Talk:Chelsea Manning

Nobel Peace Prize

He was certainly nominated, but I am not sure this is notable. Anyone can be nominated by a very large number of nominators, with no real criteria for nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, per http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nomination/nomination_faq.html nominations are kept confidential for 50 years, so at most we should be saying that group X claims to have nominated him. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

However according to this article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning-malala-among-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/ the votes have come from all over the world. Also many other wiki-pages mention that the person was a Nobel prize nominee as being a nominee itself is notable. For examples: Moisés A. Vieites,Eloise Giblett, Norman Simmons,Joseph Stalin, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.31.229 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The source you cite does not state that nominations for Manning have come from all over the world. It does however state that a record 259 nominations have been received, making his nomination of less significance. Neither source cited by you devotes significant coverage to the Manning nomination specifically, I note. I see no reason to include this unless credible sources suggest that Manning actually has a significant chance of winning the prize. In any case, the nomination certainly doesn't merit being mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Prize committee [1] a huge number of people and organizations can submit nominations (perhaps tens of thousands). The Prize committee will not confirm a nomination, so it is easy for any qualified nominator to leak info saying "I/we nominated so-and-so for the Peace Prize." – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But that is exactly what is being said in these pages. For examples: Moisés A. Vieites,Eloise Giblett, Norman Simmons,Joseph Stalin, etc. Also you are assuming the information in the articles are wrong. Why? Regardless of how the nomination came to be the fact should still be included despite who it was for. ~Eye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.8.191 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a question of whether it is right or wrong - it is a question of significance. So far, no evidence has been presented that Manning's nomination is seen as noteworthy. If it were, there would have been greater media coverage than seems to be the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's significant because it is a fact(you haven't said it's not a fact). Also I don't know what you mean with not enough media coverage as if you type in,"Why did Bradley Manning get nominated for the nobel prize" a lot of people have quite a lot to say.

Also according to http://www.wisegeek.com/who-decides-who-gets-the-nobel-prizes.htm "Nobel Prizes for peace go through a nomination and selection process administered by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is a group of five members selected by the Norweigian government. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the prize for peace is always issued in Oslo, Norway, not Stockholm Sweden." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaLin9 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all facts are significant. As for where the Nobel Peace Prize is issued, so what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is the fact that Bradley Manning was nominated for the Nobel Prize not significant? Spell it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaLin9 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case this is what I propose to include, "On February 1st 2013 the entire parliamentary group of The Movement in the Icelandic Parliament, the Pirates of the EU; representatives from the Swedish Pirate Party, the former Secretary of State in Tunisia for Sport & Youth nominated Private Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize." along with the link http://joyb.blogspot.in/2013/03/bradley-manning-nobel-peace-prize.html. Again I repeat, "if you find the fact that Bradley Manning was nominated for the Nobel Prize not significant, spell out why." Have a nice day. AnnaLin9 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use blogs as sources. Furthermore, copy-pasting content from other websites is a breach of copyright. You have failed to demonstrate than Manning's nomination has attracted significant comment to merit mention in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump has misstated Wikipedia standard for Verifiability - blogs can be cited (see Wikipedia:Verifiability 2.2 Newspaper and magazine blogs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Darling (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have alternative links http://www.huntingtonnews.net/58551 and http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120207/bradley-manning-nominated-nobel-peace-prize-2012 and http://rt.com/news/manning-nobel-peace-prize-631/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/08/wikileaks-bradley-manning-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-by-icelandic-parliamentarian/ Also I don't know what you mean by "demonstrate than Manning's nomination has attracted significant comment to merit mention"? There must be some Wikipedia article for that but I can't find it. Please help.AnnaLin9 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

200+ people are nominated, with no criteria for nomination. As nominees are not officially announced for 50+ years, there is no actual proof that he was nominated, other than a group saying they nominated him. Other peace prize nominees have been neville chamberlin, hitler, and stalin (twice!), mussolini, Stanely Williams (a convicted murderer and the co-founder of the crips) so clearly the standards for nomination are very stringent! from the latimes "According to Nobel Prize nominating rules, any "professor of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology" and any judge or national legislator in any country, among others, can nominate anyone for a Nobel Peace Prize. " Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the Tunisian Secretary of State for Sports & Youth, who well may be Slim Amamou, demonstrates why these announcements of nominations are ersatz. The Jebali Cabinet level official in Tunisia for Youth and Sports is a Minister. (I mentioned earlier that perhaps tens of thousands of individuals are officially eligible to nominate. The number of unofficial nominators is probably in the hundreds of thousands.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

ribbons

I was interested to see what all Manning's ribbons were for: the overseas ribbon shown on his uniform is not listed in the info box, and the Army Meritorious Unit Citation is not listed. (The MUC can be worn even if you did not participate in the action, soldiers in the unit can wear that unit's decorations). I think these should be noted in the info box. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the overseas ribbon. The MUC was not awarded to him -- he gets to wear it while assigned to the unit. (And he won't have it for much longer.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrase

"no security measures were in place to prevent unauthorized downloads." From a technological point of view, if he was given physical or remote access under his own credentials then the downloads were indeed authorized or permitted, regardless of the standing policy or command decisions. I think this needs to be re-phrased to specify exactly what authority had been exceeded. 107.219.49.183 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence. He did, indeed, have access as he was authorized. His downloading for personal use and distribution was not authorized. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearer now. Thank you. 107.219.49.183 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Petition to Pardon Manning and/or commute sentence

Greetings,

I am proposing that we add a reference to the Bradley Manning article "Reactions" section regarding a Bradley Manning petition on the Whitehouse web site.

Given the overwhelming amount of media attention public discussion concerning Bradley E. Manning’s pending court martial and the whitehouse petition calling for his pardon I believe that inclusion is justified. Moreover, the “Pardon Edward Snowden” petition White House website was included in the Snowden article. Also, I've included several inline media references as suggested by SlimVirgin.

Proposed text below:

"A We the People petition has been posted on the White House website, asking for "for a pardon of his pending court martial, or in the alternative, commute Bradley E. Manning’s sentence in the event that the court finds in the governments favor and Bradley E. Manning is sentenced beyond time already served."

Harold Darling— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Darling (talk • contribs) 19:58, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Working links from above (do not use <ref>...</ref> on talk pages - it doesn't work): [2][3][4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:ELNO #4 restricts external links to on-line petitions. [Added comment]: No actual links to petitions are included in the Snowden article, only news stories re the petitions. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct - I will remove the petition linkHarold Darling (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - a couple of mentions of the Manning petition in passing aren't enough to justify inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Manning petition movement is newsworthy and notable - given that media references were included in the Snowden article it seems that inclusion is justified for Manning as well.Harold Darling (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrected text below:

A We the People ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/10/white-house-petition-to-pardon-edward-snowden-gathers-steam/</ref> has been posted on the White House website, asking for "for a pardon of his pending court martial, or in the alternative, commute Bradley E. Manning’s sentence in the event that the court finds in the governments favor and Bradley E. Manning is sentenced beyond time already served."

Harold Darling (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If it were 'newsworthy' it would be in the news. A couple of mentions in passing are clearly insufficient to demonstrate this. As for the Snowdon article, it is completely irrelevant. We don't base article content on what goes into other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true -the Manning petition has been cited in the Washington Post, Wikileaks, dailycaller.com and the Whitehouse itself has responded to earlier iterations of petitions to free Manning. 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Harold Darling (talk)

Either cite mainstream media sources that discuss this in depth, or forget it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media sources have been cited several times - see below -

www.dailykos.com/.../-White-House-web-site-Bradley-Manning-petition.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/10/white-house-petition-to-pardon-edward-snowden-gathers-steam

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18886451-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-seeks-white-house-response?lite

Harold Darling (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there more than one petition? The W/Post says there are over 6,000 signatures, but the one you linked to [5] says there are 24, and that it was created by H.D. on June 22. SlimVirgin

I've removed the petition link [6] There has been many iterations of petitions to Pardon Manning on the white house web site in addition to umpteen petitions sponsored by various advocacy organizationsHarold Darling (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

^(talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has a whole section about a petition. Was it more noteworthy by the media or just Wikipedians? They mention a similar one here and the first one here again. I think that the readers would like to know about them and if the media does report them then there should be no reason we can't reflect that. If ELNO says we shouldn't include them then they should be removed from all articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't base decisions regarding article content on what is included in other articles. What matters for this article is whether the media considers the Manning petition significant - and so far we've seen no that it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_30#Are_online_petitions_a_form_of_social_networking.3F Seems the policy was changed boldly without much consensus nor an RfC. Did those government petitions online start after of before someone changed the policy incorrectly?--Canoe1967 (talk) 4:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

(ec)But we are discussing inclusion in regards to a policy that was changed incorrectly. Should I just go edit that out of the policy pending a wider consensus? Then we can include it until consensus is reached on the policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Of course not - you don't just edit policy on the fly because you think it was revised wrongly three years ago. If you think it needs revising, raise the matter properly on the relevant talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, the discussion you cite is over 2 years old. The guideline page is watched by 717 editors. That means a lotta people have seen it evolve -- and we've gotta live with the guideline. We cannot change it so that it will allow addition of a petition website link that we support. Get consensus to change the "no petitions" guideline on the EL project page -- then you can make the edit to include the petition link. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon Manning petitions has been discussed and written about in mainstream media sources many times and the Whitehouse has issued a statement regarding an earlier Manning petition - I've referenced multiple sources - As for what constitutes "real evidence" that is a subjective concept not a Wikipedia standard - what do you mean by "real evidence" ?Harold Darling (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right to some extent - this does come down to subjective judgement, as do many editorial decisions on Wikipedia. The mere existence of a source is never in itself sufficient grounds for automatic inclusion of material, and contributors are expected to consider matters such as due and undue weight, in order to conform with WP:NPOV policy. So far, I have seen little evidence from mainstream media sources to suggest that inclusion is due. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that Bradley Manning's plight has been and will continue to be a matter of intense public interest and that the existence of multiple petitions on the whitehouse web site is notable - it is also worth noting that the White house itself has chosen to commented on these petitions does demonstrate the significance of petitions calling for a pardon 108.233.85.165 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems the policy change I mentioned above was in 2010 before We the People (petitioning system) was launched in 2011. We may have to review the policy in light of this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't going to review the policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" , "plight", "intense public interest", "umpteen petitions" — is there a certain POV behind this editing effort? (Consider, per a "recent" unofficial trial transcript (available in the article as a link), counsel mentioned that the extra media space and theater view space had been unused in recent days.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Manning's case has been front page news for over two years - doesn't that qualify as intense public interest? And umpteen petitions is accurate - more than can be counted Harold Darling (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't discussing whether Manning's case is notable. We are discussing whether there has been sufficient coverage of the petition(s) to merit inclusion in the article. This can only be determined by demonstrating that such petitions have attracted interest from uninvolved sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mass Media citations concerning petitions calling for Manning's pardon have already been abundantly referenced in the threads above - I believe that the wikipedia standard for significance has been met - Harold Darling (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to cite a single mainstream media source that discusses the Manning petition as its primary topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've Already have provided a primary sources www.dailykos.com/.../-White-House-web-site-Bradley-Manning-petition.

Harold Darling (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You have provided a (non-working) link to a political blog. The Daily Kos is not a mainstream mass media source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep raising the bar - Wikipedia guidelines don't exclude journalistic blogs from being referenced, nor does Wikipedia dictate that media references must be the primary subject of a given article to warrant inclusion on a wikipedia page - and your insistence upon mass media citations is misplaced given that Wikipedia does NOT require mass media citations to establish credibility

At least three Pardon Manning petitions posted on the Whitehouse web site and the Obama administration has publicly responded to one of those petitions -

petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning

Doesn't it follow that if a petition warrants a response from the Obama administration that petition would merit inclusion on wikipedia? Harold Darling (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"the White House declines to comment on the specific case raised in this petition" - and you think that constitutes a 'response'? Ridiculous.

You've misstated the whitehouse response - the White House said it declines to comment upon a matters pending before a court under the terms of participation - Nevertheless why would the white house respond to an insignificant matter? Harold Darling (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It seem to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Regardless of personal sympathies, this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform from the promotion of Manning's cause - and unless and until it can be shown that petitions have received significant attention from uninvolved sources, it would be entirely undue to use the article as a means to draw attention to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"that petitions have received significant attention from uninvolved sources" is far beyond what Wikipedia requires for inclusion - you're being unreasonably strict shall we request a third party? Harold Darling (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are proposing an RfC, I can't stop you - though I think you are wasting your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable minds may differ - but the reason why I suggested a third party editor is because you've been misstating Wikipoedia's standards and guidelines concerning verifiability - for example you've claimed that blogs can't be cited and that credibility must be established by mainstream media sources - I am willing to hammer out a compromise but I vigorously disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia's standards.Harold Darling (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If the petition picks up speed and some significant news coverage, then it may be worthy of inclusion. But please keep in mind that WP is WP:NOTNEWS. In any event, the Prez is not going to touch this, as military folk would be rather disappointed (e.g., outraged) if he did. Moreover, the US is very upset at present because Snowden is traveling around the world untouched despite the outstanding arrest warrant. Manning has already confessed to certain crimes, so he's guilty and the judge will pass sentence after determination as to guilt on the remaining counts. He will become private E-1, receive a dishonorable discharge, and take up new semi-permanent residence at Ft. Leavenworth. This process will take a few more months and Manning's presence in the news will continue to fade. This temporary petition-tempest-in-a-teapot does not belong in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect I can see from your COI that you're a retired military judge - do you feel that you can be objective about Manning? I will accept your word Harold Darling (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and I are the two most frequent contributors to the article. SV has 524 edits and I have 278. Take a look at our edits to determine our/my objectivity. (BTW, I'm a retired judge advocate -- who has worked, at different times, for the defense and for the government. There is a distinction between my status and that of a judge.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

——— You didn't answer my question if you thought you could be objective editor concerning Manning but more importantly what in blazes constitutes "significant news coverage"? Manning is in the news - that is beyond dispute - and I've cited numerous media sources that have discussed Manning petitions on the Whitehouse web site but that ain't good enough - why not? Harold Darling (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. You have failed to demonstrate that this petition has attracted sufficient media attention. And I suggest that before you accuse people of "misstating Wikipoedia's [sic] standards and guidelines" you actually read them, and learn the difference between verifiability, weight and neutrality. As I've already said, if you want to start an RfC on this, you can - but merely repeating the same points over and over here while taking no notice whatsoever of the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you is becoming tedious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

—— I stand by I what said: you incorrectly claimed on multiple occasions that journalistic blogs can't be cited and that one must use mainstream media sources —— As for sufficiency, I found an abundance of mass media citations concerning Manning petitions but I at this point the best we can do is agree to disagree 108.233.85.165 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I weakly oppose. Petitions such as these are a dime a dozen. anyone can create one, anyone can talk about one. If the petition can be directly linked to some action being taken "The president says that because of the outpouring of opinion on the survey he will..." its important. If its getting discussed outside the echo-chamber (read reliable sources) that created it, its notable. Blogs (particularly kos) have no editorial oversight, anyone may post anything they want, and that someone chose to talk about it is evidence for nothing more than their own interest. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Petitions calling for Manning's pardon have been been cited and discussed - especially comparison to the Pardon Snowden Petition [which by the way is referenced on Snowden's wikidpoedia page] I agree that references to petitions should be carefully considered HOWEVER given the extent of the public interest's in Manning fate, I think it ought to be referenced.

Also, the Whitehouse has responded to a Pardon Manning petition which substantiates the credibility of the petitioning effort.

Here are the links I've located. I did reference two blogs but those inclusions comply with wikipedia standards concerning blog citations.

petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/why-we-cant-comment-bradley-manning washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/10/white-house-petition-to-pardon-edward-snowden-gathers-steam usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18886451-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-seeks-white-house-response?lite lfpress.com/2013/06/23/wikileaks-helps-edward-snowden-leave-hong-kong-for-russia</ref> dailykos.com/.../-White-House-web-site-Bradley-Manning-petition.

Harold Darling (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated posting of exactly the same material while failing to address the concerns of others is not only unnecessary, but arguably disruptive to the purposes of this talk page. I suggest that you read WP:REHASH, and then ask yourself whether you might do better to proceed in another manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you're mistaken for my post was responsive to a question by Gaijin42 that has not been previously raised on this talk page, which is: Should a petition reference be made in the absence of action being undertaken in response to that petition? And I argued that a whitehouse response and mass media mention sufficed, and that pother biographies on Wikipedia do contain Wikipedia references. My response was a good faith and unique response to Gaijin42, not a mere recitation

I look forward to discussing the issues raised by this discussion and I'm happy to answer your questions Harold Darling (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Support network EL

Seems the question of the BM support network external link is related to the petition question. Per WP:ELNO #4, the petition link is a specific no-no. Well, the support network is there in the Further reading too, and it does not comply with ELNO #4 and #11. (Discussion of this was held in Archive #3.) Ah-ha! If the support network (camel's nose) is there, then shouldn't the petition be linked too? (Even if it is specifically frowned upon?) Both should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see that a myriad of problems would arise from permitting external link to petitions - but including a link to a support network is appropriate given that users frequently make use Wikipedia to locate extrinsic resources about subjects that strike their fancy

For example, I learned of the Pardon Snowden petitions from Wikipedia, which in turn prompted me to visit the Whitehouse web site and sign the petition - and arguably isn't that what Wikipedia is for? Harold Darling (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, WP is an Encyclopedia. Linking the support network and petition does not convey information on human knowledge. The fact that you find the links indicates it is being used for promotion, social networking, & webhosting. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich32977, Point of clarity I agree that online petition links should not included, and as for my example on Snowden - I did not follow a link and I had to go find the petition on my own -

It would seem that per WP:ELNO we shouldn't be linking the Manning support network - I can't think of legitimate grounds to ignore the guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect date under picture

The date under his military picture is 2012, however that is when the picture was published, not taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.201.26 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The image metadata states that it was generated in April 2012 - see [7]. Having said that it seems questionable that the photograph was actually taken in 2012, and it seems more likely that this is the date the image was released: "The Defense has obtained the most recent Department of Army Photo of PFC Manning". [8]. I'll alter the caption for now, omitting the date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the "Summary" section here, where it says "April 26, 2012 <link>", it links to a webpage run by Manning's attorney which contains a post by his lawyer answering the question of when the photo was taken. He states "Yes, the photo was taken on 26 April 2012". AzureCitizen (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - I'll revert my change to the caption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception vs. Reaction

Manning's actions have caused "reactions" (both in- and out-of-favor) by others (movement in the direction/reverse movement) Published works, creative ideas, etc. have a "reception" ("a manner of being received: The book met with a favorable reception."). "Reactions" is a more appropriate section title for this article and the content contained within that section. 68.55.123.86 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But let's let some others chime in. Then we'll decide. (And thanks for taking the time to justify your proposed edit.) – S. Rich (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)