. The reason I hesitate to add it myself is that few sources has mentioned this fact. Belorn (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate for the lead, because it's not surprising. Most defendants don't make statements before the trial, and sometimes not during it either. I could add to the section about the pre-trial hearing that Manning's lawyer made no statement one way or the other regarding Manning's position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A concern

Adjwilley, I feel you're going way beyond the GA criteria with this review, and seeking to impose your own style and editorial preferences, starting with your addition of citation templates. Can I ask whether you've read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I had not read that essay, though I have now. I assure you that my primary concern is ensuring that the article meets the GA criteria. I apologize for any misunderstandings or offenses I've caused about the citation templates. Just to be clear, I was content to let the citation issue drop after you reverted my addition of citation templates. After you started the discussion, about citation style I became intrigued by your comment about templates slowing page loading times and posted further comments to your talk page instead of here at the GA review. For me, the issue of citation templates has been closed for a few days, and I'm making no further efforts to change the style there. As for my other concerns, I really am trying to be as objective as possible and making sure that the article conforms to WP policy as I understand it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that's fine. I have no problem with a rigorous review (better that than the opposite).

It's just that I feel this is getting closer to an FA review. And it's compounded by the fact that you're not completely familiar with the sources or the case. This is always the case with reviews on WP, and I have been in your shoes many times as a reviewer. The writer has immersed herself in the topic, then a reviewer starts asking questions that the writer feels have been addressed and/or are well known. I know it can lead to frustration on both sides.

Perhaps you are right, in that any lack of clarity means I have not written the issues up properly. Or perhaps I have, but you've missed some of the key issues the sources raise. I do want to write the article clearly, but I don't want to over-egg points that I feel are clear enough. (For example, the letter from the American legal scholars was a bombshell, which is why it's in the lead. I wouldn't have put it in the lead otherwise. But I also don't want to labour the bombshell-like nature of it.)

It all goes to the heart of how thorough any Wikipedia review is meant to be. So I don't mean to be critical, but I want to signal to you in good time that I feel you are making suggestions about how you might have approached this article, rather than focusing on what the GA criteria actually require. So I hope you don't mind me making that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to list the key sources here (key in the sense that these are the writers who have really researched this case):

Online (in order of publication)

• Nicks, Denver. "Private Manning and the Making of Wikileaks", This Land, September 23, 2010.
• Caesar, Ed. "Bradley Manning: Wikileaker", The Sunday Times, December 19, 2010.
• Nakashima, Ellen. "Bradley Manning is at the center of the WikiLeaks controversy. But who is he?", The Washington Post, May 4, 2011.
• Smith, Teresa et al. "The madness of Bradley Manning?", The Guardian, May 27, 2011 (video).
• Fishman, Steve. "Bradley Manning’s Army of One", New York Magazine, July 3, 2011.
• Hansen, Evan. "Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed", Wired magazine, July 13, 2011.

Books (in order of importance)

• Nicks, Denver. Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History. Chicago Review Press, 2012 (reading this would be sufficient)
• Leigh, David and Harding, Luke. WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. Guardian Books, 2011.
• Brooke, Heather. The Revolution Will Be Digitised. William Heinemann, 2011.
• Domscheit-Berg, Daniel. Inside WikiLeaks. Doubleday, 2011.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is actually very helpful, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts

There are still a couple things that I'm not completely comfortable with in the article, but none of them put this article out of the GA range, in my opinion; I expect that the article will continue to improve. I'm sure there will be several major changes in the future, especially as Manning goes to trial, along with more crazy days full of edit warring. I think the article has a good community surrounding it, though, and lots of watchers to take care of it. I've enjoyed working with you all, and have appreciated the interaction here on the review page. I also thank you (SlimVirgin in particular) for your patience with me on my first GA Review. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the hard work you put into this, Adjwilley. It's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)