janitor to the gods. ♥
This is being posted here so that it can be cited on Wikipedia if need be. Any actual discussion should take place on the Adrian Lamo article talk page.
I have some concerns about the neutrality of this article. Obviously, I am not an unbiased observer, so I felt it would be best to bring the issue to the community for discussion.
"During this period, in 2001, he overdosed on prescription amphetamines.
The description of the overdose is accurate, but I question why this one specific event, which bears no real relevance to the aspects of my life which may be considered notable, is afforded line-item status. I do try to assume good faith, but it’s fairly evident that some editors have pushed negative content regarding my life because they disagree with my actions, not because it’s relevant to the article.
In a 2004 interview with Wired, an ex-girlfriend of Lamo’s described him as “very controlling,” stating, “He carried a stun gun, which he used on me.” According to the same article, a court issued a restraining order against Lamo. Lamo disputed the accuracy of the article and wrote, “I have never been subject to a restraining order in my life”.”
The Wired article citing an “ex-girlfriend” uses an anonymous source. It’s not clear who it is, and the events they describe are not factual. This is best evidenced by the alleged restraing order - those are public records, and many, many people have tried to locate it. They couldn’t because it’s not real. That, to a reasonable observer, should undermine the credibility of that section. It’s a hell of an accusation to make on the strength of an anonymous source whose factual claims are unsubstantiated.
Regarding the clarification on the Wired article, I did not set out to mislead anyone. The discrepancy is the result of lack of communication with my family on the matter, as from my perspective events had happened as I described. Because of the very personal nature of that chain of events (while I am a public figure, my parents are not), I’ve largely left the matter alone up to now.
Glenn Greenwald has made numerous allegations which are not properly supported. This article quotes him as describing me as a "serial liar", but there’s nothing to back that up - at most, he has pointed at ways my views and positions have changed between 2010 and 2013 - I don’t feel an evolving understanding of a situation is dishonest - quite the opposite.
If this section is to be kept, I feel it should make specific allegations, not just generally claim that I’m dishonest. That’s not something I can defend, because without specifics there’s nothing *to* defend, just Greenwald’s opinion. Atacks on any subject’s character should be factual and cite sources, not merely imply that someone’s been dishonest wihtout pointing to specific incidences of dishonesty. Particularly, statements like "Greenwald is skeptical" don’t seem appropriate - while he is a notable figure, my supporters aren’t pushing my views regarding him in his article. That would be inappropriate, even if a notable figure having an opinion about another notable figure is somehow itself notable.
I address some of Greenwald’s inaccuracies and suspicious sourcing in a 2010 piece I wrote regarding his earliest reporting, available at cryptome.org/0001/lamo-greenwald.htm.
I appreciate the time anyone may take to read this and provide feedback