Talk:Marc Garlasco/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:BLP

NGO Monitor criticizing Garlasco is not enough for it to be included in this BLP. You need reliable secondary sources remarking on the criticism. nableezy - 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor criticizing Garlasco seems plenty relevant and reliable, though obviously uncomfortable for Garlasco. Please provide some evidence for your statement that "NGO Monitor is not a reliable source at all." If, as you claim, "it's not about politics but policy," please indicate who made the policy, when and where.Knowitall639 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping things civil and calm, I would suggest making a separate section entitled Controversy, and putting the material there.Knowitall639 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the existing positive material is unsourced and POV. Need to tone it down too.Knowitall639 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the neagtive material relates to a Marc Ernst Garlasco, is any evidacne they are one and the same person? We need an indepedant biography of Marc Garlasco.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowitall639, WP:BLP is clear, any contentious material must be sourced to multiple secondary reliable sources. Even if NGO Monitor were accepted as a reliable source, which it is not, it is not a secondary source. There needs to be evidence of reliable sources caring about what NGO Monitor said for it to go in the article. You cannot use a primary source to smear a living person on Wikipedia. That is policy. nableezy - 19:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that NGO Monitor are a reliable source for this criticism ? Knowitall639, I'm assuming you are familiar with WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV ? A source isn't an RS by default because they 'seems plenty relevant and reliable'. If the criticism is notable it will appear in sources that are accepted as RS by Wiki editors that have gone through the RS noticeboard. Actually it will probably appear in JPost tomorrow and it will probably be written by Katz because that's how it goes. So why not wait until there are decent sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean, Nableezy, there is no rule in WP:RS that makes Human Rights Watch a RS and NGO Monitor not a RS. They are both self-published research outfits that have stated ideological agendas, and (it is claimed by opponents) unstated ideological agendas. If one is a RS, so is the other. If one isn't, the other isn't either. I didn't introduce the NGO Monitor material, and don't really have any stake in this. Besides, at this point, as sean notes, there is plenty of MSM material that renders the dispute moot. Nonetheless, I get disturbed at people dressing up ideological censorship as devotion to wiki rules. I'd love to hear an explanation of why NGO Monitor material is not a RS for NGO Monitor criticism.Knowitall639 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

HRW and NGO monitor are not comparable and there is a RS/N discussion affirming HRW as a RS. See here. nableezy - 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you politically disagree with NGOM, but that doesn't make them incomparable. Is there anything besides your ideology that makes them incomparable under wiki rules?Knowitall639 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The treatment given to them by reliable sources. HRW releases a report that is world news immediately in every source from The Oregonian to The Times to Xinhua News and remains so for quite some time. NGO-monitor does not receive the same treatment. Compare for example this with this. nableezy - 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the second time you have made up a rule that is not a wiki rule to try to disqualify NGO Monitor. There is nothing like the rule you just invented in WP:RS. The fact is that HRW, like NGO Monitor self-publishes the opinions of its experts and each has supporters and critics. NGO Monitor is relied upon by many RS, and the reliability of HRW is questioned by many RS. But all that's irrelevant. Again, I sympathize with your desire to censor opinions from people you disagree with ideologically. You just have to understand that it's against the rules of Wikipedia for you to do so, and you can't just make up rules willy-nilly to try to intimidate others to kowtow to your censorship.Knowitall639 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt a made up rule, that is taken from WP:RS. Let me know when you finish reading. Also HRW has a RS/N showing consensus for its use as a reliable source, NGO monitor does not. And you just said self-published, which would make NGO monitor unreliable for a BLP. Want to try another argument? nableezy - 18:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this making it up as you go along works with others, but it doesn't work with me. There is no wiki rule that says that an RS is such only if it is treated as such by Xinhua. Unfortunately for you, I do read, and there is no language that you have pointed to anywhere in the rules that can possibly justify your POV demand to treat HRW as a RS and not NGO Monitor. BOTH are self-published. Both are criticised by ideological opponents (HRW very proudly notes some of the criticism it has absorbed). There is no consensus on HRW being a RS and NGO Monitor not being a RS. You are simply lying. The rules forbid you to censor based on your ideology. Please understand that what you are doing is not permitted by wiki rules, and you should stop it.87.68.62.205 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC). apologies forgot to log in before posting this.Knowitall639 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

potential sources

• <ref name="WP-2008-02-13">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021202692.html|title=The Man on Both Sides of Air War Debate|last=White|first=Josh|date=2008-02-13|publisher=The Washington Post|accessdate=2009-09-09}}</ref>

• <ref name="ESQ-war-in-gaza-021009">{{cite web|url=http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/war-in-gaza-021009|title=Both Sides of War in Gaza - Analysis of News from Gaza - Why There's No Kumbaya in Gaza|last=Richardson |first=John H.|date=2009-02-10|publisher=[[Esquire (magazine)|Esquire]]|accessdate=2009-09-09}}</ref>

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A poorly sourced article

The Marc Garlasco's title as a "senior military analyst", and more then this: "specialist in battle damage assessment, military operations, and interrogations", and his high position in the Pentagon, must be based on sources.

The Human Rights Watch is a controversal, left-wing organisation with an anti-American and anti-Isrelian manifest position. The http://www.hrw.org/en/bios/marc-garlasco is a poor, problematic and not enough reliable source. --Alex F. (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You can use the Washingtom Post source I added above and the Guardian profile which is already cited. Both are RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the HRW site is an WP:RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it really so?

In order to be neutral, I think that we must mention the fact that there is a stong conection between the Nazi-preferences of this gentleman (As a passionate Nazi-Badges collector, Mark Garlasco is the author of [The Flak Badges of the Luftwaffe and Heer], a comprehensive reference on the Flak Badges of the Nazi Wehrmacht), and his stong anti-Israelian positions.

And finally, I think that his original' personal book is much more important then an appearance in a television show or a film. --Alex F. (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is what really so ? That HRW are regarded as an RS in Wikipedia ? Yes, it is really so. Take it up with the RS noticeboard if you have a problem with that. As for what we mention, it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what the RS say. The first thing is to establish that Marc Garlasco of HRW is the author of this book. It should be easy but apparently it isn't. He must have said something about this somewhere at some point. I assume it's on the book sleeve. Have you seen a preview anywhere ? Google books doesn't seem to have it. His strong anti-Israeli position is your opinion which isn't relevant. Bear in mind we are talking about a guy who said "Of course, Hamas is fucking popping anyone they think are collaborators,"..."Just going around kneecapping them, if they're lucky. If they're not lucky they kill them." Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He also said "Hamas are a bunch of fucking nutjobs"...so he may not be captain neutrality in his interviews but he's quite a good source for some entertaining quotes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK this seems to be what we were looking for (odd that I found it) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-garlasco. This seems to be a blog by Mr Garlasco and at the bottom of the page we have

this Blogger's Books

The Flak Badges of the Luftwaffe and Heer

by Marc Garlasco

Seems to be that he did author the book.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. Shall we settle for that ? It would be nice to have something more explicit but I get the feeling that we aren't going to be able to find it unless he makes a statement. I'm tempted to email him. I've also done a bit of research myself which convinced me that he is the author but it's a bit circumstantial i.e. tracked down a pdf on what probably is his family's website (but again not 100% confidence). It was good enough for me but not WP:V. What do you think, go with the huff ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• According to Human Rights Watch "Garlasco is the author of a monograph on the history of German Air Force and Army anti-aircraft medals and a contributor to websites that promote serious historical research into the Second World War." [3]
• However, the book itself [4]
• Noah Pollak "Garlasco’s Nazi hobby is actually quite ambitious: he wrote a 400-page book on Nazi military awards," [5]
• and David Bernstein "avid collector of Nazi memorabilia (he even wrote a book" [6]
• Are sufficient sourcing to add something as concrete and undeniable as a book to a bio.Historicist (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

HRW is a reliable source, and even if it were not it certainly is reliable enough to say what Garlasco specializes in for them. And it is a reliable source per the RS noticebaord, as seen here. nableezy - 15:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find where he or HRW put the press release/response ? I can't find it and elderofziyon won't cut it. It's somewhere out there... Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have added material sourced to today's Maariv. I suspect that worting to HRW or to Elder of Zion would produce the HRW statement. However, we surely have sufficient sources to add the book title and publ date.Historicist (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

From http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275875.html Marc Ernst Garlasco was born on Sept. 4th 1970 in New York City, NY to Albino Joseph Harlasco and Notburga Elizabeth Grossman. Is not a Childs Surname usually from one of the parents? OK it’s a typo, but it does rather make one wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco's (redacted) needs to be included in this article as well as critiques of his biased reports

From: http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275875.html

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2009/09/is_hrw_investigator_garlasco_a_1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.11.133 (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

→I see all my usual suspects are here. JPost devoted another article to the issue. What they do not know (yet) is that those bloggers found this lovely photo of Marc. That is of course not a proof that he is Nazi or ever expressed anti-semitic views. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would respond but to quote Marc I don't want to encourage you. :) Anyway, zapped your copyvio. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

His comment of "Everybody thinks its a biker shirt" is disturbing and you don't have to be a genius to know which way he leans, err salutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.11.133 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, i was serious when said that it doesn't and shouldn't imply in any way that he's a Nazi or something. But it does raise some eyebrows, cause he's not just a regular guy but a senior military expert of HRW. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's is a regular guy. You obviously haven't read his interviews. Highly amusing. That JPost article is quite a good source. We should use that because what the PM's office says is clearly a lot more notable that what a tabloid and Steinberg say. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the dates on the sweat shirt I can't make them out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Its odd but there is no mention of any of this on HRW's website, not even the statment they issued.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC) A bit more confirmation. Here we have an e-mail address http://marcgarlasco.zenfolio.com/ This is the same as the one on the amazon site http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1PWCOVAWJ7TG4/ref=cm_aya_pdp_profile which is for the family tree site formaly removed from this article http://garlasco.com/.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can't either but I doubt that it matters. It's just an Iron Cross hoodie. Someone should complain toGoogle who are selling this hate material...even for kids, outrageous. Then there's the Federal Defense Forces. The horror. I guess orgs don't always respond officially. Some orgs have a policy of not responding at all to CAMERA for example. Not sure why no one is complaining that he was drinking beer while simultaneously eating what looks like very unhealthy greasy food. Shocking behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

in a sence thats my point, unless it can be shown that this sweat shirt specificaly and soley applies to the nazi era all it proves is that the person in the photo is interested in german millitary decorations first issues in 1813, not that he is a neo-nazi.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got that but I stand by my 'I doubt that it matters'. It won't make any difference. It's never about making verifiably true statements based on empirical data for the sources that are being brought here to support this stuff. They make verifiably false statements frequently. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I removed that ext link to http://garlasco.com/ a few days ago because I couldn't verify that it was what it said it was from an RS with 100% confidence. Despite now knowing that it is his I still don't think it should go back because much of it requires an account to access. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages

A reminder to everybody who wants to write that "Garlasco is a Nazi" on this page or any other page on Wikipedia. WP:BLP applies to every single page hosted on Wikipedia. BLP violating comments can and will be removed. nableezy - 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing links to sources as per WP:TPO that aren't RS and therefore have no function here other than presumably to advocate on behalf of organisations and promote their material to wiki readers might be a good idea too. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post on Garlasco

'HRW expert collects Nazi memorabilia' --RCS (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Excising information

As he has been doing all week, User:Sean.hoyland is still attempting to spin the article by excising information. His latest attempt was to remove the remarks of a spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel as "undue" My positon is that statements form gove. officials are significant. In fact, incidents that get this much coverage are notable. I have, yesterday and today, added coverage of previous aspects of Garlasco's career. I suggest that editors with political positions on Israel like User:Sean.hoyland and others deal with issues of balance by adding information, not by excising statements issuing fomrthe Prime Minister's office.Historicist (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I added that info from the main article including the response from HRW to replace your hopelessly onesided account so if I removed it it was unintentional. Yes, it's notable. I thought I onlt added an 'an' somewhere else in the article so I'm not sure what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't have a political positions on Israel. I have a very firm position opposing the kind of partisan nonsense going on now that degrades the quality and neutrality on information here. It probably looks the same to you but that isn't my problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just moticed that you accused me of trying to spin the article. That really is absolutely classic. Please stop filling this and other HRW related articles with partisan meritless drivel clearly intended to smear the reputation of a living people and the organisation they work for using information of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. If you really are genuinely interested improving the quality of information in wikipedia and you have an interest in HRW then why don't you have a look for academic studies by neutral parties qualified to do these kind of rigorous, objective studies that have produced performance indicators for HRW's work ? I have seen at least one and I'm sure there are more. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation

Historicist, your edit here was a violation of BLP policy as perWikipedia:Blp#Self-published_sources, I have removed the information. I suggest you read WP:BLP if you intend to continue editing this article and other articles covered by this policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

88

Here's the proposed edit by 83.244.128.162

Garlasco uses the id Flak88 and while Human Rights Watch note that Garlasco "has never held or expressed Nazi or anti-Semitic views", the "88" is a known Neo-Nazi symbol representing "Heil Hitler ".[7] [8]

At the moment I think this violates WP:SYN. But, one of the reliable sources already cited in the article must have already made this synthesis in which case if it is sourced to them I think it can go in but attributed to the person making the statement. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)...without the cite to 88_(number) wikipedia article. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is far more likely, even if it's only my own original research? And beyond that, surely this has to stop? Content that attempts to smear someone as a Nazi (albeit with a wink and a nudge, rather than by endorsing the criticism outright) has no place on Wikipedia. The material now takes up half the page, and the denials on why people are shovelling this fairly trivial and ephemeral propaganda in ring a bit hollow. Shouldn't this go to the BLP board or something? --Nickhh (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Urban dictionary supplies an alternative possibility, which should at least amuse those who so evidently have taken a severe dislike to Mr Garlasco. --Nickhh (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, even Lego are being dragged into this Nazi-sympathising thing. They're everywhere. --Nickhh (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Settle down now. It's too easy. While I personally agree with you 100% and I think admins should start blocking people making these transparent attempts to smear I'm trying to keep an open mind despite the monitor-bot attacks. I'm in favour of this article being logged on the BLP noticeboard or whatever it takes to make the abuse stop but I don't know the process. It's likely to get worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. When is anyone going to do anything about this sort of crap though? I'm thinking of creating a template which says something like "This person is not a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer, but were you to read this page you might think that they possibly could be, or indeed probably are. This is because their page has been hijacked and taken over by teenagers on a mission and with an agenda to prove precisely that. And look! here's a link to two news websites that vaguely discuss this controversy, to prove how significant it all is". It's going to go on the Israel Shahak and the Jonathan Cook page for starters, as well as this one. --Nickhh (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

<-moved message from my talk page

Sean - I'm not sure why you don't accept that 88 is commonly used by Neo-Nazi's as an id tag. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.128.162 (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is WP:BLP compliance. I do accept that 88 is commonly used by Neo-Nazi's as an id tag. What does that have to do with anything ? It's not about what you or I accept. It's about complying with the mandatory policies particularly in a biography of a living person. You can't assert something as a fact that relates to a living person when it isn't a fact. If it's an opinion or some kind of synthesis of material to come to a conclusion about a living person that can affect their reputation then you need a cast iron reliable source. NGO Monitor are not that, not even close. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Other problems worth considering are Wikipedia:Attack page, Wikipedia:Libel, Wikipedia:Fringe#Independent_sources and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This 88 (number)#As a Neo-Nazi symbol is already widely known. It's unlikely that Garlasco didn't know what the number meant when he picked that handle.

I agree that it's a SYN violation if done without a reference, but I also think it's worth finding one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the term has been around for a while, and there is a game by that name. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I still think it's worth looking, but we do need to be extremely careful. It's not like there aren't other things to say about the guy.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"You can't assert something as a fact that relates to a living person when it isn't a fact." The fact that 88 is a Neo-Nazi id is a fact. The use of Flak88 as an id on websites dealing with Nazi memorabilia, by someone who works within the Human Rights community, who has produced extremely critical reports about Israel, (some of which have been subsequently shown to be wrong), is a very odd choice. There is no quoting of fact that he is a Nazi, Neo-Nazi or has sympathise for these ideologies by quoting the use of the alternative meaning of 88.

The association of the Neo-Nazi use of 88 and the choice of Flak88 as an id is a controversial point - FACT. It is quite frankly unbelievable that Garlasco would not have know the implications of using 88, given the subject matter he is studying as a hobby. Flak88 was chosen by Garlasco and by making that choice, he has left himself open to criticism. He may have thought that it didn't matter, "it is just the calibre of the weapon, and I don't care about the Neo-Nazi implication because no-one can possible think that I am a Neo-Nazi". This calls in doubt his judgement. He may well have had other thoughts about using the 88 that are more sinister, but let us not go there. The use of Flak88 as an id is controversial and should be pointed out. There is nothing libellous by pointing out this link between 88 and Neo-Nazism. James (83.244.128.162)

Sean - From your earlier undo - The second link is from the leading German news source "DER SPIEGEL". This article discusses the use of 88 as a Neo-Nazi symbol. It was chosen as it is a source of German origin detailing the issues the use of 88 raises. It is not out of context. The choice of Flak88 as an id is very controversial. Perhaps you could detail you personal relationship with Garlasco and why you feel that the link between Flak88 and the Neo-Nazi symbolism it embodies/implies has to be removed in "truth-speak" style. James (83.244.128.162) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.128.162 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a personal relationship with Garlasco not that it's any of your business. I wish I did. He's a funny guy. Thanks for your interest in my personal life though. I'll let you know if I get in touch with him if you like. Please try to understand that if you break BLP rules you will be blocked not me so please listen to me. Also please don't give me the "truth-speak" nonsense again or I will stop rsponding to you.

Your (or my) opinions and arguments from first principals or what seems obvious to you etc don't matter here. The only thing that matters is what the reliable sources say. You are not a reliable source and neither am I. What you could do is find a reliable source for what Garlasco has said about it and find a reliable source that supports your assertion that "The association of the Neo-Nazi use of 88 and the choice of Flak88 as an id is a controversial point - FACT" specifically as it relates to Garlasco. Actually that second one isn't a fact, it's an opinion but that's okay. You need to find a reliable source that includes someone that matters making the statement that "The association of the Neo-Nazi use of 88 and the choice of Flak88 as an id by Garlasco is a controversial point etc" or thereabouts and the statement can be attributed to the person making the statement as their opinion/comment on the matter. It's a waste of your time to argue without reliable sources that support the statements you would like to include in the article. It's always a waste of time but it's 100% a waste of time in an article covered by WP:BLP (which I hope you have read carefully).

I understand why you think that "DER SPIEGEL" helps and it does if it is used precisely and only to provide verifiability for use of 88 as a Neo-Nazi symbol. That's fine. It doesn't help with any statements that refer specifically to Garlasco because it's not about him so you need to be careful to avoid synthesizing/combining separate pieces of information, all of which may have reliable sources to support them individually but which when combined together present a synthesized conclusion that isn't actually in a reliable source as a conclusion. Do you see what I mean ? Did you read WP:SYN ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean - Correct me if I'm wrong here, but

i) You accept that 88 is widely used as a symbol of recognition between Neo-Nazis.

ii) You accept that Garlasco uses the id Flak88 on Nazi memorabilia sites.

iii) The Flak AA gun had a calibre of 88mm.

iv) You may or may not see that there is an issue when considering i) and ii) above, despite taking iii) into account, but a reliable source on the internet must publish the facts i) and ii) above and then raise the issue that there is a controversy in the choice of Flak88.

If I'm still with you at this point, is this a reliable source? http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=512 I'll quote the relevant passage for you: "That, however, is not all. Garlasco also goes by the name Flak88, and has even had this on his car number plate. This also has a considerable bearing on the question of Nazism, and the morals of both Garlasco and (now) HRW. The reason for this will be obvious to anyone who is seriously committed to anti-Nazism, as the number ‘8′ is routinely used by Nazis to denote Hitler; ‘88′ to denote Heil Hitler; and ‘18′ for Adolf Hitler."

You may or may not know about the Community Security Trust (CST), but "Every year CST helps secure over 170 synagogues, 80 Jewish schools, 64 Jewish communal organisations and approximately 1000 communal events. CST also represents the Jewish community on a wide range of Police, governmental and policy-making bodies dealing with security and antisemitism. Indeed, the Police and government praise CST as a model of how a minority community should protect itself." Within Britain, it is the de-facto body representing the Jewish community in its fight against anti-Semitism.

I can not see any reason why you should now question why highlighting the issue surrounding Garlasco's use of Flak88 is not appropriate for this Wikipedia entry. Your thoughts? James (83.244.128.162) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.128.162 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But they hacve not said that he is a Nazi or anti-semtic, they just imply it. I fthey are not willing to make an unequivicable statment why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is very important James. In fact we can't. Implying things is not allowed by BLP.

A blogger is not a reliable source in a BLP. You want something like Jpost, BBC, NYT etc etc. You are looking for a statement that ties everything together in one place (cutting out all the partisan moralising..it has to be neutral remember or a directly attributed quote) then you don't have to worry about i) ii) and iv) individually. You have them covered in one source. I know CST do fine work (I'm British) but as I say you are really after a mainstream RS like the usual suspects I listed. Bear in mind that it can't just make stuff up, imply things, defame etc so it needs to be something that's been accepted as an RS at the RS noticeboard. That covers all the mainstream sources pretty much. Are you sure Jpost etc haven't already said something about this ? Have you looked through the sources we already have ? Point iii) is more problematic because ideally what you want is what Marc or HRW has said about it. You can't theorize that it might be because of an AA gun or something else. An RS has to say something about it being why he picked that name.

I can give you some answers to 'I can not see any reason why you should now question why highlighting the issue surrounding Garlasco's use of Flak88 is not appropriate for this Wikipedia entry'. With my neutral wiki hat on I think it's okay to include (not highlight) something about the controversy over the Flak88 id as long as it's from RS and as long as it gets the weight it deserves (see WP:UNDUE) which is very little in my opinion. A couple of sentences, a brief comment from someone + Marc/HRW's side of the story is perhaps appropriate for this article. With my neutral wiki hat off, speaking personally I find all of this quite offensive and sad. Oh well. Such is life.

There is something I haven't mentioned and that is the BLP noticeboard at WP:BLP/N. They are much better placed than me to resolve issues related to BLP such as whether something is or is not appropriate to include, is it sufficiently well sourced, is it defamatory etc. If you get stuck, have a question you can always ask them. Also bear in mind if I revert you it means I think its a BLP violation. It also means you don't get blocked for making a BLP violation so give me a break. I'm not a nazi. :)Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And to illustrate due weight considerations and article focus. 8 years ago today he was in the Pentagon when the plane hit it. No one is scrambling to put that in the article. Seems odd. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Impact

Historicist, I removed the impact section for 2 reasons

• The JPost piece didn't support the statement that the Israeli gov is reviewing foreign funding of NGOs because of this incident and the Saudi donor one.
• If I remember correctly the funding issue came up as a result of the testimonies by IDF soldiers published by Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence which is foreign funded in part. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted the Post differently than you do.Historicist (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but actually I think there probably is a source out there that makes an explicit connection between Cast Lead reporting by HRW and the review of NGO activities/funding/permission to enter the country etc by the Israeli gov. I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere, probably in a JPost piece a while ago. It won't tie it to the medals but it might tie it to Garlasco himself since he was in Gaza in Feb or whenever it was and worked on the reporting. If I come across it I'll post it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections this article still needs

There should be informations on his involvement with the the Gaza beach explosion (2006) and the white phosphorous in Gaza controversy.Historicist (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

blog citation

I don't want to revert the removal of the MR blog, but I'd like to make an argument for including the link. I would agree that using it as evidence would be inappropriate in terms of WP:RS, but in this case it is a matter of historical import, in that the story broke there. So, the point of including the link is not because the source is reliable, but rather because the reporting at MR is notable in itself, having broken there and having been cited by several stories... so that if someone were researching the issue, and came to Wikipedia to read about it, they would be able to trace the genealogy of the story. In my mind, this seems totally different than using the source as further evidence that Garlasco does in fact "delve" in Nazi memorabilia.

But I concede that I may incorrect here, as I don't usually edit controversial articles. Is my argument flawed or out of touch with community standards? PStrait (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If this were not a BLP I wouldnt see a problem, but as it is I think we need to make sure every source we cite is a reliable source. The blog is a unreliable primary source that has been covered by reliable secondary sources. We should be using the secondary sources and not even linking to a primary source blog in a BLP. nableezy - 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looking over the WP:BLP guidelines I think you are right.PStrait (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I removed that before per BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture

So ... could someone please tell me how it helps the quality of this article to run a picture of Garlasco wearing a (AFAIK) non-Nazi symbol that is likely to be misinterpreted as a Nazi symbol? Thanks in advance. CJCurrie (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

as far as I know we are not allowed to use non-free images of living people. nableezy - 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that point as well ... CJCurrie (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't immediately clear to me that it is a non-nazi symbol. As far as I can see, the cross doesn't have a swastika in the middle--but then again, it doesn't have a W in the middle or any other symbol in the middle. In other words, it isn't exclusively a nazi symbol, but it also isn't explicitly a non-nazi symbol.

But more to the point, it is totally irrelevent whether it is or isn't a nazi symbol-- its a real picture from the public domain of Garlasco, and this article is about Garlasco, not Garlasco's penchant for war memorabilia. It isn't doctored, and in fact reports of him wearing the shirt are in the Guardian article about the controversy. To not include it because people might misinterpret it seems silly to me. That might have been a good reason for him not to wear the shirt, but it isn't a good reason not to include it in the article.

This kind of objection could be used to ignore the entire controversy, along the lines of the HRW assertion that the "allegations" that he collects nazi memorabilia are "monstrous" because he is not a Nazi sympathizer. Following that logic and assuming the latter claim is true, maybe we shouldn't report the truth because people might misinterpret it? But it isn't our job to decide which truths people can be trusted with and which they cannot-- we just report the truth as presented in reliable sources about noteworthy subjects. Since the Guardian thought it was noteworthy to report about this, who are we to edit that part out? Either the source is acceptable or it isn't. PStrait (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If somebody can prove that a) the photo is not in the public domain, and b) it is not Garlasco, then of course remove the image from the article and request a speedy deletion of the image. In the meantime, it is perfectly acceptable to include it in the article about this living, noteworthy individual. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Guardian article again, there is an explicit discussion of how the shirt would be illegal to wear in Germany (due to the prohibition against displaying Nazi symbols)... Not that I think this matters one way or another, but it certainly speaks to the question of whether it is a Nazi symbol.PStrait (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) I don't have any particular interest in military medals, but my understanding is that an Iron Cross without a swastika is a non-Nazi symbol. In fact, I see that the Bundeswehr currently uses a variant of the Iron Cross with nothing in the centre ... not unlike the shirt that Garlasco is depicted as wearing. (The fact that someone on a blog discussion site thought the shirt would be illegal in Germany is evidence of ... well, nothing.)

(ii) More to the point, I think that Wikipedia has a general practice (if not a formal policy) of removing pictures that portray the subject in a silly or demeaning light. I would tend to think a candid pic of the subject having a beer at a picnic table falls into this category, leaving the rest aside. CJCurrie (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the picture in a "silly" or "demeaning" light? I'm not sure what the policy is that you are citing, but it seems like the fact that this guy personally posted the picture to a public forum suggests that *he* did not think it was "silly" or "demeaning." And what more objective standard for those things could one find?PStrait (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco himself put this photo into the public domain. How is this a silly or demeaning photo if he felt sure enough to release it to German Combat Awards for publication? Can it be verified whether this is even a beer or a root beer? Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is the main point at issue, but can you please show me where Garlasco released this into the public domain? CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco posting a picture in a public place is not the same as putting it in the public domain. He retains copyright over the picture unless the forum he posted it to requires he relinquish the rights to the picture, like commons does, and in that case the license would belong to the forum. WP:NFC under unacceptable uses of images includes Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing. nableezy - 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is only true if another image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since this picture in particular is discussed in the relevant news coverage, I fail to see how another picture would serve the exact same encylopedic purpose. Am I missing something? My reading of the fair use policy for images of living people seems different than yours, apparently, but I'm not sure what the disconnect is. PStrait (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I just noticed that the HRW statement doesn't dispute the claim that Garlasco collects WW2 memorabilia from both sides (although it correctly describes the insinuation that he is a Nazi sympathizer as "monstrous"). The article's current wording is highly misleading, and makes it appear as though HRW was trying to cover up the factual record -- this needs to be changed ASAP. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The HRW also said that he does not "delve into nazi memorabilia." Is there any sense in which that could possibly be regarded as true? I mean, seriously? And where is there any evidence that Garlasco collects non-german memorabilia? Of course HRW doesn't dispute a claim that only HRW has made. PStrait (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) Even if one takes an unsympathetic view of both Human Rights Watch and their statement in support of Garlasco, the claim is still technically accurate. Germany army memorabilia isn't the same as Nazi Party memorabilia. At worst, the HRW statement is clumsily worded.

(ii) More importantly, it should be obvious to most fair observers that collecting Nazi-era memorabilia is not prima facie evidence of Nazi sympathies. It's also obvious that there's a smear campaign taking place, and I fear reproducing the misleading photo could make us complicit in the smear. CJCurrie (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would urge you to hold back on your inference and exercise WP:good faith. I have placed the photo in the article because it is a true representation of Garlasco, created and made public by Garlasco, and that it cannot be replaced with any other known photograph that would serve to illustrate the current notoriety. Smear campaign? That borders on WP:civil. A Sniper (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not commented on your motives, nor those of other editors. I've said that there's a smear campaign taking place (in the broader world), and expressed concern that reproducing the photo could make us (Wikipedia) complicit, regardless of intent. I stand by these statements. CJCurrie (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your distinction is untenable. It is like saying that if I collected old Confederate military uniforms, I'm not collecting CSA memorabilia. Or, by the same logic, that I'm not collecting civil war memorabilia. The National Socialist Party was more than just a party, it was also the regime, and the military. US soldiers don't get medals with elephants or donkeys on them. At the end of the day, you are literally arguing that war medals with Swastikas on them, awarded by the National Socialist government to soldiers who were members of the National Socialist party, are not Nazi memorabilia. I mean, really? really??

Of course it is obvious that collecting Nazi memorabilia is not prima facie evidence of Nazi sympathies. In fact, if you read the blog post that originally uncovered this story, this point is made and emphasized again and again. The point is not that he is a Nazi, or that he is a racist. It is that it is unseemly for the HRW to have hired someone to focus on Israel who spends his spare time obsessing about Nazi memorabilia. It is noteworthy. That is why newspapers have reported it. And if you are really defending the statement that he does not "delve into nazi memorabilia," I don't know what to say because it seems like we don't even agree on what words mean... To have any kind of discussion we have to share first principles. This guy wrote an almost 500 page book on the intricacies of the war medals awarded by the National Socialist regime. If we cannot agree that that counts as "delving" into "nazi memorabilia," I just don't know how any constructive conversation can occur. PStrait (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put,PStrait. It boggles the mind. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that his collection and interests clearly go beyond the German Army. The leather SS jacket -- the one he thought was just "so cool" (a sentiment I doubt would be shared by many Holocaust survivors) -- along with everything else relating to the SS, has nothing to do with the German Army, but rather with the Nazi Party's paramilitary organization. So if your distinction really is that there is somehow a clear divide between the Army of the Third Reich and the Nazi Party, what explains his interest in the SS? And all of this is really just to say, it isn't our job to decide if a story looks good or bad for some person, nor is it our job to speculate on the motives of reporters. That is original research. Our job is to report the facts as presented in reliable sources. That is it. PStrait (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is another issue with the picture. Avi closed out the deletion request on the grounds that fair use may be claimed because the picture is detailing the controversy not just the person and so is irreplaceable. Fair enough, the image may be used. But there is another issue here and that is an editorial decision, should this be the only image to represent this person? The only image in this article is him wearing a shirt that has generated much controversy, but he has been involved in much more important things, from his work at the US DoD to his work at HRW. Should this be the only way we visually represent this person? nableezy - 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we stray into POV territory if we're already forming the opinion that Garlasco, being someone who "has been involved in much more important things", should not be represented by the one photo that has received the most attention (and is perhaps the only photo floating around of him). In a sense, the notoriety itself has driven the need for the photo Garlasco in the sweatshirt, regardless of whether another photo of the man exists within the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the news of the day, good for blog postings and increased activity at a Wikipedia article. To have the article this focused on it is a consequence of that. He has been involved in no fewer than 8 major reports at HRW, and is mentioned in hundreds of news stories that predate this controversy. nableezy - 07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco is very notable indeed particularly in US military circles and it isn't because of his sweatshirts. It would be rather odd if this were the only image used to illustrate a biography of this person. We are already in POV territory by only using this image. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this seems obviously right -- we should definitely include another picture of him. I mean, why not?PStrait (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to find a free one. I wonder if HRW would release the staff photo they have of him. nableezy - 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's essential that this is the only image ever shown of this person ever anywhere ever. But seriously, yes fair point. Normally we can't use anything to show for example battle damage or casualties to illustrate a controversy over war crimes allegations via an irreplaceable image etc unless it is CC or some such license so I'm not sure I understand the rules. Getting images into wiki is normally a world of pain. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We can use non-free content but only in certain circumstance, and while it is confusing I do trust Avi to let us know whether or not this fits those circumstances. nableezy - 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust Avi too so perhaps he can consider whether we are entitled to upload images taken by Marc as part of his investigations in Gaza (and elsewhere) which he has posted to his photography website http://marcgarlasco.zenfolio.com in order to illustrate the controversy surrounding his and HRW's Cast Lead reporting ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow down

Can I ask editors to take care not to remove citations and ensure that controversial edits are discussed on the talk page. I can already see one case where a citation has been removed along with a response from HRW added to balance an Israeli gov statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Balancing perspectives

We currently have a section named according to the perspective of critics of Marc Garlasco and HRW with respect to his hobbies and a potential conflict of interest. However, HRW and others have stated that issues like this are related to their reporting of possible war crimes during Operation Cast Lead and that these issues form a set of related false allegations intended to 'smear the messengers and change the subject'. See here and and here for example.

So, when we present the information about Garlasco's milhist interest in this article amd the unfolding events what is the best way to encompass both of these contexual interpretations and ensure that we are not taking sides in the issue by presenting the information from one perspective without acknowledging the existence of the other perspective ? In other words, one side would say this is about nazis (which is the side the article current takes) the other side would say this is about smear campaigns to distract. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Sean that the editing has to be above the spin and agendas. However, can we not use the most common terms that the press reported? Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Personaly as its about an allegation he has Nazi sypathies (or at least an interest in them) then that is what the article should say. That there is an allegation of Naziness. But we should also report the other side of the fence and include the counter punch. As to headers, it should relect the nature of the accusation, not its evidance or value (if you will). As to most common term do we use headline or main text, there are occasinal differances for example [[9]] has the following 'Nazi memorabilia' 'aspect of the Third Reich.' 'Third Reich-era memorabilia' 'World War II memorabilia' 'Second World War German military' So which of these has the BBC reorted?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

HRW response

HRW have now placed the response they sent to the media on their site here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post's article (today) on the subject is here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I've already seen that. The reason I posted the official response link is that a) previously we couldn't find it anywhere so we wondered how HRW issued the response, who to etc. It was a bit of a mystery and b) I wanted to replace the use of the Maariv translated article as a ref for this material. Setting aside translation issues both of those sources are Israeli sources and therefore have the potential for selection bias in the way they handle HRW press releases. That is just how it is and we need to bear that in mind as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a tad overkill to make the suggestion that all Israeli papers have the potential for collective bias, though I don't mean this with any disrespect. Many JP readers are antagonistic towards Haaretz (and their readers), and the other way around. Israel has a far left, a far right and dozens in between. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar indeed with the Israeli press and the individual journalists who are themselves very diverse in their views and writing styles. Nevertheless, common sense suggests that selection bias is more likely. Actually it's not even common sense. There is empirical evidence that has been gathered and analysed over many years by an Israeli media monitor that clearly shows a variety of somewhat troubling issues. No disrespect to the Israeli media. The only reason I can't say this about some other countries with 'free press' is that they don't have the same level of smart, objective and deterministic monitoring. Israel is somewhat of a leader in this field it seems. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ext links

I'm uncomfortable with links to all his reports being on this page. If this article was about Steinberg at NGO Monitor and it linked to lots of his reports I'd be annoyed and complaining about partisan link spamming blah blah blah. So, forcing myself to be neutral, what to do ? WP:EXT is never very clear in these matters. Just have the link to his page at HRW ? Just have the titles without the links (seems silly). Something I can't think of ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to incorp all this stuff into the body of the article today but I was distracted by events i.e. mention all the projects/reports he's worked on and use the reports or the press releases as refs. Would that work ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Helena Cobban

Helena Cobban has published a detailed critique of Garlasco's reports on the fighting in Georgia - on her blog. Blogs by well-known journalists and academics are Wikipedia RS for the opinions of the author - not for matters of fact. I believe that the material should be added, phrased "Helena Cobban asserts that..."Josh02138 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco's reports on Georgia have been severely criticized by Helena Cobban who accuses him of making blatant and serious errors, lacking expertise on military matters, and falling victim to Russian disinformation campaigns.

Not in a BLP. A self-published source is not usable in a BLP unless it is by the subject of the author. Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. nableezy - 19:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Cobban is a Board member of Human Rights WatchJosh02138 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh, can I ask you to consider balancing material you are adding with responses so that you make an effort to comply with NPOV. Are you willing to do that. NPOV is mandatory as you know. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Individual ediors have a responsibility to cite sources accurately and add only significant material. Surely no individual editor has the time, interest, or responsibility to seek out all the material that may be significant erely because he had a significant piece of information at his fingertips andcame to add it to a Wikipedia article.Josh02138 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice, but did you read what I quoted from WP:BLP? To repeat: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. nableezy - 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You have the time to comply with a core policy. The time you spent reading the NGO Monitor site could have instead been spent looking for a response to balance your criticism. Are you going to comply with it or not ? If not I suggest you edit another article. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Please provide evidence that the assertions made by NGO Monitor here are reliable and that they are classified as a reliable source within Wikipedia for these kinds of statements. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

From our standpoint as Wikipedia editors, NGO Monitor is just as reliable as any HRH statements. All we can do is state the source. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support that statement ? HRW has RS status in Wiki via the RS noticeboard and the real world of course. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Watch is an NGO. It is well-regarded. Not every NGO has been through a review process on Wikipedia. In fact, I wonder if, in light of a growing body of evidence about inaccurate reports, Human Rights Watch would pass such a review now.Josh02138 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as that evidence is only coming from places like NGO monitor I dont think it would matter. nableezy - 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention heavy criticism from Helena Cobban and other members of the Human Rights Watch Board of Directors afer the Saudi fundraising affair, and critical reports in many serious publications about phosphorous, the 2006 Gaza Beach affair, south lebanon the Gaza conflict and other faulty of downright incorrect reports. You can hide you head in the sand and remove material form Wikipedia pages, but that does not make this a faultless organizations.Josh02138 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh, please stick to the issue of NGO Monitor. Do you have any evidence that NGO Monitor are reliable, that they are classified as a reliable source within Wikipedia for these kinds of statements and that they are well regarded as you suggest ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• A phalanx of reputable, mainstream sources have pointed out that Human Rights Watch is disproportionately focused on criticism of the Jewish State, and, in recent weeks, that it has compromised its credibility in the Middle East with the Saudi fundraising trip, the anti-Israel positions of its staff, and now the Garlasco revelations. These assertions of bias have even come form the Human Rights Watch board of directors. NGO Monitor does not pretend to be anything other than an NGO that scrutinizes the work of NGO's that scrutinize Israel's behavior. The important point is that main stream publications, even left-of-center publications like Haaretz cite work produced by NGO Monitor. The thing to do on Wikipedia is to cite the work of NGO's to the NGO, i.e., "According to Human Rights Watch..."Josh02138 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but HRW has consensus as a RS here per ]]WP:RS/N/Archive_15#Human_Rights_Watch|this]] discussion. NGO monitor does has no such consensus. nableezy - 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh, stick to the issue of NGO Monitor. Do you have any evidence that NGO Monitor are reliable, that they are classified as a reliable source within Wikipedia for these kinds of statements and that they are well regarded as you suggest ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New source

I'm not certain it can be used in the article, but this strikes me as an entirely reasonable take on the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

a few issues

• The picture caption now reads something like "Here's Marc wearing a sweatshirt that has nothing to do with Nazis". Considering this picture is here to illustrate the controversy, shouldn't the caption at least mention in passing that the Iron Cross does indeed have something to do with the Nazis though not exclusively?

• Does BLP prevent us from using the actual Guardian provided quote saying Garlasco said "The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!"? I also think the article should use the more commonly used "SS" rather than the less known "Schutzstaffel" if for some reason we can't use the guy's own words.

This certainly belongs in the article. It is reliably sourced and significant. Josh02138 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• The wikilink from his username of "Flak88" to the cannon is OR unless there's a source making that connection. No More Mr Nice Guy ([[User talk:

No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 12:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is also sourced to the Guardian.Josh02138 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For info, HRW have written to the Guardian, accusing it of repeating "defamatory nonsense". That is of course a specific assertion that the material, as it has been covered by that paper and in other places previously, is potentially libellous. There doesn't appear to be any suggestion that they are actually going to sue over it, but it really highlights how careful everyone needs to be with this stuff. To say the least. Just because something is sourced, even to a reliable publication, does not mean it has to be included in a page, especially a BLP. --Nickhh (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to include this accusation, but we also have to word it (and make sure its attributed) very carefully. At this time it is not a fact but a rather libalous nudge nudge wink wing inuendo.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

<-comments.

• The caption is accurate, If you have an RS that confirms that the Iron Cross depicted on that specific hoodie is in some way connected to Nazis please feel free to bring it here for discussion.
• The exact quote from the Guardian is fine. "SS" is fine and what it says in the source. Adding any information that isn't in the source isn't fine. Implying anything by it isn't fine. The use of the article title very odd indeed and I plan to remove it. It seems almost like a pathetic and shameful attempt to defame a highly respected human rights researcher and US intel vet by throwing the word Nazi around like an old pair of socks but that's just my view.
• The wiki link to Flak88 isn't OR because it's mentioned in the Ma'ariv piece "using the pseudonym Flak88, a German anti-aircraft shell" so feel free to add the cite.
• Josh/NMMNG have you guys done any reseach on this person whatsoever, interviews he's given, views on his knowledge and experience from military men, service to his country ? Just curious. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been aware of Marc Garlasco and his work for a few years. Why do you ask?

The sweatshirt has a representation of an Iron Cross on it, as awarded by the Nazis, among other German/Prussian governments. Unless I'm missing something pretty obvious?

I'm glad we agree about the SS quote.

Thanks for pointing me to Maariv for sourcing the Flak88 thing. Didn't notice it there the first time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well your missing the fact that the Iron Cross as isued by the Nazis had a Swastica on it and the one on the swaetshirt does not. Also the fact that you can male out the date 1957 on the Shirt, Nazi grmany ceased to exist in 1945. So exactly which part of the shirt implies it has Nazi conertations? Exaclty the saem as Wagner, does this mean if your a fan of Wagner your a Nazi?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Iron Cross issued by other German governments had a year on it as you can see here for example, and this one doesn't have any of those details. It's a generic Iron Cross. As awarded by the Nazis, among others (see below).

I'm sorry, but I can't make out the year in the picture, but HRW says it says "The Iron Cross, 1813, 1870, 1914, 1939 and 1957" here.

Not sure how my opinions on Wagner are relevant to this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point its a generic Iron Cross, not a representation of a specificaly soley or even majority Nazi item. Which is my point about Wagner, if you are saying that he must be a Nazi becasue he is wearing something that the Nazis once used (amoung others) then that same rule must applly to anything tha Nazis made use of. Coal scuttle helmets were used by the Nazis, does that mean the current US army are Nazis (after all its a very similar shape?), Of source I am being silly but in order to demonstrate a point, you have to demonstrate not that it might have Nazi affiliations but that it has them beyond any shadow of doubt. So far no major news media have said outright that he is a Nazi, or that he supports Nazi ideology, the simple reason for that is that there is no prof that would not if used in court net him a few millions in damages.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, I asked because you guys appear to be devoting no attention to these important aspects of this person in the article preferring instead to focus on Nazis. Seems quite odd given that the person and the organization he works for have stated repeatedly that he isn't a Nazi and no one has explictly accused him of being a Nazi. Yes you are missing many things that are very obvious to reasonable people in general but in this case you are missing the fact that it's an Iron Cross and that he isn't a Nazi and that implying that he is will get you blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not saying he must be a Nazi. I'm saying that he is involved in a bit of a controversy because he collects, shall we say "Nazi-era artifacts" and there's a reason some people use this picture in their argument. The caption obfuscates that.

Can we agree to put what HRW says the sweatshirt says in the caption? "The Iron Cross, 1813, 1870, 1914, 1939 and 1957" and the fact it was awarded by German governments is more relevant to this article than the fact it was the symbol for the German army (coincidentally not when the Nazis were in power). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to that. as long as that is all.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree too cited to HRW but I'm curious about the decision procedure you use to decide whether a statement by HRW is reliable or unreliable. They are reliable on hoodies but unreliable on human rights violations. It's a puzzlingly inconsistent approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Because the guy saying what the text on his hoody is is exactly the same as reaching complex conclusions on legal matters. Dude, you're trying too hard.

Anyway, it seems that he realized that his hobby might have a negative impact on his job. See this. Is that something we can use in the article, BLP-wise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainly I was making a joke but also I was referring to selection bias, a handicap for wiki editors. What I find amusing about all this is that many people clearly know nothing about this guy. You obviously haven't researched him very well or else you would be filling this article with some of his priceless undiplomatic quotes. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

<- Just reverted A.Sniper caption edit. Suggest you make your image caption edit NMMNG or discuss more. Bed time for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Sean's edit. This isn't an article about Iron Crosses. It is about Garlasco - and the section where I placed the photo is about his interest in German military memorabilia. The fact he is wearing an Iron Cross sweatshirt is a curiosity, hence the notoriety, but we are not obliged as editors to spoon-feed readers extraneous info simply because some of you think readers might reach a conclusion about Garlasco. What is next - specifically pointing out the brand of beer/root beer? Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But we do have to be accurate about what the swedatshirt actauly says, its called context.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do not even have to mention anything about the sweatshirt at all - therefore no need for all the detail on the history of the Iron Cross. Garlasco is wearing the sweatshirt, and the photo has received notoriety - and this is tied in with the well-publicized issue of his interest in German combat medals (see name of the section of the article where the photo was placed by me). All that is therefore needed is the photo itself, and the caption merely needs to mention that it is Garlasco, and where the photo first appeared. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actualy its whats on the sweatshirt that made it notable.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)I have returend the text to its old version, lets not alter it untill consensus is reached (its a two way street you know).Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, I find your arguments without merit. It's the sources that decide what's important, not us. HRW have released a statement with precise details about the nature of this sweatshirt. Why did they do that ? To satisfy the curiosity of hoodie fans ? To spoon-feed readers of HRW press releases with extraneous info ? I think not. "The fact he is wearing an Iron Cross sweatshirt is a curiosity, hence the notoriety" is an odd statement. Are you seriously making the point that the notoriety of this image is derived from it's curious nature ? If it were merely a curiosity it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. It's notoriety is derived from a perceived inconsistency (although opportunity is probably more accurate) by some between his job and the nature of the sweatshirt. It is based on ambiguity and implication. Ambiguity about the precise nature of the image and the implication that it is related to Nazism, hence he's...etc. Are we to participate in ambiguity and implication in a BLP article or are we going to provide information for readers derived from an RS (the actual owner of the hoodie through an official channel) that HRW considered of such importance and relevance to the issue + the exact image we are using that they went to the trouble of putting the precise information in a global press release ? Three editors have already agreed here that the specific information "The Iron Cross, 1813, 1870, 1914, 1939 and 1957" should go in the caption as you can see above. That suggests that the information should go in as per consensus unless you change the consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel the issues I've raised in this section have been fixed, if anyone cares. A wikilink to Iron Cross in the picture caption, for readers who don't know what one is wouldn't hurt, though
Looking forward to seeing Sean fill the article with some of Garlasco's "priceless undiplomatic quotes". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we should have a link to the Iron Cross article because we're an encyclopedia. Since you asked I shall post a couple.

• Garlasco's proposal for Israel to punish Hamas by letting them govern. "I'd love to see them sitting at a desk and saying, 'Okay lady, we've already sent someone out to fix your pothole, but we'll put you on the list. Someone will be there.'"
• or I very much enjoyed "I think that is the stupidest fucking argument I ever heard." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The caption isn't clear. What does the reference to the "German Combat Awards forum" mean? Is that where Garlasco was photographed? In that case, the caption should say "Marc Garlasco at the German Combat Awards forum". Is that where the photo was posted? In that case, it should be deleted, because it's just unnecessary verbiage.

Second, the sweatshirt doesn't have a "caption". The photo's caption should simply say "The sweatshirt reads ...".

Finally, I would recommend adding a footnote to the statement about what the sweatshirt reads, because the current caption makes it seem like a Wikipedia editor has eagle-eye vision and can read the sweatshirt. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

<- Why is the caption of the image being changed without discussion or consensus ? Feel free to comment before I revert all the changes made without discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved some of the material to a footnote in light of the aforementioned suggestion. I'll note that no-one has moved it back as of yet. CJCurrie (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood but Malik is not yet king of wikipedia and although there is some merit in that notion it would require some lobbying on Malik's part to bring to fruition. I haven't moved it back yet because using the talk page to agree changes rather than the revert button seems better. My understanding was that 3 (quite diverse) people had reached a semi-stable temporary consensus on an image caption that would include the important details provided by an RS. This image caption seems to be a somewhat contentious issue prone to low level edit warring with opinions apparently ranging from 'Look everyone, he's dressed as a nazi' to 'The esteemed human rights researcher and family man relaxing with a beer'. My view is that the only way we are going to find consensus is on the talk page rather than via the article edit/revert buttons. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer. I think the description of what the sweatshirt says needs to be attributed in a footnote. The legend on the sweatshirt should probably stay in the photo's caption. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Restarting the caption competition

Stating the bleeding obvious.

• We don't refer to the photo in the text of the article. This seems problematic. Why have it unless we briefly outline it's role, significance, what it shows etc ?
• The caption and/or article text needs to contain the following set of information or thereabouts in my view.
  • It's Marc Garlasco, obviously.
  • Where does it comes from ?
  • What was it's role in this event that is being described by the article i.e. re-published by etc, who said what about it.
  • What does it show sourced to RS statement with all the links and the cite.

I'm not in favour of placing the info in a footnote. Placing info in the article and captions is the norm. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote

This quote: "The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!"? cited to The Guardian, belongs in the article.Josh02138 (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Without the question mark in the end that appears in the article as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote is back but I rewrote the Guardian part again to be closer to the source. I think it's fine but then I would wouldn't I. Any objections let's discuss. I see no reason for the article title being mentioned unless there is some kind of competition that I'm unaware of to break some kind of record for the most number of times we can get the word nazi into an article not about nazis. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a question mark after the quote? It doesn't appear in the Guardian article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

oops I thought that was gone already. it is now. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

World War II German medals

The article says:

On September 9, 2009, quoting blogger Omri Ceren, the Israeli tabloid Maariv asserted that Garlasco is "a collector of Nazi memorabilia" and posts frequently on the web pages of collectors of Nazi memorabilia. NGO Monitor made similar allegations, and accused Garlasco of having an "anti-Israel ideological background."[9]

First, the first sentence needs a reference.

Second, and perhaps more important, what does the accusation of "having an 'anti-Israel ideological background'" have to do with collecting Nazi memorabilia. World War II was over before the State of Israel was established. The criticism of Garlasco for his alleged anti-Israel bias is made in the preceding section. In this sentence, such criticism comes out of left field—even if NGO monitor made it in the same press release. The sentence might as well say, "NGO Monitor made similar allegations, and accused Garlasco of eating young children." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason why they are mentioned is because that is what the controversy is about. The reliable sources who have reported on this controversy have asserted a possible connection between his fascination with nazi memorabilia and his non-pov approach to Israel/Palestine issues. It is not up to us to evaluate those assertions-- we should just report them. PStrait (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik has made a valid point and the statement 'The reliable sources who have reported on this controversy have asserted a possible connection between his fascination with nazi memorabilia and his non-pov approach to Israel/Palestine issues' is not an accurate description of what the sources say.

• Ma'ariv does not mention any connection between his hobby and his reporting other than mentioning that NGO Monitor's Steinberg "is sure that there is a direct connection between the reports that he writes and his fetish". Steinberg's unsubstantiated fringe theories have no place in an encyclopedia especially in a BLP. He is not a reliable source on either fetishism or a postulated relationship between fetishism and human rights investigation reporting. So, no reliably sourced connection made there. I've removed the Steinberg quote and moved the Ma'ariv ref to the first sentence.
• The Guardian does not mention a connection between his hobby and his reporting apart from referring to pro-Israeli bloggers questioning the appropriateness of his hobby (which we have in the article). It refers to "mounting internet attacks" which I have now added. No connection between his hobby and his reporting made there.
• Haaretz only refers to NGO Monitor's opinion of Galasco's reporting not his hobby. No connection made there.
• JPost reports Netanyahu's policy director Ron Dermer the revelations made it "easier to understand" how HRW "has turned into an organization that facilitates the assault of some of the worst regimes and terror groups against the very democratic countries that uphold human rights". So Dermer is saying that a) HRW facilitates terrorism by investigating possible human rights abuses when the country involved is a democracy and that b) Galasco's hobby makes it easier to understand why. I have added this to the article because it explicitly connects Galasco's reporting and Galasco's hobby and it's from an official government source. So, at least that is some kind of tenuous connection although it's somewhat at odds with the empirical evidence i.e. HRW reports on Palestinian militant attacks and Galasco statements about Israel's right to self defence and it's duty to defend it's people. Perhaps those things should be mentioned for context.
• The JPost goes on to detail NGO Monitor's subjective opinions on the matter connecting the 2 issues, Galasco's reporting and Galasco's hobby in Steinberg's mind. Wiki policy is clear that undue weight should not be given to fringe views. However since JPost quotes him commenting directly on the hobby describing it as "problematic" and "insensitive" I have included that. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it gets into dangerous WP:NOR grounds when you start talking about refuting the claims of the Israeli government based on your personal understanding of what HRW reports on. No one thinks that HRW doesn't report on human rights violations committed by Palestinians. But those who are critical of Garlasco note that he is much less critical of Palestinian claims of Israeli HR violations than he is of Israeli claims of Palestinian HR violations. For example, he has uncritically reported Palestinian claims that Israelis had weapons that the Palestinians were too far away to possibly see (and his military expertise should have clued him in to that). No one, to my knowledge, has even alleged that he has made similar errors in the opposite direction. If all that was going on was that he is incompetent, you would expect approximately 50% of his mistakes to go in either direction. Since there is no evidence that his errors are distributed like that, *something* is going on. I don't think that something is straight vulgar racism, but it is something. In any event, it doesn't really matter one way or the other -- we are just here to report what is said by reliable sources on the subject. Just as it would be wrong for me to include the above logical observation in the article, it would be wrong for you to refute or "contextualize" the claims of the Israeli government with the products of your original research on the content of Garlasco's scholarship. PStrait (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in refuting the claims of the Israeli government. HRW are quite capable of doing that themselves in their press releases. It's hardly OR. It's all available in reliable sources that are regarded as such in Wikipedia or else I wouldn't mention it. After all, bringing sources to an article covered by BLP that are not regarded as reliable would be a violation of the mandatory policy. My interest is in ensuring NPOV compliance at every level in an article from the micro statement by statement level to the macro section by section level and all levels in between. My interest is also related to ensuring that readers are provided with sufficient information to make up their own minds about the degree to which a statement is verifiably true by presenting both sides of an argument in context, preferably side by side. What is dangerous ground is presenting information from one side of a disagreement without presenting information from the other side of the disagreement. That is called propaganda and distributing propaganda is inconsistent with the objectives of wikipedia.

Are 'those who are critical' reliable sources on these specific military issues and considered as such by wikipedia and the real world or are they partisan organizations directly connected to a belligerent in a conflict that is being investigated for commiting war crimes in that conflict ? When you talk of 'evidence' of error distribution differences in reporting as a function of belligerent are you using 'evidence' in the conventional sense that I would understand as empirical data gathered to provide verifiability by a reliable researcher with expertise in the subject matter ? If that is the case then I'm not sure who you are referring to. The specific case you refer to is based on a a military man voicing his opinion on the matter. He has one view, HRW and the eye witnesses have another view.

I'm very happy to continue reporting what is said by reliable sources on the subject and I hope everyone else will comply with that mandatory policy too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If both Haaretz and JPost report that NGO monitor said something, I believe we can include it in the article. In this case, NGOM's claim that there is a connection between Garlasco's hobby and his reporting on Israel. Presented as a claim, of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz didn't. Jpost did. Interested to hear why what is in Steinberg's mind belongs in an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's reported by several reliable sources, because it's notable in the context of HRW and the people they have working for them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's reported be one RS, Jpost (excluding Ma'ariv on the grounds that I detailed above) but JPost are understandably careful in what they say and I've included some of it i.e. "problematic" and "insensitive", that's a personal opinion which requires no evidence which is fair enough. There isn't a lot more than that in the JPost piece. Have another read through it but if you want to include something more controversial/unsubstantiated from somewhere are you planning to check the wording with the BLP/N given that implying a connection between the hobby and anti-Israel bias could be considered as defamatory ? Might be a good idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco's online comments

I think they are significant. The SS post and the Hitler enthusiasm.  : </ref> According to UN Watch, on the website Wehrmacht-Awards.com displaying Nazi-era photo albums, Garlasco wrote "One album has a visit from Hitler!" Writing as Flack 88, he pasted a screenshot of Hitler recieving the Nazi salute beside images of German military badges and wrote “an interesting combo!” On another page, he wrote, "“VERY nice Hitler signature section comparing how it changed over the years.” ++Referenes==

The alleged comment is very interesting, but it's sourced to a blog. Per WP:BLP, a blog cannot be used as a source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can. Depends on the blog. In this case, it would seem to be an official part of UN Watch. If UN watch isn't reliable, then that's another matter. IronDuke 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain which part of WP:BLP#Self-published sources allows the use of UN Watch's blog? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect ID. A blog may be used in a source for the author's opinion but not in a BLP. Any contentious material needs to be cited to multiple reliable secondary sources. There is already too much of this article parroted from various organizations that should not be used for anything but their own words, if at all, but they are all primary sources. WP:BLP is clear on this point. These blogs are all primary sources. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. All the stuff cited exclusively to organizations such as NGO Monitor should be removed. If no secondary source has brought up the specific things some users are citing to NGO Monitor it needs to be removed. If no secondary sources made mention of what UN Watch has to say it should be removed. This is a BLP and no matter how some feel about the person or his hobbies the article needs to be treated as a BLP. nableezy - 02:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

R to MS "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Is UN Watch a newspaper? No. But they seem like a credible org to me, therefore, a blog that they excercise full editorial control over would also be credible, if my premise is correct. R to Nab. I don't think the UN Watch page in question is a primary source, in that it "reports" on the original (alleged) posts by Garlasco. I'd call it a secondary source here. IronDuke 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to BLP/N. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 'But they seem like a credible org to me'..you funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to have amused you, though I cannot in good conscience return the compliment. If you have some (well-sourced) thoughts on the reliability of UNW, I'm happy to listen. IronDuke 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's a blog in a partisan source I'm not planning to search for evidence of their reliability. I'm too busy trying to find evidence that ex-Nazis didn't actually flee to South America. They fled to North America and hatched a cunning plot to implement a 4th Reich via the investigation of human rights abuses worldwide. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's a "No," on having good sources to back up your claims. IronDuke 03:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My claims ? WTF ? My claim is that they are a blog which my eyes detected. My claim that they are partisan has no bearing on your desire to include them because I have no interest in including them. You do hence it's your problem. You need to provide evidence to back up your claims. Why not take it to BLP/N ? That's what they're for. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to be mocking my idea that UNW was a credible org ('"But they seem like a credible org to me'..you funny)". That would suggest you find them not credible. That is a claim. It has not been backed up by anything other than assertion. If I was wrong, and you did not mean to suggest UNW wasn't credible, I apologize. IronDuke 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was finding happiness in your method of establishing credibility which I enjoyed and thank you for. It reminded me of my 'but I like smoking cigarettes...problem ?' Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to actually wave a white flag, though it's appreciated. Your concession can come in the form of not replying. IronDuke 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, in your haste to argue that UN Watch is like a newspaper, you may have missed this sentence: "'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." (my emphasis) In any event, I think you answered the only relevant question: "Is UN Watch a newspaper? No." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Miss it? I almost quoted it. But as it's a bit ambiguous, I thought it better not to. And sure, the intent of the policy could be perverted by an overly literal reading of it. But I don't think that's a good move to make. IronDuke 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The intent of the policy is to make sure that any potentially defamatory claims have been published by multiple secondary reliable sources. nableezy - 05:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So one front page article by, say, the NYTimes on any given subject would not be enough? IronDuke 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For what the NY Times prints it would be enough. But what NGO monitor or UN Watch or whoever else writes that is not picked up by a reliable secondary source should not be included. nableezy - 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but then we've circled back to my question: is UNW a reliable secondary source? IronDuke 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I said the NY Times would be fine on its own is that they, for whatever reason, are highly regarded and treated at the higher end of the reliability scale (I dont agree with that but whatever), and almost everything that has ever been printed in the NY Times is either printed somewhere else before or repeated endlessly after, so the "multiple" isnt really an issue. But to your question. I dont want to say UN Watch is an unreliable source, they do some good work in certain areas in which they are active. But I am not willing to call them a "reliable secondary source". Their accusations are their own and they are not a news organization where the repeating of NGO Monitors accusations make it so that secondary sources are taking those accusations seriously. And this did not come in a report released by UN Watch, this came in a blog posting that one has to assume does not go through the same internal scrutiny prior to publication. So I would say that this specific source is not a "reliable secondary source". nableezy - 19:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. I concede the point. IronDuke 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a step back

I see that the New York Times's coverage of L'Affaire Garlasco includes the following comment:

It was a Rorschach moment in the conflict between Israel and its critics. The revelations were, depending on who is talking, either incontrovertible proof of bias or an irrelevant smear.

I don't believe the distinction is quite this cut-and-dry. I'm largely in agreement with Daniel Levy: Garlasco is the target of a smear campaign, but the accusations reflect on his judgement and should not be dismissed out of hand. When we take away the standard partisan bickering, there's a legitimate discussion to be had on the matter.

I mention this by way of saying that it's probably time to tone down what has unfortunately become the latest in Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine edit wars.

I've recently made some edits that, on reflection, strike me as overly impulsive. I don't believe I'm the only person who's been guilty of this. I plan to approach the article in a more considered way, and I hope that others will do the same.

Here are my problems with the current edit:

(i) He was suspended by HRW with pay, “pending an investigation,” on September 14, 2009 after it was revealed that he was an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia.

"Avid collector" is unnecessary descriptive, and leans toward imbalance. "A collector" gets the point across in a clearer way.

(ii) I don't understand why it's inappropriate to describe Maariv, Ha'aretz and NGO Monitor as Israeli organizations.

(iii) HRW Communications Director Emma Daly at first responded to the charge by saying, "Marc Garlasco is not pro-Nazi. These allegations are monstrous. He does not delve into Nazi memorabilia. Garlasco is a student of military history and he has an interest in military history."

Emma Daly made this statement in a telephone interview with Maariv, shortly after the controversy first arose. We now know that Garlasco has expressed an interest in Nazi memorabilia, and that Daly's statement was to this extent factually inaccurate. Subsequent HRW press releases have not included this aspect of her statement.

Given the time frame, the most likely explanation is that Daly was not fully aware of Garlasco's activities when she made her remarks. Since the matter was later clarified in an official HRW statement, it strikes me as unnecessary (and perhaps somewhat misleading) to keep Daly's comment in the article now. Her other remarks have, in any event, been repeated in official statements; retaining them adds little.

I would add that the UN Watch statement doesn't add much of significance to the article, even if we set aside the issue of using a blog entry for a BLP. Garlasco has already admitted to making juvenile and questionable statements on a public collector's forum, and this article already includes the most notable of these statements. Adding a bit more of the same doesn't strike me as particularly useful.

Comments are welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC), amended 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

caps locked posts on nazi memorabilia are not perfectly sane, otoh i agree it is incredibly fascinating in terms of militairy history, the whole nazi episode. to just call a few examples, the dicrepancy between operational quality and perceived limited independence of nazi generals, or that the medals were awarded for ever higher targets, (where for example a purple heart only became more and more common). even that high allied decorations after ww2 appear restricted(..), and why in july and august '43 do the german forces register over 1.5 mia? well there's lvov kaunas and sicily going, the arrival of the courtland pocket, but check the articles it doesn't add up to 500k even, and what happened to the russians? it's summer there, or? does it echo something huge in the kaukasus that is not in the wiki timeline? i just want to say: fascinating. to a large extend the deep impression the nazi horror made has forwarded research about that period to the point that it provides more significant data in historical terms then most recent events (wich are comprehensively put still in the realm of propaganda).24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I plan to continue making quips like where I just suggested above via subtext that reading UNWatch could quite literally give someone cancer by making a comparison to a cigarette smoking habit. Okay, I won't, I'll stop. Wise words from you there which I fully support. I personally would like to see people using the BLP/N more. When in doubt use it. 'Do no harm' is a good approach in general. Less seemingly gleeful exploitation of the word nazi, an astonishingly tasteless spectacle to behold and more trying to get consensus for potentially controversial edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "avid collector" is a better description. We won't say he's "obsessive", but someone who writes a 400 page reference book, makes 7000 posts in collector's fora and regularly photographs and displays his collection is a bit more than just a "collector".

While I appreciate what you think is a likely explanation, HRW did at first say he doesn't collect Nazi stuff and it turns out he does. They also tried to make it seem like he's some kind of historian. He isn't. He's an "avid collector". The fact they changed their statement is notable.

Also, I'm not sure this article includes all the most notable of his "juvenile" statements, but we'll see about that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Avid collector is derived from the last NYT article. There are many other sources using a variety of descriptions so we should be able to find one that we are all happy with. What are the before and after statements from HRW that you are referring to by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not married to "avid collector", but I do think the term we use should be descriptive of someone who's more than a casual collector.

I was referring to "He does not delve into Nazi memorabilia. Garlasco is a student of military history and he has an interest in military history." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the pertinent word there was probably 'delve' and it's dark fetishistic overtones. The more important parts were the 'he's not a nazi' and 'cast lead..remember that..anyone?' I'm guessing though. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

<- What I did in the main HRW article by the way was to use descriptive language from both sides i.e.

"highlighted his interest in Second World War artifacts[11] and accused him of collecting Nazi memorabilia .[12]"

Seemed NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "avid collector" is the lead sentence in the New York times, which is a center-left publication. "Collector" will not do because it does not express the enthusiasm involved in Garlasco's frequent CAPITAL letter !!!! posts on pages with SS uniforms and photos of Hitler.Historicist (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Care to provide an argument based on wiki policies ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well s loong as it says something like :"highlighted his interest in Second World War artifacts[11] and accused him of collecting Nazi memorabilia . The new York time has descibed his collecting as "Avid", or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[12]"

• "avid collector" is the phrase used in the Telegraph the New York Time Haaretz and other newspapers. That is why it belongs on the wikipedia page.Historicist (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as we attribute it yes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(R to CJ's inital post) (i) Others have weighed in on "avid." I think it's pretty obviously appropriate based on RS's, so won't parrot their arguments. (ii) We don't identify the nationality of, say, Maariv for the same reason we don't say "British newspaper The Guardian" or "American TV show 60 Minutes." (iii) I think we can say that Ms. Daly amended her statement, no harm there. IronDuke 15:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Headline on the Times article

The headline on the late city edition sittin on my kitchen table is "Global Rights Group Assailed for Analyst’s Nazi Collection" the headline on the Times website at this moment is "Rights Group Assailed for Analyst’s Nazi Collection" One of these should replace the headline now on the article on the page.Historicist (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which headline and why?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Foootnote 1 # ^ a b c d Israelis See Clear Bias in Activist, New York Times, John Schwartz, September 14, 2009 This was apparently an early headline, but the headline the Times went with when it went to press was "Rights Group Assailed for Analyst’s Nazi Collection" That is the headline of record and it is the one that ought to be on the page.Historicist (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over World War II German and Nazi memorabilia

Yes. this is the proper section header. The previous heading, lacking the world"Nazi" which is headlined in the Times, the Telegraph, and other newspapers, was inaccurate. Garlasco is NOT a neo-Nazi. He is an "avid collector" of "Nazi" memorabilia. And this is why he is at the center of a controversy.Historicist (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WWII American military memorabilia

Is there any evidence that supports Garlasco's assertion that he collects WWII American military memorabilia? Beyond his own statement to that effect.Historicist (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ON a BLP is any other evidance needed if thats what he claims?Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I can think of one or two living persons with bios on Wikipedia who have made untrue claims about themselves. That said, certainly Garlasco's assertions in his own defense belong on the page. And HRW's untrue assertion that Garlasco "He does not delve into Nazi memorabilia." belongs on the page. As does Garlasco's asseriton that he also collected American military memorabilia. I did not suggest that we remove them. However, his assertion would look stronger if there were evidence to back it up. And so, I am wondering if he posted on military collectors forums about the U.S. military, or any other (non-Nazi) military? Or if he wrote books or articles on, say, the Army Air Corps?Historicist (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidance he does not?Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It would only matter if some RS took issue with his claim. IronDuke 19:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it more bluntly hyas any said he is lying over this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Historicist has implied it which is another BLP violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please don't toss that term around lightly. IronDuke 14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. One of several BLP violations by several users that have been both explicit and by implication. I'm sure there will be more as time goes on. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. IronDuke 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloggers accuse Human Rights Watch of online 'sock puppetry'

Surely the story of individuals with HRW addresses posting faux-innocent defenses of Garlasco on websites belongs here somewhere. [10]Historicist (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

which the article it self says may not be true? by the3 way is the page in question not a blog? writen by an intern?Slatersteven (talk)

anything that is based on "a number of bloggers" has no place in a BLP. You should know that. nableezy - 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think BLP enters into it, in that no one has suggested Garlasco himself (or any one person, for that matter) is socking. I saw the claims, too, but didn't think they were well sourced enough. The claims may yet be picked up by an RS, and we can include that when and if it happens. IronDuke 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

if and when. nableezy - 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the second time you've been right today. I hope you're not planning on making a habit of it. IronDuke 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

what i miss in article and comments is that HRW watch herself is not widely regarded impartial even, actually so that it makes a NY-based, roughly pro-israel impression. in that sense it is like it is shaking off the few that dare stand up against israel. if doing so has the same psychological effect as to try to challenge the usian supremacy, i must admit playing wolfenstein 3d was pretty therapeutic. i mention this because it is my strong impression israel is trying to remove someone from the scene, perhaps rightfully so, yet perhaps based on exageration and an exploitation of the persons rather isolated position and intense fascinations. i myself found doing peace-research horrifyingly disturbing at many points and moments.24.132.171.225 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

About "88"

I see that an editor has added a speculative section about the significance of "88" ([11]). I've removed it, for reasons mentioned here: [12].

I'm familiar with the significance of "88" in far-right circles, and I'll admit I was somewhat disturbed when I first noticed Garlasco's screen name. With that said, there *is* a more straightforward explanation for the name, and we'd be pretty clearly be crossing into BLP-violation territory if we insinuate that it was taken from neo-Nazis. CJCurrie (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) amended 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, the blogger who broke the story dismisses that idea. Unless some very convincing evidence were to surface that MG used "88" in the far-right way, that should be left alone. IronDuke 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

CJ, if memory serves, you have some knowledge of things Canadian. What do you think of the Ottawa Citizen? I ask because of this passage: "One pseudonym [Garlasoco] reportedly used was "Flak88" -- "88" being code for the neo-Nazi salute, "Heil, Hitler" ("H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet)." [13]. I would encourage everyone to read the article and weigh in. IronDuke 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I forget where I read it, but the best explanation of the 88 thing I saw was someone who said that while it's unlikely Garlasco himself is a Nazi supporter (although it would be hard to argue that he doesn't really really like Nazi symbols) he surely knew that among collectors there are people who are indeed Nazi sympathizers who would read a particular meaning into the "88". I know, that's neither her nor there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_FlaK_18/36/37/41. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.215.128 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

what is 'high value targetting in irak";) flak? ..complicit.24.132.171.225 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 10

Footnote 10 refers to a Hebrew article in Maariv and links to an English "translation". There's a problem, though, because the English article isn't a translation of the Hebrew article. The Hebrew article is written by Ben Dror Yemini, and the English article by Amit Cohen. The English article refers to Flak88; I can't find any reference to Flak88 in the Hebrew article.

It looks to me like both the Hebrew and English articles are being used as sources. The four statements that are all sourced to footnote 10 should be separately sourced to either the Hebrew or the English article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Interesting interpretation WP:LEAD we have going here. He was born, worked for HRW and got suspended for being an avid investigator or collector, I forget which. Anyone motivated to improve compliance with the manual of style ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I attempted V1. That's version 1 of improving compliance with WP:LEAD and not a nazi rocket. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He isn't "the author of a book on the history of German Air Force and Army anti-aircraft medals". He's the author of a reference book. Not quite the same. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My text is always aourced to RS via the magic of copy/paste/mess-with-it-a-bit. This one in this case. I changed monograph ('a scholarly essay or learned treatise' and 'monographs generally are written by specialists for the benefit of other specialists') to book because not everyone who reads wiki does so in a smoking jacket with a pipe and a large beard. Would you prefer monograph ? Source for reference book ? Change to reference book anyway, who cares? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the publisher of the book put on Amazon [14] for example. It's a reference book for collectors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i.e. a monograph. Proposed alternative wording ? Dossier about Nazi-esque magic amulets amd associated anti-aircraft fetishism ? Problem with the use of text that complies with WP:V supplied presumably by the author in a BLP ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Also, if you look at Garlasco's signature here for example, where he presents his "American and German WWII medals" (you know, because of his great uncle and stuff), you'll see he calls it a reference book himself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed alternative wording? How about "reference book" like he calls it himself? "WWII German anti-aircraft medals reference book"? See? I didn't even say "Third Reich".No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I like my Dossier version. Ref books fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

material removed by User:Sean.hoyland

User:Sean.hoyland has removed the words "has strongly criticized" I replaced them.Historicist (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maariv has strongly criticized the accuracy of Garlasco's reports on Israel military activity and described him as "the linchpin of past poisonous reports against Israel". According to Haaretz, Garlasco worked in the Pentagon for seven years and "was known over the last years of his career for his harsh condemnation of Israel."

Please provide evidence that Maariv are an RS for the accuracy of military investigations in combat zones. Until you do it stays out of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maariv is a mainstream news organization, and thus an RS according to WP:RS. It is not necessary to "provide evidence" it's a reliable source for every little thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sean.hoyland has removed it again. His highly political editing requires close monitoring. Perhaps there should be a Sean Hoyland Watch NGO.Historicist (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for an NGO, you should just take it to BLP/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that article is by Ben Dror Yemini, no? He's certainly an expert on bias in reports against Israel, so it's an RS double whammy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

<-'highly political editing'...most amusing. 'It is not necessary to "provide evidence" it's a reliable source for every little thing'....oh really ? 'an expert on bias in reports against Israel'...oh please, an expert on bias ? Why is he working as a journalist in a Tabloid then ? Deterministically identifying bias in a data source is a highly technical field. The subject at hand is the accuracy of technical military investigations in combat zones and the associated reports. Seriously, what is wrong with you guys ? Problem understanding WP:RS and it's perfectly clear rules ?

• 'Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.'
• 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources'
• In relation to BLP specifically 'Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately'

Let's pretend that it's another issue. Consider these statements. Perhaps try inserting them into the relevant articles and watch what happens.

• Maariv strongly criticized the accuracy of the National Academy of Science's position on the modern evolutionary synthesis.
• Maariv strongly criticised the accuracy of the current international standard for the speed of light
• Maariv strongly criticised the accuracy of reports linking cigarette smoking to increased risk of lung cancer and heart desease.
• Maariv strongly criticised the accuracy of the dating of the age of the Earth.
• Maariv strongly criticised the accuracy of reports that indicate that condoms can reduce the risk of HIV infection.

Maariv are making an assertion about the accuracy of technical investigations. Actually the accuracy of a technical investigation is a measurable thing. A reliable source with expertise in relation to the subject at hand can make statements about the accuracy of HRW reports. Indeed, if Maariv had cited such reliable sources in their article rather than simply made an unsourced assertion I would have no problem including the fact that they reported that such and such reliable source strongly criticized the accuracy of HRW's reports. Maariv are an RS for reporting what other reliable sources say. They are not themselves a reliable source on 'every little thing' in the universe. That is a laughable notion inconsistent with core policy.

Take it to BLP/N is good advice as is take it RS/N and provide evidence that Maariv are a) an RS on the accuracy of these kind of investigations and b) can make reliable assertions as to the quality of the reports without referring to any supporting data whatsoever that comes from a recognised reliable source on these matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And let's just put the diff here for completeness to show the accuracy of the statement 'has removed the words "has strongly criticized"' when in fact I removed the phrase 'the accuracy of' and added more material from Maariv. How ironic. Historicist can consider that foolishness during his entirely unsurprising I-P topic ban enforcement. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Material removed by User:Gatoclass

• An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen said that the Gerlasco's "thing for Naziism" explains why "Human Rights Watch reports attacking Israel always were a bit puzzling, being so one-sided and hostile." I have put the material back in. An editorial (not an op-ed, an editorial) by a big-city daily on Garlasco seems significant to me.Historicist (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And I removed it. An editorial is good for the opinion of the author and does not merit mention per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. nableezy - 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

An editorial is by definition not the opinion of a single author. It is always the collective opinion of the newspaper's editors (on hot issues individual editors sometimes publish dissents, rather like the supreme court). This is why they are more notable and taken more seriously than opinion columns. Those are the voice of a singel individual. I would like the opinion of others on adding this material back into the article.Historicist (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, are you saying we can't use editorials in BLPs? Because we'd have a great deal of work to do (until we got blocked for it) correcting the status quo. IronDuke 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If what the editorial is saying is backed by multiple secondary sources sure. But using an editorial on its own backing up potentially defamatory charges is a problem. And if the status quo is *colorful word not typed* there is no reason not to fix it. nableezy - 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is backed up by secondary sources, though. IronDuke 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Then use the secondary sources. If this is just an addition to that fine, but then what is the point? To give one more opinion? nableezy - 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, sure that's the point. Another voice heard. Is that bad? IronDuke 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it doesnt add anything other than more weight to an already undue section of the article I would say yeah its a bad thing. nableezy - 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But you said an editorial is fine when backed up secondary sources, and this one is. Now you say just use secondary sources, no editorials. Which is it, sir? And I'm not sure what you believe to be undue here -- can you elaborate? IronDuke 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well sir, an elaborate set of questions requires me to elaborate on the prior response. At random order, I think the undue comment is about this whole controversy taking up about half of the text and the only picture. And I said it would be fine with secondary sources as well. Put it with the secondary sources backing up the claims if it matters to you, but I dont see why another opinion is needed in the section. I didnt say I would remove it or that it is against some unknown policy, just that I dont see the point. And that I think there is already too much emphasis on this controversy to the point that I would not favor adding more to it. nableezy - 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing blogs

• Other editors have been particularly aggressive about removing all comments made by individuals, claiming categorically that blogs cannot be cited on biographies of living persons. User:Sean.hoyland in particular has asserted that citing blogs violates WP:BLP rules. I took his word for it. The more fool I. Here is the policy:

• Self-published sources

• Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.[4]

• So material from the formal blogs of newspapers can be cited. And many of User:Sean.hoyland's excisions of material were in violation of Wikipedia policies.Historicist (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Historicist (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Yes some blogs may be used, but the operative word is may. And many of the blogs removed were not the type that is acceptable in a BLP. nableezy - 21:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

'aggressive'...hmmm. Okay I'll let that go and add it to my list of inane comments. Your description of my position isn't accurate. My position is to remove both clear and potential violations of BLP on a case by case basis and that when in doubt the editor who wishes to add the material should take it to the BLP/N. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims of antisemitism

So, I feel that this quote, "Critics of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Garlasco's enthusiasm for Nazi-era badges and uniforms goes beyond historical interest and makes him a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semite, coming, as it deos from Corey Flintoff at WBUR see here is relevant. It would be very hard to dispute that this is not a good source. That said, I'd like to give people a chance to do just that, as this is BLP and it's an explosive charge. IronDuke 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's a good source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a good source for saying that critics of HRW say this. nableezy - 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree its a great source for what they think, an d thats what the articel should make clear. But note that even this 'good source' does not actualy say he is just that some (but not us (wbur) have sugested it), again I say if they are not willing to actualy say "we call him anti-semitic" then why should we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Source reliability

Including a personal blog (JustWorldNews) and self-published groups (NGO Monitor) seems highly inappropriate for a BLP.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But there are editors who believe that NGO Monitor is a source that can be used when its opinion is attributed to it. And given Helena Cobban's notability, her blog can be considered an RS. Thoughts by others? Tiamut^talk 13:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In general I understand the logic in attributing their statements and allowing readers to form an opinion, but I believe there is an extra burden for a biography of a living person.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

After seeing Helena Cobban's credentials and noting that she is included in a NYT article related to the incident I think the blog may be ok.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are always stricter standards for a BLP. Personally, I'd prefer limit the use of NGO Monitor as a source, including their opinions only when they are quoted by reliable sources on the matter. Thoughts from others? Tiamut^talk 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I am seeing that Cobban was making reference to them, just like the newspapers were originally referencing Maariv. I now understand the rationale, though I worry the article could still be a little more careful. I see no reason to cite these sources directly but just in relation to the incident as they are cited by reliable sources.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor can't be used in this article until someone provides evidence that they are an RS for the specific statements they are making. The idea that NGO Monitor are an RS on battle damage assessment, weapons systems etc is nonsense. Steinberg expressing his distress at events is fine. Technical stuff isn't. See 'NGO Monitor' section further up. I shall be removing statements that do not comply with WP:V. NGO Monitor gather information from other sources who themselves may be RS in these technical issues such as military experts commenting to AP, Reuters etc. If so those sources rather than NGO Monitor should be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This seemed to address my concerns, thanks.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Big edit

Okay, as you can see, I just made a pretty large edit, with changes great and small. Obviously, please tell me if I've made any errors or there are objections. I would have liked to write an explanation of every change, but that would have taken many, many hours; I'd prefer to write explanations for changes there are objections to, assuming there are any. Oh, and if soemone can come up with a better header than "Criticism," I'd be grateful. IronDuke 16:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Small changes, brought back one line that was removed on Goldstone's report backing Garlasco's accounts on white phosphorous. nableezy - 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have responded to this before making my edit. Yes, the Goldstone thing's fine, just not in the Nazi section. It's probably a good idea to break out a separate section on MG/HRW/Israel coverage pro and con, and the Goldstone/phosphorous stuff could go there. What do you think? IronDuke 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. nableezy - 23:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued use of NGO Monitor

I again removed the following material from the article:

---

NGO Monitor described Garlasco's hobby as "problematic" and "insensitive," while NGO Monitor head Gerald M. Steinberg argued that Garlasco's Huffington Post statement was "too little, too late."

---

The rationale for removal is that material about living persons from questionable/dubious sources should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Furthermore, this material is supposed to be removed immediately. I have moved the material here so that a more complete discussion may take place.

On another note, Wikipedia policy mentions that questionable sources may have their material included on the article's own page. If this material is notable, I suggest that it may be best to move this material to that page. --69.208.141.228 (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO monitor's statements have been noted by reliable sources such as the telegraph which are referenced in the article. There is no violation of BLP here. I suggest you return the sourced material you removed both here and on Joe Stork before someone accuses you of vandalism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It sounds like 69.208.141.228 is confusing "questionable sources" with critical sources.

The part he removed isn't a wild accusation in itself. It makes no unsubstantiated claims. It merely states the opinion of a prominent critic about the topic.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't vandalism, but it is disruptive POV blanking. IronDuke 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If they are mentioned in a news article this is fine, but they shouldn't be used independently. This is specifically true when they are making unfounded allegations about which they have no expertise.--99.130.161.159 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is user 69.208.141.228 the same as user 69.208.131.94?

I have a non-static IP address..--99.130.161.159 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...and you were just reverted. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert tags referring editors to talk when there is an ongoing conflict. If there are questions about the source, it does not belong in the article. If there is a discussion about the source, then editors should be referred to it.--99.130.161.159 (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're entirely incorrect in questioning reliability for referencing. Regardless of your thoughts about NGO Monitor, it has been referenced by dozens and dozens of mainstream media sources (even including guest articles by Steinberg): Wall Street Journal, The National, The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc. A Sniper (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been referenced by mainstream news organizations as a supporter/lobbying group for the policies of the Israeli government. The 'guest articles' by Steinberg are better known as op-eds, which generally are questionable for a BLP since they do not undergo a peer review process.

If it is referenced by mainstream news organizations then I see no problem with inclusion as long as we include the same attribution or a bit more since we are working with a biography of a living person. This means the bar for sources is higher. If they are making unsubstantiated allegations in an area in which they have no expertise and the claims have not been picked up by any mainstream outlets, then they do not belong in the article.--99.130.161.159 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be having an argument with yourself. This isn't a discussion - it is you dictating your opinion. Why not start an account so we can get to know you as an editor? A Sniper (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just continue the discussion which was going above about NGO Monitor not being citable if they are making unsubstantiated allegations in an area in which they have no expertise and the claims have not been picked up by any mainstream outlets? Give others a chance to comment, but the tag shouldn't be removed while there is an ongoing discussion or conflict. Thanks, --99.130.161.159 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should not be removed untill discusion is over. I also agree that NGO Monitor is an RS for thier views, and as long as its made clear that it is just what they think I do not see a problomSlatersteven (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I count 5 editors who think it should go in the article in the form it was before reverted, and one who doesn't. Suspiciously absent are a couple of editors who usually have very strong opinions on BLP, but I guess they're busy elsewhere. The tag on the whole article rather than just the section where the material one anon disapproves of seems to me a bit over the top, too. Anyway, there seems to be some consensus that this should be in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I count at least three who do not believe it belongs. Perhaps you could provide the names or comments of those who do believe it belongs? And this would be cited from NGO Monitor, not from an article quoting NGO Monitor. And anyways, there should be a tag until there is a completed discussion.--99.130.161.159 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Only an agenda-driven, POV-spouting editor would state that NGO Monitor is an unreliable and unsubstantiated source for their opinion, in an article about a living subject where NGO Monitor has gained notoriety lobbing criticisms carried by the world's press. If you weren't editing as many different IP addresses, we could see exactly what other pages you're editing on, and from what perspective. Again: please create an account and level the playing field. A Sniper (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly appreciate it if you would comment on contributions and not on editors, it makes maintaining a discourse difficult. Thanks, --99.130.161.159 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Except we don't know whom I am having a discourse with or what you've edited or whether or not you've received warnings. Create an account please. A Sniper (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that the contensious area seems to be a passage from the JP and not NGO Monitor. Thus they are not beiing used as a souorced for their opinion, some4one4 else is. Perphas a link to NGO Monitors statement might be more usefullSlatersteven (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the contested material is now:

---

In a September 2009 critique of HRW's work, NGO Monitor made a number of specific accusations against Garlasco. The report accused him of ignoring evidence that contradicts his conclusion and of basing his report on the Gaza beach explosion (2006) on "unverifiable Palestinian allegations." It accused him of basing his conclusions about the use of white phosphorous on observations made from a distance and alleged that his claims revealed a "lack of expertise regarding white phosphorous" and "contradict well-established facts regarding the munition." The report also alleged that Garlasco's report on the Gaza War "relies on Palestinian claims of hearing and seeing weapons that are neither audible nor visible from the distances alleged."

---

I am saying that these are unfounded allegations that NGO Monitor has no expertise about and that they haven't been picked up in any reliable publications.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that this is your opinion and your POV. And please establish an account so we don't jump to the conclusion you're a sockpuppet. A Sniper (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You could always assume good faith as well.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I requested input from the wider community here.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to exercise good faith when dealing with contentious editing by a drifting IP. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish raising BLP concerns about a political organization through tags and discussion were not interpreted as contentious editing. How would you recommend the discussion about reliability move forward?--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Move on from trashing NGO Monitor as unreliable, realizing that it equally applies to those holding HRW as being unreliable or political. We can use both of these organizations as equally quotable. A Sniper (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets movve away from the personal stuff can we and concentrate on the issue. As far as I was aware (do correct me if I am wrong) it is advisable (but not a requiment) to use reliable third-party sources for claims and that "or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Now it seems to me that it could be argued that this means that NGO Monitor fails as an RS for BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been my point.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Then grab an admin and let them sort it out. I for one believe this is POV trash talk. I would be equally damning of editors trying to claim HRW is unreliable or politically-motivated. A Sniper (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping starting a discussion at the noticeboard would be good for the article, if you know something else that would be appreciated. Perhaps we could temporarily restore the credibility tags while the discussion continues. Thanks, --99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well fir a start all parties to stop throwing arond POV accusations unless they care willing to act and report it, put your account where your mouth is. Second put this on hold untill we have a descision on here and its decided by community.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would apologize to User:A Sniper for any accusations he feels I may have thrown at him and would appreciate it if he could do the same. I believe it is important to have a discussion about the source's reliability if it is going to be included.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that untill this is decided the Tag should remain, they are there to let users know that there is a dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

After inserting the material, User:A Sniper reverted my addition of varying tags four times. I would endorse restoration of the tags or removal of the material, but I would prefer for another editor to do it so that I am not seen as overzealous.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well anon, I don't think you'll getyoru wish. Your tagging has gone from annoying to disruptive, and will be reverted on sight. Here's what you can do to prevent that. 1) Sign with a real account. 2) Stop tag spamming the article until you get consensus. IronDuke 23:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

<-JPost quoting Steinberg expressing his feelings such as it's "problematic" and "insensitive" is fine (which is why I added it). Obviously he is an RS for his opinions when those opinions require no evidence. However, like any other source, NGO Monitor are not an RS by default nor are they an RS on everything they talk about by default when they make statements that require evidence. Referencing by dozens and dozens of mainstream media sources in itself isn't relevant. There must be evidence that the source is reliable for the specific information being added and that the source is considered reliable for that information in both the real world and wiki. The Bible is referenced by dozens and dozens of mainstream media sources on various issues but it doesn't make the Bible an RS on human right investigations, witness reliability, weapons systems etc. I would like to remind all editors here to pay attention to WP:RS and specifically that a source must be considered reliable 'in relation to the subject at hand' and that the information they provide/we include must have been 'verified by reliable sources'. Also per BLP we are obliged to 'Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately'. Editors cannot simply add material to articles based on the unsubstatiated premise that NGO Monitor are an RS on weapons systems, conflict investigations, Italian cooking, quantum electrodynamics or whatever. It is the editors responsibility to ensure WP:V and WP:BLP compliance. Seriously, this ignoring WP:RS has to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like add a reminder for some editors here to read and fully comprehend WP:AGF. The fact that one has taken a couple minutes to devise a clever nickname and start an account in no way elevates one's contributions or opinions over that of IP editors; get over yourselves and stop trying to bully other editors. If one disagrees with the maintenance tags on an article, the proper procedure to follow is to fix the problems an article is tagged for not threaten the editor that added the tags with blanket reverting. That threat to hound and harrass is a violation of our policies on personal attacks, good faith, & civility and will get one blocked quick as a wink. Seriously, if this topic gets one so emotional that one cannot keep one's feelings in check then one should have a nice cup of tea and go edit elsewhere. The childish acrimoniousness needs to stop. L0b0t (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

From the tone of your "reminder," it seems the best place for it might well be on your own talk page. Your surly post neatly demolishes your own strawman, but does little else. Stable accounts with trackable contribs matter -- they more than matter: Wikipedia would fail without them. IronDuke 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke - this user has left an IP trail of probably a dozen AT&T addresses and it is impossible to check their edit history. A Sniper (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, IronDuke is flat wrong. There is absolutely no requirement to register an account and while that may not be wise as it stands now you should not be discounting a user because they use an IP address. And many users have no control over their current IP address so your problems with using multiple IPs are unfounded. If the user says they are the same actual person their is no issue. They cant use multiple IPs to evade rules on edit-warring, but you cannot continue treating the IP editor as somehow less of an editor here. The reversions because it is an IP need to stop. nableezy - 23:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone actually reverting this multiple IP user simply because they use a multiple IPs. Though allowable, other than for the specific intention of edit warring, it is still confusing and irritating to established editors whose histories can be checked. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

True, there is no requirement to register an account, but that means your edits may not be taken as seriously, which is the case here -- not merely because the editor is an IP, but because they almost certainly have a "real" account which is not editing (or possibly banned form editing) in this topic area. I'm deeply interested in putting a stop to that, especially where it touches on IP edits. We should all be accountable for our edits, and this IP -- flatly -- isn't. That's aside from the poor talk page communication and POV editing that's been demonstrated. IronDuke 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ID, if you have evidence that this is either a banned or topic-banned user present it in the appropriate venue. I am, purposely, not getting involved in the actual content discussion anymore, and I am not saying the reversions are themselves wrong (I may think that), but your edit summary attempts to diminish the IP's edits because it came from an IP address and not a registered user. That is improper. nableezy - 02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've really addressed the issues raised here, but I guess it's safe to say we disagree. IronDuke 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is on purpose, I dont want to deal with these issues anymore. The IP is accountable for their edits, we can easily see from the history of the article what edits he or she is responsible for. But it is safe to say we disagree and for me to go back to ignoring this article. nableezy - 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't speaking of the content issues, but I'm sorry to see you leave the page, if you are. IronDuke 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

General use of editorials

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen accuses Garlasco of choosing a screen name based on Nazi sympathies without evidence. NGO Monitor is making evaluative claims about human rights which aren't carried by any mainstream news publications. None of these editorials seem to belong in a BLP, and I already removed a reference to a blog of an HRW official.

The following Wikipedia policies are relevant to this article:

• WP:V states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight... if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so... self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer."

• WP:RS states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces... In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used."

• WP:BLP states that "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page...Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability...Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims...Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

--99.130.165.46 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be going to far with this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/6194158/Human-Rights-Watch-suspends-researcher-who-collected-Nazi-memorabilia.html does not seem to be an editorial but a piece filed by a correspondant http://www.journalisted.com/adrian-blomfield, http://www.journalism.co.uk/8/articles/535495.php employed by the Telegraph as their jerusalem Correspondant.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC) What page is the Garlasco case mentioned in http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/1BA33369-99A8-4188-A35D-7AE6EBD43A3F/0/AntisemitismForum.pdf? I can find no referance.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't an op-ed and went through an editorial process then there is of course no problem with it.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well hes a columnist, and nowhere does it say its an Opp-edd piece.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will again ask that the http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/1BA33369-99A8-4188-A35D-7AE6EBD43A3F/0/AntisemitismForum.pdf? source either be removed or at least can some one please show me its releavence.Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Slatersteven - I removed it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an NGO Monitor posting about Marc Galasco's "Nazi fetish" which stated that Garlasco "has written numerous reports that use false claims to condemn Israel in Lebanon and Gaza" and concluded that Garlasco is "obsessed with the color and pageantry of Nazism". Would this be appropriate for the article then?--99.130.165.46 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is an NGO report which links Garlasco to Neo-Nazism: "The number 88 is a code for “Heil Hitler” and is used by neo-Nazis to identify themselves. The same screen name, Flak 88, was adopted by a poster at the white power website, stormfront.org. It is reasonable to conclude that Garlasco would have been fully aware of this symbolism when he chose this name. He even uses it on his license plate (a practice which is banned in Germany) and as a screen name on websites unrelated to his Nazi collection". Do his "Nazi fetish", obsession "with the color and pageantry of Nazism" and license plate/screen name belong in the article? --99.130.165.46 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If the come from RS yes, if not no. They should all be propelry attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Slatersteven here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that dubious claims from a questionable source are inappropriate for a biography of a living person because of WP:RS and WP:BLP.--69.208.138.21 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a POV statement (re: NGO Monitor) from a new IP editor if I've ever seen one!  ;) A Sniper (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Self published

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self-published_sources So I do not msee why a source thats self published about him is not allowable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it could be demonstrated that this was indeed self-published, then no problem. However, this is a free and open site that anyone can create or edit. A Sniper (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew you could find better references than Linked-in ;) A Sniper (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed the (first) Ottawa Citizen reference

I removed this reference for two reasons: (i) it gives undue weight to a single source, and (ii) it introduces the "Nazi memorabilia" controversy in the most skewed manner imaginable.

Specifically,

(i) The Ottawa Citizen is a legitimate newspaper, and is a fair source for Wikipedia. It is not, however, a source of any great or international significance. Citing and quoting from the paper's anti-Garlasco editorial in two separate sections strikes me as grant undue weight to the source.

(ii) A fair portion of our article is already devoted to the "Nazi memorabilia" controversy. While I have some problems with the current presentation, our coverage is appropriate at least in the sense that it presents the controversy from different angles, and refrains from conferring undue authority on any particular source. For us to introduce the controversy in an earlier section of the article, by referencing the only "neo-nazi" reference published in a mainstream source and providing no further context, is about as inappropriate a decision as I could imagine.

I could add, in passing, that the Ottawa Citizen is owned by Can-West Global, a company notorious for its bias in support of right-wing Israeli policies. Whatever Garlasco's flaws, this particular source doesn't come to the debate with a clean slate either. CJCurrie (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit summary, it is not a "borderline BLP violation" it is , rather, a quite blatant BLP violation. The info is cited to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, editorials are absolutely unacceptable in a WP:BLP, and garbage like that should be excised on sight. I would suggest a thorough reading of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:OR, & WP:RS to most of the participants here, then mentoring followed by blocking for any editor who thinks editorials are appropriate for BLPs. L0b0t (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst you may have a point over the issue of "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." I cannot find anything that precludes the use of Opp-Edd pieces in BLP's, but I might be missing it (as long as you attribute them).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims...Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link..."

If the source makes an unverifiable claim and the editorial process which it is subject to is questionable, then it doesn't belong in the article. This is why I worked to remove the Helena Cobban blog as well.--69.208.138.21 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FCorgive me but niether of those rules preclude the use of Opp-Edd pieces, the Ottowa citizen piece is a third party source (ie they are not an invloved party), thus that rule would not apply to them (unless the issue (as I said above) is their reliability)). The second point (whilst it may aply to Ottowa citizen) again has nothing to say against Opp-Edd pieces. So the question is then jow reliable is their opinions, yes? Not that the rules preclude the use of Opp-Edd pieces?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They made an unverifiable and controversial claim in comparing Garlasco to a neo-Nazi. No reliable third party sources have evidence to support the claim that Garlasco picked his name because of a tie to neo-Nazis.

So an opinion piece, which is subject to less editorial control, carried a controversial claim and at least one good faith editor objected to the material's inclusion. The material was removed immediately because it is a BLP. This is a standard process for BLPs, so maybe read the policies I cited above or which L0B0t has referred to. Guilt by association from an opinion piece clearly does not belong in the article though.--69.208.138.21 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the rules, and as I said I can find nothing that precludes the use of Opp-Edds in BLP's. However the objection seems to be not that they are an opp-edd but that they are not reliable due to bias, is that correct?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to controversial and unreliable claims as well as there lack of an editorial process. High quality news organizations are quite distinct from op-eds which the groups carry from time to time. Anyways skim the policies, and I will give others a chance to explain. But the policies ae clear that if there is question or objection, they should be removed at least until a discussion is completed.--69.208.138.21 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I found this "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." note it does n ot say Opp-eed pieces cannot be used, in fact it implies you can as long as the organizations is of a high quality, so the debate is no0t about can n we use Opp-edd pieces (we can) but if it mmets the required quality.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. And the allegations, presented without evidence, of Garlasco being a Nazi have been described as "defamatory" or "smear", so there is a very strong likelihood that they could be considered libel. And many editors have objected to their inclusion in the article.--69.208.138.21 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations: "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." The Ottawa Citizen, a small town paper with a reputation for bias and intellectual dishonesty in the subject at hand[15] [16], is not a "high-quality news organization". This editorial suffers from a serious lacck of fact checking and historical perspective. Read any memoir concerning the European theater of the 2nd World War, check out the wartime cartoons of Bill Mauldin (hell, ask your fathers or grandfathers) and you will find that the FlaK88 was one of the most feared and hated weapons of the war. This 88mm anti-aircraft gun was so effective that the Bosch started to employ it as an anti-armor and anti-infantry gun. Our word "flak", as in Flak jacket is derived from the contraction of the German Flugzeugabwehr-Kanone. The idea that a published expert on WWII German anti-aircraft forces chose FlaK88 as his nom de plume based upon a few ideologically addled teenagers crafting a simplistic alphabetical substitution cypher is patently ridiculous and insulting to veterans, historians, or anyone else with a connection to, or affinity for, military studies. Stop trying to Godwin this guy with rumor and innuendo. L0b0t (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, I can accept that its not a reliable source, so can we now re-insert other opp-edds that have not had questions raised about thier reliablity?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, since this article is already a magnet for weasel like innuendo, editors wishing to cite op-eds should create their proposed drafts in user space then bring them to the talk page for evaluation before trying to insert them into the article. The behavior of some POV pushing editors here is an embarrassment to the project. L0b0t (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss the merits of including this paragraph without resorting to laughably incorrect statements? Ottawa is not a "small town" - it is Canada's 4th largest city, with a metro area population of more than a million. The Ottawa Citizen has a daily circulation of nearly 150,000 - it is not a "small town newspaper" by any stretch of the imagination. For what it's worth, I agree with CJCurrie that we don't need to use this more than once in the article. Millmoss (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All a matter of perspective, my city, hell my neighborhood is larger than Ottawa and a circulation of 150,000 is not very high. The fact remains, however, that the Citizen brings way too much ideological baggage with it for an opinion piece to be used as a source in a BLP. L0b0t (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Compare for example the circulation of the Globe and Mail (323,000) or the Toronto Star (437,000). L0b0t (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a matter of perspective. You living in a bigger city does not make Ottawa a small town, and calling the Ottawa Citizen" a "small town paper" is simply incorrect. You can argue (incorrectly, in my opinion) that the Citizen brings too much ideological baggage , but it will not make Ottawa into a small town. And by the way, the population of Bedford-Stuyvesant, at around 140,000 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/realestate/if-you-re-thinking-living-bedford-stuyvesant-brownstones-tree-lined-block.html?pagewanted=all is less than a sixth of Ottawa's. Millmoss (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

True, I was counting the larger neighborhood area (crow hill) with about 950,000 residents, much larger than Ottawa with a little over 800,000. Regardless, I'm sorry your national pride feels hurt but that still does not make an opinion piece in the Sentinel that repeats rumors from blogs a reliable source for a BLP. L0b0t (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as questions have been raised about its reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<- Seems to be a low level edit war over this source when of course the way to resolve it is the BLP/N. However, BLP requires that things actually be true. Imagine that! Just wondering, are these statements true ?

• Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state.
• Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious
• among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero.

Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I know Galrasco lectures about his reports on Israel. Does he do the same with his other reports? As frequently?
• Researchers have certainly claimed his reports are inaccurate and malicious.
• Seems like Garlasco is very well liked among anti-Israel activists.

So: maybe, yes, define hero. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad we cleared that up then. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. If you don't ask you'll never learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And "One pseudonym he reportedly used was "Flak88" -- "88" being code for the neo-Nazi salute, "Heil, Hitler" ("H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet)." So this is factual now, too? I'd be very interested if anyone can provide a reliable source for this claim, as I have been unable to find one.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For which part? That he used "Flak88" as his username or that "88" is used amongst neo-Nazis to denote "Heil Hitler"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This foolish theory has already been soundly rebuked above. The suggestion that such a nom de plume, when used by a published expert on WWII German anti-aircraft forces, is based upon anything other than the 88mm FLaK anti-aircraft gun doesn't pass the laugh test. L0b0t (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to side with L0b0t on this one. This whole speculation on the forum user name sidetracks from the other issues - it is a curiosity and not much more. A Sniper (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also a potentially libellous claim that made it in to the op-ed without supporting evidence because of poor fact checking and editorial oversight, which is exactly the kind of questionable source which doesn't belong in a BLP. This baseless accusation, stated as fact, is exactly why I don't feel this source is appropriate according to BLP guidelines. If editors can point out similar errors in other sources then they should be removed as well. Surely it could be replaced with something from JPost, Haaretz, JTA, etc. if someone looked hard enough; but either way this source just doesn't pass muster.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A Sniper. There is no need to quote it in the article. I don't think it means the whole op-ed should be excluded though. I seriously doubt it's "potentially libelous". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a BLP, any opinion piece that breathlessly repeats such obviously stupid and baseless allegations can not be considered a reliable source for anything else within. That well has been poisoned. L0b0t (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It shows that they have not checked facts and have accepted hearsay and conjecture un-crititicly. If they have done it with this fact who knows what other facts they have done it with.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the opinion piece has no byline. It is an anonymous opinion piece from a (relatively small, even when compared to its area competitors) local newspaper. I'll say it bold for emphasis. Anonymous opinion has no place in a WP:BLP. L0b0t (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

<- I reverted the latest restore of this material. BLP/N is the way to resolve issues like this. Use it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, either use BLP/N. request for comment or some other process to resolve this. Stop edit warring. The material should stay out in the meantime as it is clearly disputed. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread at RS/N. As of now, looking like it's not a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is about the information not the source. It's about the truth of what is being said, the reliability of the information itself not the reliability of the source in general. Ottawa Citizen expressing the opinion that 2+2=5, a superbeing created the universe in 7 days, Garlasco's reports have been shown to be inaccurate and malicious by the toothfairy, he painted the Mona Lisa, he painted Israel orange and he's a hero for Australians does not make it so even if the Ottawa Citizen is a reliable source for the weather in Ottawa. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If they really wanted to assert 2+2=5 that might be ok as long as it was a reliable source and it was properly attributed. But they are making a contentious and unverifiable claim in a WP:BLP, which really adds a whole other layer to it. The policy says it should be removed if one user questions it on good grounds, it is completely inappropriate to keep reverting it in to the article when this many editors have expressed legitimate concerns.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically 2+2=5 is proven false by Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica using their axioms and derived propositions but I take your point. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd call that WP:OR but I'm sure there'd be a source anyways :) In all seriousness, if the reversions continue would it be appropriate to seek assistance? I would leave warning templates to the respective users, but I think they have read the edit summaries noting there is a BLP dispute. If this continues further, would it make sense to ask for input at WP:BLP/N or WP:ANI considering this is constant reverting of questionable material in to a BLP, further one which is under general sanctions?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that this and related issues can be resolved by BLP/N but if this continues I think it is entirely appropriate to seek admin intervention on the basis of the discretionary sanctions. The sanctions are quite clear about this kind of behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be considerable support for the idea that the op-ed can go in as long as it's clearly attributed. Are you seeing that as well, Sean? IronDuke 21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There were still concerns voiced by a number of users there and here about whether the editorial opinion is significant. I have added a tag for while the discussion continues.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight? Why? Because it is the one reference in the whole section that doesn't fit in with the gushing praise? And which user are you again? I can't keep up! Dang. A Sniper (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No IronDuke, what I'm seeing at the RS/N is sharply divided opinions as to whether the information can be used. That is what I would expect to see for material that is disputed. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyways the consensus seemed to be that that source was reliable but that it may be undue weight. As the material is indeed very questionable, WP:BLP says it should be removed due to good faith objections. If we want more clarification, we should seek it at WP:BLP/N.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So, leave it in because it is reliable until such time that your WP:BLP/N clearly proves otherwise. To remove it in the meantime infers that you simply don't like what is in there because it doesn't meet a specific POV... A Sniper (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is reliable as the opinion of an editorial board, and WP:BLP says the material should be removed if good-faith editors object to its inclusion. A number of editors (User:Nableezy, User:CJCurrie, User:L0b0t, User:Someguy1221, User:Protonk, User:Squidfryerchef, and myself) have expressed concerns with the material.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at WP:BLP/N#Marc Garlasco.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Significance concerns

User:Nableezy, User:CJCurrie, User:L0b0t, User:Someguy1221, and User:Protonk have expressed WP:UNDUE concerns either here or at WP:RS/N. I have left a tag on the statement while the discussion continues.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Memorabilia, German or NSDAP?

Please stop trying to conflate German with NAZI. The subject is the collector of WWII memorabilia, some of those items are German, none have been demonstrated to have any connection with the NSDAP. The whole controversy is that POV pushing Israeli blogs and government run propaganda mills are trying to imply that the subject has anti-Jewish beliefs because he is a published expert on WWII. So far the only item in this controversy that has been shown to have anything remotely to do with the NSDAP was a quote from the subject about an piece of Schutzstaffel uniform lifted from a blog. Stop trying to use the encyclopedia to Godwin this fellow just because he is critical of certain behaviors of the Israeli government. This is just like trying to refer to any piece of US WWII surplus as Democrat memorabilia. L0b0t (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Several reliable sources, including the BBC and the Guardian, use the term "Nazi memorabilia". Check out the ref list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia and we do our readers a disservice if we buy into the sensationalism of the mass media, a media that does an atrocious job of covering academic topics such has history, political science, military affairs, etc. Mass media uses sensationalism, exaggeration, and innuendo to accomplish their primary goal of selling copy to boost advertising revenue. Are there any academic sources that lump all of the subject's collection into a header tied to 1 specific political party? WP:Words to avoid#Article and section titles tells us section titles should not imply a viewpoint. Since the viewpoints comprising this controversy are that:

• Collecting memorabilia from the European theater of the Second World War equates to having sympathies for and endorsing the viewpoint of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and that therefore the collector is ideologically unsuited to perform the job of military analyst if one is analyzing the armed forces of the State of Israel.

or the opposing view that:

• Evidence has yet to be presented that the subjects collection contains any explicitly NSDAP material, the conflation of German military surplus with National Socialism is inaccurate and rendered even more nonsensical when the collector of said material is a published expert in the field, and all of these accusation (accusations based entirely upon misinterpretation, rumor, and innuendo) are being put forward by questionable, highly partisan sources with an axe to grind against the subject because his work unrelated to collecting militaria.

To push one side of the controversy in a section header violates WP:NPOV. Yes there is a controversy and we should include the reliably sourced aspects of it but the section headers should not be pushing one side or the other. This is really just like saying US military memorabilia of the same period is Democrat memorabilia or Red Army surplus is Marxist/Leninist surplus. L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi part is what's controversial, and why we're writing about it here. IronDuke 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the "NAZI" part is the controversy that's why it has no place in the section header. L0b0t (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite exactly. There's no controversy that it's a fact he has an interest in Nazi memorabilia. There is a dispute about whether this interest means he is in some sense pro-Nazi/anti-Jewish/anti-Israel, but the header isn't suggesting that. IronDuke 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actualy tehre is a contoversy over the Nazi pazrt. HRW and Galsasco jhave both denied it, and no actualy proof has been porvided that he owns one piece of Nazi memorabilai.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, can you refresh me on Garlasco's specific quote denying it? IronDuke 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK perhaps I should have said that HRW have denned collecting nazi memorabilia on Mr Galascos behalf, and that Mr Galasco has deni9ed being a Nazi. Now againn I ask idsthere any proof he collects Nazi kit?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, MG did not deny it then. Indeed, if you read his Huffpo piece closely, you can see him carefully not denying it, coming pretty close to admitting it, in fact. For example, "Precisely because it's so obvious that the Nazis were evil, I never realized that other people, including friends and colleagues, might wonder why I care about these things." IronDuke 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-garlasco/human-rights-watch-invest_b_284075.html

He also does not admit it, so that proves nothing, in fact he states he cares about it, not that he collects it. But he has also not contradicted the HRW denial that he does not collect Nazi kit. I have read it, he also says that "the Nazis were the worst war criminals of all time, you will also note that in the line you quote he calls the Nazis evil, odd thing for a supporter to say. As well as “I wrote in my book, that "the war was horrible and cruel, that Germany lost and for that we should be thankful."Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree, so far scant evidence has been presented that there is any "NAZI" material involved. There is discussion of German WWII era army and air force items and an attempt by questionable, undeniably partisan sources to conflate those with the political party in power at the time. There is an image of a sweatshirt emblazoned with a specifically non-"NAZI" symbol, the Eisernes Kreuz was used by the Deutsches Heer of the German Empire from 1871 until 1915, readopted in 1919 (following the Treaty of Versailles) by the Reichswehr of the Weimarer Republik, abandoned by the Wehrmacht in 1935 (replaced by the Balkenkreuz), and finally brought back by the current Bundeswehr in 1956. The only tangential connection to the NAZI party is a comment on a website about a piece of uniform (the Schutzstaffel jacket). There is a controversy here but as the allegation of a connection to National Socialism is one side of the controversy, it should not be favored in a section header. Military memorabilia, German memorabilia, WWII memorabilia are all sufficient to introduce the section and have the added benefit of bringing no extra emotional baggage to an already questionable assertion. L0b0t (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<-See my post above yours for more, but the non-HRW sources all seem to be indicating that Nazi memorabilia is a salient factor (emphasis added).

1. Rights Group Assailed for Analyst’s Nazi Collection, New York Times, John Schwartz, September 14, 2009
2. Flintoff, C. (September 16, 2009). "Rights Analyst Suspended Over Nazi-Era Collection," National Public Radio.
3. AFP, "Rights group suspends analyst over Nazi collection"
4. 'HRW expert collects Nazi memorabilia', JPost, September 09 2009
5. The Guardian "Human Rights Watch investigator suspended over Nazi memorabilia," September 15, 2009
6. BBC News: Is it OK to collect Nazi memorabilia?
7. Christian Science Monitor: Gaza war analyst: Does his Nazi-era collection indicate bias?
8. BBC "Analyst suspended over Nazi hobby" September 15, 2009
9. The Telegraph "Human Rights Watch suspends researcher who collected Nazi memorabilia," September 15, 2009

Most of the sources that deal with this use the word "Nazi." And I'll say again that, AFAIK, MG never denies having a collection of Nazi memorabilia. But just to be on the safe side, I've put in compromise wording. I have also removed one of the four uses of the phrase "non-disciplinary." I'm gonna AGF and assume the same person hasn't been inserting all the needless extra references to it. IronDuke 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardly what I would call a compromise. Why are you insistent that the inaccurate POV laden acronym remain in a section header? How is it in any way whatsoever inaccurate to say military, German, Axis, WWII memorabilia? The controversy is covered quite well in the section itself and the use of neutral section headers (as prescribed by policy) in no way detracts from a readers understanding or access to the section itself. L0b0t (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The controversy, as related by reliable sources, is that he collects Nazi memorabilia. If he does or not in fact collect Nazi memorabilia, or if he is or is not a Nazi should certainly be expanded on in the section about the Nazi memorabilia controversy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I point to WP:Words to avoid#Article and section titles where it tells us that headers should not imply a point of view in the controversy. Again, what purpose is served by having a POV laden bastardization of an acronym in a section header when a neutral header works just fine. Is there a reason for a POV section header beyond wanting to further smear the subject by having the article say NAZI as many times as possible? L0b0t (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoe about "Alledged Nazi collection controversy"?Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeating what a whole bunch of reliable sources call it is not "implying a point of view". It's in line with WP:V and WP:RS.

That said, I have no problem with "alleged". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything that includes "NAZI" is unacceptable. What are the specific objections to military, German, Axis, 3rd Reich collection, any of the fine, descriptive, informative, neutral (as mandated by policy), more accurate (as mandated by common sense), less POV terms than "NAZI"? You are trying to claim RS and V as your justification/excuse for inclusion but what is your reason for/reasoning behind inclusion? This seems like a silly thing for you two to be adamant about, all the more so because there are several better alternatives proposed that no one has yet objected to. L0b0t (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning, for the nth time, is that this is what it's called by most if not all RS we use in this article. We're talking BBC, Guardian and NYT here, not Arutz Sheva and CAMERA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But what mass media uses as a headline (geared to be as eye grabbing and sensationalist as possible) has nothing to do with what articles on Wikipedia use as section headers. No one is suggesting excising the information but we are required to use neutral, concise headers. When there are several phrases to choose from that all accurately describe the situation there is no reason to go with the most POV option. Again, what are your objections to any of the suggestions that don't have "NAZI" in them? Do you have any? Is there any purpose served by using "NAZI" rather than a neutral header? Is the reader's ability to find, read, and comprehend the section degraded by using a neutral option? Remember, we are not talking about some Christian Identity believer, Klansman, white power advocate, nationalist agitator, or nativist of any kind. We are discussing a collector of WWII memorabilia, a published expert in the field, who is being accused, through innuendo and guilt by association, of having National Socialist beliefs because of his affinity for WWII militaria. This is the same as claiming that a US Civil War historian is pro slavery because of their collection of period items, labeling a medieval antiquarian an advocate of feudalism because of their sword collection, or saying that a scholar of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica demands human sacrifice because their house is full of artifacts. L0b0t (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of using "Nazi" in the header is to be as concise and precise as possible in the description of the controversy, while staying as true as possible to what avaliable RS say. Almost all of them use "Nazi". If it wasn't "Nazi" stuff, there would be no controversy.

You don't like the word Nazi. I get it. You are correct that it shouldn't be used unless there's a good reason. The fact this is the term almost every source we have uses, is a very good reason and in line with WP:V and WP:RS.

I think we're going around in circles at this point. Do you want to try dispute resolution? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could try dispute resolution, but I think going to RS/N might work as well, where we'd explore the question of whether LobOt's analysis of the BBC, NYTimes et al ad nauseaum can, for WP purposes, trump the eminently reliable sources themselves. If the answer is "yes," our problem is essentially solved. IronDuke 00:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Or if its no. Lets not pre-judge these things. So I say lets do it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the </irony> tag. IronDuke 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone be amenable to Nazi era, etc.? This could denote that they are from a time when Nazis were running the country but not necessarily imply they were collected just because they were Nazi.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the sources say "Nazi-era"? I'm a little surprised a stickler to the rules such as yourself would come up with this kind of SYNTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will the (2?) editors who are so determined to keep "NAZI" in a header please answer the questions that I have posed several times now. What are your specific objections to a neutral header? Why do you not want a neutral header? What is it about neutrality in section headers that troubles you so? How is using say: German, Third Reich, Axis, WWII, etc. any less informative than the (inaccurate, POV-laden)"NAZI"? Yes, you say "RS/V" the newspaper says "NAZI" blah, blah, blah but remember, the newspapers use sensational headlines to attract readers/sales, we, in the encyclopedia, do not and, as of yet, not a single shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that the subject has any "NAZI" collectibles, just German and American WWII items. A serendipitous example arrived with my morning paper: Hiram Monserrate (A state senator on trial for slashing his girlfriend with a broken bottle and dragging her away from her apt. when she wanted to go to the hospital) the newspapers (absolutely verifiable and reliable sources) call the incident "Hiram's Horror Show", and "Hiram and the Draggin' Lady" but our article takes a neutral tone and titles the section header- "Arrest, indictment, and trial". Yes, this will probably need to go through dispute resolution if these (2?) editors are unwilling to compromise on such basic neutrality in a section header. L0b0t (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the sources do say "Nazi-era". I still think there ought to be a way to denote objectively and uncontroversially. That controversial Nazi accusations were made is a fact and that to Garlasco they were nothing more than German war medals is a fact. That there are other aspects to the story, such as his non-disciplinary suspension, is also a fact. A neutral header is very important especially since this is a BLP. I think we should be able to come up with a section header by ourselves which takes these facts in to account. I think we could still make a few more proposals before we seek dispute resolution.

If not, I would also be open to dispute resolution.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A small minority of the sources use "Nazi-era". What you claim Garlasco thinks is not a fact, it's speculation on your part. That most of the items in his collection have swastikas on them is a fact, though. He posted it online, go have a look.

Anyway, take it to dispute resolution. I shall be returning it to the wording used by most RS. I'm also taking this opportunity to remind you of WP:3RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

On a quick side note, he gives his perspective in a response he wrote for the Huffington Post: "Because of him, and my great-uncle, a gunner on an American B-17 bomber, I developed an interest in German and American war memorabilia, and I wrote a long monograph, published last year, on German Second World War Air Force and anti-aircraft medals". On another side note, at least three sources use the terms Nazi era and at least two denote American/German from around that time frame. Are you arguing the only acceptable wording is strictly Nazi by itself?--68.78.0.78 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason that most of the items in his collection have swastikas on them is because they were issued by a government that put them on the medals, but can you find any evidence that is why Galasco collects them? As to the sources, most of them also say (in the article not the attention grabbing head line) that he is only been accused of collecting Nazi memorabilia, not that he does.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we use "alleged" there. He is alleged to have a collection of Nazi memorabilia. This is what he is accused of. Trying to change the terminology just because some people don't like the word "Nazi" makes the encyclopedia less accurate and does a disservice to the reader. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wh=hich is why the article said that he was suspended for "collecting of Nazi memorabilia" which is clearly not true.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fixed now, no? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough no, but I have just noticed so shall fix it now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddlly the claim that they are (not alledged top be) is back.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I think the article has made quite a bit of progress.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tieing the usage of the word to the allegations and controversy I think was a positive step forward. So could others say whether they are open to Nazi era, Nazi time period, etc? This does have support in the sources, as a wide variety of descriptions are used:

• Haaretz: "The former senior military analyst of Human Rights Watch is allegedly an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia"
• NYTimes:"Mr. Garlasco, an American, was not only a collector, he has written a book, more than 400 pages long, about Nazi-era medals."
• AFP: "Human Rights Watch has suspended a senior military analyst who has led research teams to the Middle East after a pro-Israel blog said he was obsessed with Nazi German paraphernalia."
• NPR: "Rights Analyst Suspended Over Nazi-Era Collection"
• Guardian: "It has now emerged that he is also an avid collector of German and American wartime memorabilia, including awards badges handed out to soldiers working in the anti-aircraft Flak units."
• Jerusalem Post: "HRW expert collects Nazi memorabilia"
• WBUR: "Human Rights Watch has suspended a senior military analyst after pro-Israeli bloggers questioned his objectivity based on the fact that he is a collector of and expert on Nazi German military memorabilia."
• Christian Science Monitor: "Does his Nazi-era collection indicate bias?" "I did not know that Mr. Garlasco is an avid collector of American and German military paraphernalia from World War II – and now the subject of a blogging campaign against him by what are described as conservative, pro-Israel lobby groups."
• BBC: "A human rights group has suspended its senior military analyst after revelations that he collects Nazi memorabilia."
• Telegraph: "Last week, pro-Israeli websites disclosed that Mr Garlasco, a former Pentagon intelligence officer, was an avid collector of German wartime memorabilia who had written a book about Nazi-era medals."

If people aren't open to Nazi era, Nazi time period etc. could we try to make other specific proposals? And try to say whether you are agreeable to the current version and any other version please. Thanks :)--68.78.0.78 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problom with what it says now (IE alledged collecting). The initial controversy was that he was accused of collecting Nazi memorabilia. But it has remained an unproven accusation. That is why I bleive that Nazi era/period came into use, the only real proof of anything was that he collected ww2 era kit, but (at least some) were dteremined to still try imply Nazi kit.Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with any phrasing that refers to the era without mentioning a specific political party (the NSDAP). German collectibles, Axis collectibles, Third Reich, WWII era, all of these are accurate, cover the possibility of specific "NAZI" items, cover every other item in subject's AOI, but do not carry the emotional baggage that "NAZI" brings along. The details about the controversy should be covered in the section but the section header should remain free of such (possibly inaccurate) specificity. L0b0t (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm about out of ideas. It seems like generating more specific proposals for section names or getting comments from others would be the best route to pursue.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you guys once again to go look at the collection. It's online. I don't have the URL handy unfortunately, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll dig it up. Have a look at what you're trying to describe.

HRW suspended their top military expert. They didn't do that because some pro-Israel blog wrote nasty things about him. As far as I know, he's still suspended. How long does it take to look at a few dozen items? Trying to weasel word out the fact that the vast majority of the stuff is Nazi issue won't cut it. It's not Axis or German or WWII era. It's Nazi. Go have a look. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could produce a link, but as shown above a variety of descriptions are given about the material. That the memorabilia is strictly Nazi and evidence of sympathies is a contentious claim which is unsupported by evidence and denied by the subject of the accusation as "defamatory" or a "smear". Are you denying that he had any German or American memorabilia? Are you denying that other several other historical collectors make use of the same sites? Is any historian who writes about German medals an anti-Semite? What about someone who keeps them clean in a museum?

Besides NGO Monitor, all the other reactions seem to agree that the reason he was suspended was public relations. They go over the material, interview him, and wait for the matter to blow over. You'd think Kenneth Roth, the director of the organization who had parents that fled the Holocaust, would have a bit more outrage if there were an anti-Semite working underneath him.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What matters is that most RS say the controversy is about Nazi memorabilia.

You are trying to weasel word the essence of the controversy out of the article because, well, why exactly? Why don't you think a reader of this encyclopedia should get a real idea about what the controversy was about when reading this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and that accusation indicates one did not read any of the section in which one posted or one is being willfully obtuse. As I have stated numerous times, this has nothing to do with the material in the section, only with crafting a neutral (as required by policy) section header. Yes, one side of the "controversy" is about "NAZI" material, that is why policy expressly proscribes pushing one side of a controversy in the section header. The (2?) editors who are so insistent that the word "NAZI" remain in a section header have yet to voice a single objection to any of the many neutral options that have been proposed. Do they have any or are they just being disruptive and obstinate? So, again, are there any objections to the following:

• World War Two memorabilia
• Axis memorabilia
• German memorabilia
• Third Reich memorabilia

If anyone has specific, policy based objections to the above neutral phrasing please elucidate. If there are no specific, policy based objections then the push to keep "NAZI" in the header should be seen for what it is, a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT and a blatant attempt to smear the subject through guilt by association to an unproven (evidence free) assertion. L0b0t (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My policy based objection is that you made those up rather than use the terminology used by most RS. In other words, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, non-compliance with WP:V, etc. "Axis memorabilia"? Please share the source you found that in.

The push to remove the word "Nazi" which is used by most RS is an obvious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You pretty much said as much. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you need to read the policies you are linking to. Please specify what clause of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SYN you feel is being violated? I would contend that it most certainly is not original research to refer to military surplus from the losing (German) side of the European theater of the Second World War as Axis, German, Third Reich, or Second World War memorabilia. Further, it is, in fact, verifiable that Axis, German, and Third Reich are used, quite frequently, to refer to that particular loser (Germany) in the European theater of the Second World War. Further still, WP:SYN is defined as "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", that is not being done here but, regardless, has nothing to do with crafting neutral section headers. Again, what newspapers and blogs refer to an incident as has no bearing whatsoever on what we use as section headers. L0b0t (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me a single reliable source calling it "Axis memorabilia".

Anyway, as I said above, we're going around in circles. I count A Sniper, IronDuke, Slatersteven and myself as supporting "alleged Nazi memorabilia", and you and anon against. So you're going to need some more people agreeing with you in order to change it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, A Sniper has yet to weigh in on this issue (they are more than welcome to do so; more participation is always welcome) and Slatersteven seems to feel neutral (please correct me, Steven, if I misinterpreted your position), so perhaps two opposing two would be a better reflection of the dispute. Have you found the sections of the policies you feel I am violating yet? Do you have any objections to the neutral wording other than the newspaper didn't call it that? How, in your opinion, are the neutral phrasings that have been offered inaccurate? L0b0t (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think that we could take a poll among five or more proposals:

1. Suspension over Nazi-era memorabilia allegations

2. WWII memorabilia allegations and suspension

3. Suspension over Nazi memorabilia allegations

4. German paraphamelia accusations and paid suspension

5. Suspension over WWII artifact controversy

It is clear there are a variety of ways to express the subject (as seen in the sources), and that the general subject is now more than a few accusations from a blogger and will continue to evolve. I think it would be more productive if people said what they are open to and tried to make a few examples along these lines.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am now, and always have been, open to any option that does not include "NAZI" (an English bastardization of a German language acronym). WWII, Axis, German, Third Reich, all of these are acceptable. L0b0t (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I explained myself 5 times already. I'm not going to repeat it again. Lets wait and see what other editors have to say. I will object to terms not used in the RS. Considering we have about a dozen RS noting the controversy, there's absolutely no reason to change the terminology from what they use just because you DONTLIKEIT. You don't get to exclude words you don't like.

Without even checking, I'm pretty confident no RS called it "German paraphamelia" (or paraphernalia) or "WWII artifact controversy". You just made those up, didn't you?

So you would be fine with using German wartime memorabilia since the Guardian and Telegraph described it this way? And the Christian Science Monitor called it German wartime paraphamelia. Paraphamelia and memorabilia are synonyms.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of those options are fine by me. L0b0t (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraphernalia and memorabilia are not synonyms. I'd like to hear from other editors rather than repeat myself for the 10th time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, but BBC News called it a Nazi hobby, National Public Radio stated Rights Analyst Suspended Over Nazi-Era Collection, and the Christian Science Monitor also referred to his Nazi-era collection. We can't sanitize the word Nazi, which is clearly within many well-sourced articles, merely because a user objects that it is a language "bastardization". Please. A Sniper (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is suggesting "sanitizing" or removing the word from the article. I am suggesting that we follow established policy, guideline, and MOS by using neutral section headers. Since the allegations of "NAZIsm" are the root of the controversy, we should not be promoting that particular side of the controversy by displaying it in the header. L0b0t (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the sources support L0b0t's proposition and the sources use a variety of wordings.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

<- Talking of neutrality, can I interest anyone in the comments I made in the Talk:Marc_Garlasco#Balancing_perspectives section above about dealing with this issue in a potentially more neutral way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a section name such as "Memorabilia controversy and suspension" or "Paraphenalia allegations and suspension" which would just briefly note the events without taking a side one way or the other. But I agree that the current section name would be akin to having one which just presented HRW's side.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PLease explain how it represents HRW's version. There is an allagation (but not proof) that Galasco had a collection (and published a book) about Nazi kit. So that is what the cto0rversey is, its about an allegded interest in Nazi memorabilia. Now its true that many sources also use far less inflamatory versions, and perhaps they are more neutral (I my self am not sure I beleive that alledged nazi toot or whatever is a perfecly fair way of describing the controversy).Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I say eitehr remove the word Nazi (or NArrrzi) or include the word alledged.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was saying including the word Nazi would be like including the words Israeli smear. They both represent differing POV's in the controversy and neither seems appropriate when the sources decribe the controversy in a wide variety of ways.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on context. If (as the article used to say) that he collects Nazi memorabilia then yes it’s a smear. If however we say he is alleged to collect Nazi memorabilia then we are reporting what he has been accused of, the criticism does not stem from a German army (or luftwaffe collection) but from the allegation that it is a collection of Nazi toot. the article should relect the nature of the contorversy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you but we ought to be able to balance reflecting the controversy with neutrally covering it. WP:BLP says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." We ought to be able to briefly cover the fiasco in a neutral and conservative way which doesn't favor either side.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree and alledeged Nazi fullfills that, the allegation is that he collects Nazi (not ww2, German, Heer, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine, USAF, or Freiwilligen). But the key point is that it is alleged (IE not proven). So a neutral section header must relect both the nature (Eees a Nazi collector) and the result (at this time allegation).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Slatersteven above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree. That the subject is a collector of (and published expert on) German, World War II items is a fact undisputed by anyone. The allegation that some of the collection is "NAZI" is one side's opinion in the controversy. That one side's opinion has no more place in the header than the other opinion in the controversy that the accusations are a ludicrous reductio ad Hitlerum meant to distract attention from the subject's work with HRW. We should not be pushing any side of any controversy in section headers, particularly as the MOS for section headers advises us not to do so. As of yet, the only objections to a neutral wording have been from editors who feel that we must title our section headers to match the titles used by newspapers/blogs covering an event. L0b0t (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We can all agree that the current section naming is disputed. Surely we don't all agree that this is the best and only possible naming. Rather than be for or against one proposal why can't we just make a long list of proposals and try to find something which everyone agrees on? --70.236.45.99 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It says he is an alleged collector of Nazi memorabilia. That is both neutral and factually correct. It is also a very good description of the controversy. You can make a list if you like. I will not agree to any attempt to excise the word "Nazi".

By the way, can we remove the tag from the top of the page? It says this article makes unsourced claims. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is curently a neutrality dispute and a dispute about controversial claims. Poorly sourced material also keeps making its way in to the article in the form of blogs, op-eds, and web forums among others. The sooner the disputes productively get worked through the quicker the tags can be removed. That's why it is in everyone's best interest to say what they are agreeable to instead of drawing red lines in the sand.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see there are a couple of disputes in a couple of sections. That doesn't warrant a tag on the top of the page. Please remove it and put relevant tags in the relevant sections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A web forum was being used as a source no less than 24 hours ago and there is still an op-ed which compares the subject of the article to a neo-Nazi. The tag is to denote there are BLP issues with the article, and there are. On another side note, previous attempts to tag the article were reverted out multiple times. It would be much more productive to discuss the issue(s) through to a resolution.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep complaining about people using op-eds while you continuously insert stuff from the Guardian's CIF. You realize those are comment and opinion pieces, right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Lerman was originally being quoted in an article and the Guardian was added as a secondary supporting source by me. The article was removed by another editor. Secondly, Lerman isn't making potentially libellous claims about a living person without supporting evidence. I think it would be wonderful if you agreed that editorials have no place in the article, though. Editorials in general are subject to less editorial oversight, and thus in general are less appropriate for BLPs.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, meandering IP editor. I removed the quote merely because it is not about Garlasco, the subject of the article, but is about general Israeli criticisms to HRW, and specifically about the NGO Monitor - right? The NGO Monitor response to Garlasco's work does not require you, an editor, to add a clarification source to POV-smooth things over; leave that for the NGO Monitor page. A Sniper (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, in what sense is the Lerman material in the Guardian that talks about Garlasco not about Garlasco ? It even mentions the word Nazi which is normally enough for editors to identify material as being related to Garlasco. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake. I was only referring to the first quote, not the second. I have placed the second relevant quote back in the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think it is reasonably clear that one set of editors is entrenched in defense of the current heading while another set of editors takes issue with the current heading, and having discussion doesn't seem to be producing movement in one direction or the other. I think we should either all produce a list of proposals and see if any gain more consensus, we should seek outside comment, or we should look an an informal method of dispute resolution. I'm open to any of these ideas or possibly another. Retreading arguments doesn't seem to be effective.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two isseus being disccused, and both need outside help. The first is NArrrzi, this needs to be taken to arbitration. The second ism the opp-eed debate this needs to be taken to BLPn. untill this has been decided I wouild susgest the following, removal of all opp-edd peices (well rem them out) and changing the header to "contorversy". Note I do not consider the latter acceptable just totaly neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Instantly removing the questionable material until there is a resolved discussion would be what is in line with BLP anyways. I think BLP/N would be a good place for questions about op-eds. I don't think arbitration can be tried at this point, better to seek WP:RFC or a means of informal mediation. Arbitration is always a very last resort.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But there seems to be a western front style entrenchment, and only the MkIV males of arbitration could break the stalemate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, a Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, and the Committee won't even consider a case unless it has been through the other steps whether any of us like it or not. So we should all try to agree on a request for comment, informal mediation, etc. This would be if there is still a large demand for it, I am happy to try to work the issues out on here.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I have placed a neutrality tag on the article. A concerted effort to purge anything remotely negative has been waged for weeks now, even when those references are reliably sourced. I equally oppose those editors wanting to smear Garlasco. However, an NPOV article we do not have at the moment when even bona fide references are subject to wiki nitpicking at every turn. I for one wish our IP friend would spend as much time trying to keep the article NPOV as he/she does trying to remove anything that is not flattering, sycophantic or apologetic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note: op-eds, blogs, and web forums generally aren't considered reliable sources whether they support or smear on any given subject. And the veracity of sources is important for any biography.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured you'd infer that the Ottawa Citizen, for example, is a blog and that a main editorial, produced by the paper's board, is an op-ed. That's not a "smear" - it is merely something you disagree with. A Sniper (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see more specific criticism of Garlasco's HRW work if that criticism comes from reliable sources who are qualified to make the criticism/challenges e.g. military experts commenting in reliable media sources etc. Vague non-specific arm-waving statements don't add any informational value whether they are positive or negative in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The blogs I took issue with were MereRhetoric and an HRW blog, and blogs just don't belong as reliable sources regardless of any editors' viewpoint. Blogs aren't reliable sources. Neither are web forums. Op-eds are questionable. Any source with questionable editorial oversight making contentious claims is subject to the same criteria, and I hope you don't think every editor at WP:RS/N and WP:BLP/N is biased.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am speaking specifically of the attempt to purge the Ottawa Citizen editorial. This was without foundation. A Sniper (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So was I when I said 'Vague non-specific arm-waving statements don't add any informational value'. What I think is more important is to actually have information about his HRW work first which can then be criticised using reliable sources that specifically address the work that has been described. That in my view is what an encyclopedia should do. I have added a couple of sections about 2 of his earliest reports but more are required. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some blog claims/believes he falsifies his reports and belongs to Stormfront is completely inappropriate for a biography or the article in general. I could find a blog which thinks he is from Mars. The article spends too much time in general on this one controversy and should have more in relation to his work on Iraq, the Georgian–Ossetian conflict, etc.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the information is that reliable and notable why has JP not taken it up, they normaly jump on accusations made agaiinst HRW and its staff?. As to the TAg keep it, terh are very POV issues with the artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Esquire Magazine, which Wikipedia states is a men's mag, is a reliable source...but the Ottawa Citizen piece from their editorial board is UNDUE? A Sniper (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue because it is making contentious claims not repeated in any other sources.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The lavish praise bestowed upon Garlasco by Esquire ("one of the bravest and most effective investigators at Human Rights Watch.") is also not repeated in any other source - but you don't seem to have a problem with that. You seem to be applying a double standard here, intended to cast Garlasco in a positive light. Millmoss (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is because our meandering IP editor sees the bona fide-but-negative references as being problematic, but the gushing, sycophantic glop in a men's mag as perfectly fine. A Sniper (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Esquire has won Three National Magazine Awards in 2009 and has about five times the circulation of the Ottawa Cittizen.

More importantly, WP:BLP advises against sources which make potentially defamatory charges. I would be happy to see stricter sourcing for the article. If there is a potentially defamatory charge in Esquire it should by all means be removed and it should by no means be edit-warred in to the article.--76.214.115.108 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Circulation figures have nothing to do with reliability. In fact, most sensationalist tabloids have far larger circulation figures than respectable newspapers. And you are simply wrong about BLP policies. The very first paragraph of WP:BLP says "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" - positive and negative material is treated the same way. Millmoss (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Esquire isn't a tabloid, it has been recognized with awards, and it isn't making contentious claims. Anyways, the current version at least seems a lot better than it did.--76.214.115.108 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• A reliable source, is a reliable source. period. The <ottowa Citizen is the daily newspaper of the capital of Canada. When it published an editorial , it can be cited on Wikipedia.JOSH02138 (writing from a keyboard n an internt cafe wihtout an infinity sign on the keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh02138 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are other policies you may wish to refer to, i.e. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My take on this dispute is that the Ottawa Citizen editorial is rather weak as a source, but is good for one thing: as evidence that his work is controversial and is not universally admired. As it stands much of the section on his career at HRW reads as though we are writing his resume for him. Anyone with any sense knows this stuff is controversial, but we do need RS. Critical commentary should be included, if it can be found, though we should not give undue weight to very opinionated statements that are not substantiated. I edited the article accordingly. Fletcher (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing.--76.214.115.108 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of tags

I've taken the liberty of removing both tags. With a diminishing of the discussion, and with Fletcher's fine NPOV edits, the article is looking better than it did previously. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is looking better, but not enough for an enciclopedical article, Mr. Garlascu have not the attribute, the notability to be an enciclopedical personality.Alex F. (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex F. (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which parts of WP:BIO have you based your assessment on ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." See the Washington Post or the New York Times, among many other references given on the page. Maybe Alex is under the false impression that notability is a matter of personal opinion? Fletcher (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

..which reminds me of one of my favourite talk page comments re: Sufjan Stevens, "I'm sorry, I'm from west Michigan and I've never heard of this guy." Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is West Michagan noted for this sort of thing then?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is now.... Okay, probably best not to extrapolate based on a sample of one. It was more the 'He's from MI. I'm from MI, I haven't heard of him therefore...' logic. Unfortunately I use it myself quite often e.g. 'I've never heard of this. It's probably trivial and uninteresting'... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)