Talk:Marc Garlasco

Garlasco leaves HRW

I don't have time to put this in the article, but someone should. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath

About the aftermath section, we are now using an op-ed to call a living person "an obsessive collector of Nazi memorabilia". And doing this to attack HRW and Goldtsone. If this person's opinion on the accuracy of the HRW report or the Goldstone report is really that important, it can go in another article. I dont even care whether or not WP:BLP allows for using op-eds in this way, we shouldnt do it on either "side". If we are going to even pretend that Wikipedia is a serious source we cant be using op-eds to pile shit on living people. The quote is only tangentially related to a biography of Garlasco, which is what this article is supposed to be. Even if it should be included, there is no reason to include such a long quote from a single persons opinion piece. nableezy - 06:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The quote didn't seem to add anything of substance. Fletcher (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS's that use variations of "obsessive" re MG, which makes it entirely appropriate here. Negative op-eds are used on WP on, I would venture to guess, a more than hourly basis. I know of no policy against it and one, BLP. that allows for it. I'm going to go ahead and flush the Hole quote, as he seems to have little or no notability for WP purposes in an of himself. It actually violates BLP. As for punctuation, WP MOS, if I am not mistaken, calls for using the punctuation appropriate to the naitonality of the subject, where applicable. IronDuke 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote you added was an op-ed criticism of HRW that made passing mention of Garlasco and offered no new information. While op-eds are allowable they are only reliable as to the author's opinion. Seems to me the Aftermath section is a place to add factual information about what happens, not a place for opinionating. Regarding punctuation, you may be thinking of the guidelines for spelling, which do allow variance according to the subject's nationality (i.e. we use American spelling in this article). However, punctuation does not vary with nationality on wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, punctuation does vary. British punctuate like "this", Americans like "this." And the OC piece does not make "passing" mention of MG by any reasonable definition of that word -- they mention him at least three times. And I don't know why we wouldn't add an opinion in an aftermath section. Seems to me like that's a perfect place for it, telling us what it all adds up to. IronDuke 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me exactly what in that paragraph is appropriate for a biography of Garlasco that is not already in the article. Garlasco collected Nazi memorabilia, check. He called an SS jacket "cool", check. He was suspended by HRW when this came out, check. What am I missing here? The rest of it is just the usual talking points about the evil nature of all those who dare say Israel has committed some violation of international law, something that is completely irrelevant to a biography of Garlasco. Would you mind if we at least remove the paragraph until we get some more opinions? nableezy - 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: I know British and American punctuation is different; I'm saying, here on Wikipedia, we use the logical or British style and we do not change it based on subject nationality (WP:LP). I said the op-ed makes passing mention of Garlasco because the criticism it makes of him is only one point among several others, and it does not go into much detail or add any new information. Your notion that this harsh, one-sided opinion piece belongs in the Aftermath -- with no counterpoint -- because it's good for "telling us what it all adds up to" is ludicrously POV. It's disturbing that you deleted quotes favorable to Garlasco's side while adding this quote condemning him. This article must not be a coatrack for criticism of Garlasco and HRW (or defenses of him, for that matter). Fletcher (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t believe you are correct, in that you are privileging British style over American, and there are specific procedures on WP for that. Even if you were, you’ve used the style you champion incorrectly, simply adding punctuation after quote marks willy-nilly. If you have anything else that could go in aftermath section, I’d love to see it, particularly if it defended MG. I’m not after a “ludicrously POV” article (might want to move the mirror out of the way a bit), I’m after balance. And indeed, per Nableezy, I’m not restoring that piece until more discussion is had. Andwhat was it that disturbed you about the bit I removed? You are speaking of Hole? Did you feel that should stay in? IronDuke 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

About the punctuation, I believe the standard Wikipedia way is that if the quote contains the punctuation we include it within the quote, if not we dont. But really, of all the things to argue about, we are talking about where to place a comma? Really? Cmon maaiiin. nableezy - 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are your priorities? You disappoint me, sir. And in any case, the article ain't consistent on this point by any stretch. What kind of FA gnome are you? But... What would you like to argue about? Perhaps the Bears overpaying for an aging star? IronDuke 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Free Agent gnome says ugh. nableezy - 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't pushing British style as such, just the wiki style as I've seen it here. I guess it's ok to use the American style if the period is part of the quote. I'm neutral on the paragraph you removed (there were three quotes total not just Hole). It doesn't help much, doesn't hurt much. I'd be in favor of reducing the article's reliance on quoting various people's opinions, but it should be scaled back in a balanced way, not by removing quotes favorable to one side and adding new critical opinions. I don't have any new information to add to the Aftermath. Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Regarding the more measured "Gerald Steinberg, in an op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen, wrote that HRW had failed to provide any details about the findings of any investigation into the credibility of Garlasco's reports on Israeli human rights violations", did HRW state that there would be an investigation into the credibility of Garlasco's reports on Israeli human rights violations ? I thought that they stated that they stood by his findings. If that is the case then the sentence is misleading in that it suggests that HRW have failed to provide something that they agreed to provide. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I will look to see. If not, they should have. This situation reminds me a little of the situation in the U.N. when then Secretary-General of the United Nations- Kurt Waldheim was discovered to have been a Nazi. This reflected very poorly on the organization as a whole and put a new light on some of his condemnations of Israel, such as when he described the Israeli rescue of hijacked airline passengers at Entebbe, Uganda, as "a serious violation of the national sovereignty of a United Nations member state (meaning Uganda), or condemned Israel but not Syria for its invasion of Lebanon. This is not the same thing of course but in fairness we have to consider just how much MG's bias' may have contributed to his work for HRW with respect to Israel, just as it is similarly noted on the Waldheim biography. Stellarkid (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Steinberg article "When this behaviour was exposed in September, HRW announced it was suspending Garlasco "pending an investigation." Also here at UPICarroll Bogert, the group's associate director, told the Times Garlasco was suspended [with pay]"pending an investigation. We have questions about whether we have learned everything we need to know.". At The Guardian: We should have been completely straightforward and said there is a legitimate issue here. Should someone who collects this kind of stuff be investigating human rights in Israel?" Good question. Finally, from NPR "Human Rights Watch was "a little slow," Cobban says, in suspending Garlasco while it investigated his connections to the world of Nazi memorabilia collectors. Now, she says, "they're in a better position to take part in the public discussion in this country on what our government should be doing with regard to the Goldstone report." Apparently a report was promised, and that last comment implies that they have finished the investigation but if so, it has not been made public, I think?? So to reply to Sean.hoyland, it seems the sentence would stand, maybe expanded to include HRW's promise to investigate, thus providing more context. Stellarkid (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you need to distinguish investigating Garlasco from auditing all of his past work. The former was promised, not the latter. (Yet you would still expect HRW to make a public comment, which it hasn't). The investigation, as I understood it, was to see if there's any more conclusive evidence of bias. Perhaps if HRW turned up something new, it would lead to an audit. As it stands, Garlasco didn't do anything overtly wrong. It's just that his behavior would be consistent with someone who's biased against Jews, but there's no proof of it. It's kind of a test of whether your brain prefers inductive or deductive reasoning. Fletcher (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

His "behavior would be consistent with someone's who's biased against Jews." Right. I accept that. and that there is no proof of it as you say. Let me ask you this then: if you were a Jew in a dispute, would you want him to be your judge? Stellarkid (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I would be immensely impressed if HRW (or any other human rights org) managed to find someone able to generate information bias metrics for his (or anyone else's) reports based on deterministic methods. Claims of bias (or anything else) that don't use deterministic methods have little to no value (especially for a neutral encyclopedia). They would presumably also need to look at whether his collecting US military memorabilia and working in the Pentagon for years resulted in measurable evidence of bias in his reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan and whether his overtly and highly amusing anti-Hamas statements made in interviews resulted in measurable evidence of bias in his reporting about their actions. No one seems concerned about that though. It's a funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias is hard to objectively determine. The difference between his work for his reports in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they simply don't have that much impact on the world's biggest superpower (and dare I say, the world's most ethical country). Whereas the piling on on Israel does indeed have impact. It is only Israel's strength and determination to survive as consistently with its ethical principles as is realistic given its neighborhood that has led to her thriving despite the attempt of so many to delegitimize it. It is possible (and probable in my mind and the mind of other editors here) that HRW through (biased?) Garlasco was just another weapon to attack the Jewish State. Stellarkid (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing. nableezy - 05:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it deserves a response because it is relevant to the problematic coverage of HRW related material in wiki.

As a human rights organization a more obvious explanation would be that they just wanted to document things like hundreds of children being killed and hundreds of inaccurate rockets being fired at civilian areas in the hope that investigating and recording what happened might help to prevent it happening again. HRW tends to focus on countries where it thinks its reports have a realistic chance of producing change. That's a clear and measurable bias in their focus. They aren't the only org that use that somewhat controversial approach. There's a lot of nonsense and propaganda about HRW's reporting focus which unfortunately seems to influence editor behavior in wiki when it comes to HRW related material. It's a real pity because it means things get missed and neglected. They're a large organization and they produce a lot of output about all sorts of things most of which is missed. I imagine the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China and governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia etc are quite grateful to the likes of NGO Monitor. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The government of Saudi Arabia's main interaction with HRW is when the latter come to solicit money from the former to make reports against Israel with.

Your idea that HRW is free of any and all bias is a reflection of your own bias. The idea they tend to focus on countries where they think their reports have a realistic chance of producing change is also part of that bias, and contradicts what you're trying to say about NGO monitor. They focus mainly on Western countries because people like you encourage them to do so. They know you don't really care what happens anywhere else so they don't bother wasting resources. You won't put any pressure on your government to change how it's dealing with, say, Iran, but you will try to change how they deal with, say, Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you addressed me personally, my position on HRW isn't really relevant but for future reference and to correct some errors, it isn't an 'idea', it isn't mine, I didn't say they are free of bias because I can't and wouldn't even expect to be able to validate that statement based on data, I don't have the kind of bias you are referring to because I don't have beliefs about HRW (i.e. if you ask me a question about HRW you will either get 'I don't know', a guess presented as a guess or an answer based on the kind of data that's suitable for navigating through a decision tree with confidence). I don't have a government, I don't have a country, I don't live in the western world, I live where most people live, I'm often in those places you call 'anywhere else' so they aren't 'anywhere else' to me, HRW don't solicit or receive money from governments, the results of their work on Saudi Arabia are available on the web and what I was saying about the likes of NGO Monitor applies equally to what you are doing now. You're making statements based on ideas and beliefs rather than decent data and those ideas cause distractions and distortions here. It doesn't benefit wikipedia but I imagine that it does help take the focus off countries like China for which the CCP will be thankful.

Like I said, there's a lot of nonsense and propaganda about HRW which unfortunately seems to influence editor behavior in wiki. It's a pity because it has a noticeable impact on the quality and content (or lack of content) of various articles...lots of articles not just I-P ones. People shouldn't write about things they haven't properly researched or have strong emotional responses to that they can't control because it makes them susceptible to misinformation which puts the article content at risk. The academic position on successful propagandists is that they need the help of the people they're trying to influence and they need them to believe that what they're being told isn't surprising at all, it's just what they already thought all along. It's amazing how well it works in all sorts of places/circumstances, given the right ingredients it's self-assembling and self-sustaining. So many people volunteer their time for this kind of activity in wikipedia in all sorts of topic areas and it doesn't help the project. It would be better if they stopped and had a re-think. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That was funny. Particularly the bit about "the help of the people they're trying to influence and they need them to believe that what they're being told isn't surprising at all, it's just what they already thought all along". That's you, to a tee. Yeah, yeah, you like to tell people how neutral you are all the time. You should put it in your sig you say it so much. Your edits tell a different story though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very serious. If you think it's funny you should probably stop editing until you realise why it isn't funny. Like I've told you before, the neutrality of edits are pretty measurable. You can measure them and let editors know if you find evidence of problems. That would help the project. There isn't enough of that done. Trying to bait me is funny though. If you knew anything about me you wouldn't waste your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bait you. I'm just pointing out the obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, well, I'm not sure what you would hope to achieve by that. There are probably lots of things that you regard as obvious that I regard as retarded so unless you provide a reason for me to believe something you say there's no point in you saying it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I care what you believe. I was just countering the silly statements you were making about how wrong it is to criticize HRW, or at least to include such criticism in this encyclopedia. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That would be patently pointless. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have the knowledge that you are obligated to care about the statements I make to the extent that we are both Wikipedia editors and the hope that you will do so. It's wiki policy. Try to understand this, I don't have beliefs about HRW. I have access to information about and from HRW as do you and everyone else. You see the difference ? This is the same as saying that I don't have beliefs about Brazil. Had I made silly statements about how it is wrong to criticize HRW or an impressively sociopathic statement like 'HRW through (biased?) Garlasco was just another weapon to attack the Jewish State.' when in fact HRW write about real weapons used to attack and kill real people, Israelis, Palestinians, all sorts of people, you might have a point but I didn't. I see nothing wrong with criticizing HRW or including such criticism in this encyclopedia if it complies with policy. I said 'There's a lot of nonsense and propaganda about HRW's reporting focus'. The reason being that there are major discrepencies between what partisan sources say about HRW's reporting focus and their actual reporting focus. Anyone can convince me of anything if they provide the evidence to support it. So, it isn't pointless at all, it's quite easy. If I think an edit improves the encyclopedia and complies with policy I'll support it. I think that's how most editors work. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A. Hole para

Could somebody explain what is wrong with this paragraph? nableezy - 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It fails to exploit the comic potential of someone called A. Hole for a start. That may not be pertinent. Apart from that it seems fine. It's a balanced piece by the BBC, they picked who they regarded as appropriate information sources and it's summarised in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You want an exploitation of A. Hole? Here is an article from Ann Coulter doing just that. enjoy Just for the record, there was an R. Soule in my class in high school. A very nice fellow with an unfortunate handle. Stellarkid (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, who is Mr. Hole? And Militaria-net? Is that an RS for our purposes? Or is it enough to be quoted in passing in a newspaper? The Gerry Gable quote doesn't really seem rlevant now, does it? I've put the other quote back in, because I'm flexible like that. IronDuke 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems "rlevant" in lots of other places on Wikipedia to be referenced in a reliable newspaper or major media source, and this is. Your arguments smack of systematic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.198.4 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Militaria-net is not being cited, so I am not sure why you would ask if it is a reliable source. nableezy - 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently A. Hole is a seller of replica Nazi memorabilia. 10 points to his parents for the clairvoyance. Other than being mentioned once in a newspaper, how is his opinion notable again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont know that it is, though I dont know that matters. nableezy - 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nab, I'm confused (easily done). Do you or do you not think Hole is an RS for our purposes?IronDuke 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody(ies)(Clown & some anon IPs) seem to be edit warring this paragraph into the article. It is neither relevant nor interesting. Stellarkid (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it not relevant? nableezy - 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is dragging on... question posted to the RS noticeboard, see what someone else says. Fletcher (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of Malcolm Fisher's quote? His opinion seems notable and relevant, since he runs a militaria business. Factomancer (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that one; however I'm not sure it would be any more or less notable than the militaria-net guy, as he does too. Fletcher (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article on Garlasco in the Times

Nazi scandal engulfs Human Rights Watch 4 page article in the Times Online. Includes a photo with caption : "Marc Garlasco lost his job at Human Rights Watch over his enthusiasm for Third Reich memorabilia" Stellarkid (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - added one piece of information to the Aftermath section. Fletcher (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"pro-Israeli bloggers" row

yes the papers call the bloggers who looked into his past as "pro-Israeli" but they have a well known POV, which should not be endorsed here. After all, do people put "Pro-Palestine" or "anti-Israel" bloggers when a pro-Israel source labels them as such?Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a rational, policy based reason to change the terminology. It's not saying anything controversial, inaccurate or non-neutral. 'Pro-Israeli bloggers' is policy compliant. That's what they were and that's what the RS said they were. Endorsing editor's personal views such as "they have a well known POV, which should not be endorsed here" over an RS isn't how it works, you know that. If you have trouble complying with the discretionary sanctions you are required to walk away from the article. Comments like 'stop pushing your POV thru a proxy' are kind of annoying so I suggest you don't do that again. I can't see any policy based reason why I'm supposed to take your objections seriously. And why wouldn't we put "Pro-Palestine" or "anti-Israel" bloggers if that is what they clearly were and that is what the RS said ? I could understand there being an issue if a source called Alan Dershowitz a "Pro-Palestine" or "anti-Israel" blogger, we might want to query that and find other sources but a respectable RS calling a pro-Palestinian blogger a 'pro-Palestinian blogger' or a pro-Obama/Palin blogger a 'pro-Obama'/'pro-Palin' blogger etc isn't controversial or non-policy compliant at all.Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you give a few examples where you argued for the inclusion of "pro-Palestinian" or "anti-Israel"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No because I don't include material from or about pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel bloggers in Wikipedia. That's probably mostly because I don't even know any bloggers that would fit those descriptions. I try not to waste my time reading blogs about the I-P conflict when I can read blogs like Art Inconnu instead. Having said that I occasionally look at Forecast Highs which is quite good and Tikun Olam which I like. I'm not a combatant in the conflict so I don't have a hyper-sensitivity over these issues. When did being a pro-Israeli blogger become a pejorative term that people worry about by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If RS call them A then we say that X has called them A, thats how it works.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

While I find your description of which blogs you read quite riveting, you are sidestepping the question. But I think we both know the answer.

Anyway, being a pro-Israeli blogger is not a pejorative term. Including it in the article where usually such descriptors are not used is a pretty transparent attempt to influence the conclusions the reader will get.

You wouldn't be here repeatedly arguing for its inclusion if you didn't think it was important, now would you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have said if an RS says it we can repeat it, they c;early felt it was important, othehrwise they would not have written it. Its a descriptive term and is up to the reader to deteeremine its improtance, not for us.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, no, we don't both know the answer. I know the answer and you don't know the answer because apparently you can't. It's quite different. I'm sidestepping the question how exactly ? That seems like an odd statement given the evidence right in front of you in the words I wrote. I've already said that I would use the terms pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel if they appeared in the source and they made sense without any problems whatsoever. I said it quite plainly. I also told you that I don't include material from or about pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel bloggers in Wikipedia because I have zero interest in such things. The information I would like the reader to have access to in this case is the information present in the source which is a description of what happened. Of course it's important that it was pro-Israeli bloggers rather than pro-Wrestling bloggers or any old bloggers for fuck's sake just like it matters whether it was Hamas or the IDF firing a rocket. I'm fine with it being attributed to the source as Slatersteven has done or not attributed to the source. It doesn't matter to me but saying that it was pro-Israeli bloggers matters. It matters to the sources so it matters to the readers so it matters to me. This is entirely obvious. The conclusions readers reach based on that information are their own business. Whether it makes them feel pride and celebrate a success against HRW or it makes them feel sad and hate pro-Israeli bloggers is of no interest to me whatsoever. They will think what they think. One more thing, you need to stop trying model how I think, what my motivations are and expressing it. There are 3 reasons, 1. you are wasting your time, you won't get it right 2. this isn't a battlefield and most importantly 3. I'm asking you to stop. The third point means that you must stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to model how you think, I'm questioning your uneven application of policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Updating article as representative of Marc.

I've been asked by Marc to update this article with recent information on his behalf.

The most recent facts are from his op-ed in Washington Post, published on June 11.

I may at some point also contest and adjust some of the terminology used by previous editors to provide a slanted perspective that may violate BLP policies. Specifically I may contest the use of the term "Nazi'" to describe the medals Marc has collected.

For now it's just freshening with recent activities.

Thanks. Galen (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and be WP:BOLD. Keep in mind there are policies about what you can use an op-ed for, particularly Wikipedia:RSOPINION. I would also suggest you look at this page and the archive (there's a link near the top of the page on the right) for discussion about the use of the term "Nazi". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be bold within reason. I'll not add anything that doesn't have a citation behind it. How much does the citation need to be a third party news article, vs collateral proof? For example, I'm planning to add a bit about Marc's recent foray into lecturing, for NATO and a few other schools. There don't seem to be any articles written about his actual speeches, but the NATO Defense College's press release lists him as a lecturer for a panel. Galen (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That source can be used to say he gave a lecture to NATO, and that he's Senior Military Advisor to the International Commission of Inquiry on Libya in the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for example. Not much else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you could find a reliable source with information about his move from HRW to the UN, that would be a good addition as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Should this be a source that discusses the actual transition between HRW and the UN, or could the source be solely about his time at the UN? Galen (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there's a source discussing his transition that would be great, but your NATO source above is enough to establish that at the time it was written he had a particular position at the UN, for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a strong focus on collecting German military memorabilia from the 1933-1945 period will automatically raise the "Nazi" flag in many people's minds. It's not even a matter of what's theoretically technically correct or incorrect, it's just what a very large number of people can and do think. One could claim to be a simple Wehrmacht collector and period history buff, with no particular interest in ideological Nazism, but your man was enthusiastically gushing about the SS, which is one step closer to the specifically Nazi than the Wehrmacht... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, it is one step closer, and the association between WWII-era German and Nazi is nearly innate in our culture. However, people are unique and idiosyncratic. It's risky to judge their motivations based on associations. We can say, "People who love baseball talk about baseball," but if we say, "She's gushing about baseball; therefore, she loves baseball," we're affirming the consequent. Similarly, an argument by analogy might go, "Just because a person collects and goes on at length about baseball memorabilia doesn't mean he plays, or even likes, baseball." To continue the analogy, they might be something the individual collects solely because their grandfathers played baseball, one for the Red Sox, one for the Yankees. Another argument might be made that gushing about baseball memorabilia is not the same as gushing about baseball itself. I don't know Marc well, and having no hard evidence either way I'm in no place to make a judgement. However, I'm categorically opposed to drawing substantial conclusions about alleged bigotry without irrefutable evidence, and saying, "We don't understand why someone would collect memorabilia produced by the Nazis; therefore, they must be a Nazi," is an appeal to ignorance. Additionally, where bigotry is as close as we can get in Western society to a de facto crime, we need to extend rule-of-law provisions to our trials by jury: innocent until proven guilty must be sustained. In Marc's case, that means ensuring his public face on the internet, this Wikipedia article written by a jury of his peers, doesn't lead the audience to draw any potentially-refutable conclusions, which may have real consequences: ostracization and discrimination. In my case, I don't want to be accused of liking the Red Sox just because I love Fenway Park. :) Thoughts? Galen (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article is saying or even implying he is a Nazi. It's reporting on a controversy he was involved in over his collection of Nazi memorabilia. This is what was reported at the time by reliable sources.

I can give you some other analogies (I was thinking about one with a collection of balls), but really, it's irrelevant here. We go by what reliable sources report. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I see nothing about this matter in the Washington Post link... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The WP article is limited to his recent work for the UN in Libya and Afghanistan. Galen (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about the Nazi thing. That's the term most RS used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it's ad populum to surmise that because most RS used the term, it's valid or true. I'll review the discussion and see if there's any arguments unmade that would justify reviving the thread. Thank you all for the cordial welcome to this article! Galen (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's valid because most reliable sources used it. Whether it's true or not is a matter of interpretation. If you have any new arguments then feel free to make them.

I re-read the first two RS used to defend the word "Nazi" and both actually use the term "Nazi-era", as well as Nazi (NPR, NYT). Interestingly enough the NYT article uses the word Nazi until it actually describes the medals themselves, about which Garlasco wrote his book. It then describes the specific medals as "Nazi-era". Other RS do use "Nazi", including John Richardson who wrote in support of Marc, but as Wikipedia errs towards caution when dealing with Living Persons and as "Nazi-era" is a supportable option sans controversial connotations, it seems to be an excellent middle road. Thoughts? Galen (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, you added some information to the lead without adding corresponding information to the body of the article. See WP:LEAD for requirements. Please add the relevant information to the body of the article as well, otherwise someone might remove it from the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

them.

Excellent advice. Thank you. I'll create an additional section to Career with more robust information on Monday. Galen (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I stubbed out the UN career section. My Google searches show there's more detail to add, but I wanted to get the basics in there. Galen (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Galen -- the issue is really not whether Garlasco is himself a Nazi (which is something of a red herring) but whether his interest in collecting can be fairly described as an interest in collecting Nazi memorabilia. I realize that you would prefer not to have your man's name in close proximity to the word "Nazi" in any way, but after his gushing about SS memorabilia, and the nature of the resulting media coverage, that's all water under the bridge now... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, it's true Marc doesn't want to be associated with the word "Nazi". It appears his Grandfather (whose unit's medals Marc wrote a book about) was conscripted, was not a Nazi, and even became a pacifist after the war. His Grandfather's unit was not an SS unit – the Waffen-SS was an entirely different subsection that was not initially part of the Wehrmacht, and even when included in semi-joint exercises, was still not part of the Luftwaffe. Medals awarded to Marc's Grandfather's unit would have born the Swastika as a national symbol, but were not Nazi in nature any more than a medal awarded by George W. Bush is a Republican medal. That's all to argue Marc does not appear to have an interest in collecting Nazi memorabilia. It doesn't mean the RS didn't use the word Nazi frequently, nor does it mean Wikipedia's diction need include any words with strong bias attached to them. It seems "Nazi-era" might be an excellent option, because the medals were univocally from the Nazi-era, and Nazi-era does not inaccurately label the medals as Nazi themselves. As I noted above in discussion with No More Mr Nice Guy, RS use "Nazi-era" as well as Nazi. Thoughts on "Nazi" vs "Nazi-era"? Galen (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My first thought is that changing it first the coming to discuss it here, after you were told there's previous discussion about the issue that resulted in consensus was uncool.

My second thought is whether Garlasco is a Nazi or not is irrelevant since the article doesn't make the claim he is, or even imply it. The same goes for his grandfather. As a sidenote, your explanation about medals awarded to his grandfather's unit rings kinda hollow considering what his collection actually consists of and the excitement he showed over an SS jacket (the SS were proper Nazis, yes?). But again, all this is irrelevant.

Third, the suggestion of "Nazi-era" was made before, you can see it in the archive. The same arguments made then are still true now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

H'm, maybe I'm not using the archive correctly? I went to History, chose the latest revision and the very first, and then compared. I found a couple of references to Nazi-era, mostly in regards to the photo, and used to describe the memorabilia. One was even from you, saying Marc 'is involved in a bit of a controversy because he collects, shall we say "Nazi-era artifacts"'. I read all the comments around the mentions, and I didn't see any consensus against Nazi-era, nor any concensus for "Nazi". I changed the term before discussing, because you said I should be "WP:BOLD", and after reading that article it seemed to say, "Go for it – the change can be reverted or re-edited". Which is what happened. I hope you'll take my arguments and edits in WP:GOODFAITH. I'm not trying to be malicious here, but rather I'm looking for the most balanced way to render these facts without harming anyone, including Marc. Galen (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As you and AnonMoos have stated, the question isn't whether Marc is Nazi. I agree entirely. The question is whether Marc's name should be seen in proximity to the term "Nazi" or "Nazi-era" as warranted by his collection of memorabilia. RS have used both terms interchangeably, and it seems "Nazi-era" is less biased, and more objective, while describing the memorabilia accurately. I appreciate your taking the time to break me in here, and I hope we can continue this discussion. Galen (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion archive. See this section for a comprehensive list of the sources we had at the time. Not sure if there's any new stuff. You can clearly see that the vast majority of sources use "Nazi" and not "Nazi-era". You will also see most editors supported "Nazi" over anything else.

Someone who collects stuff with swastikas on it shouldn't be surprised if his name is seen in proximity to the term Nazi. As was mentioned in one of the discussions in the archives, he didn't even deny he collects Nazi memorabilia, he just explained why he collects what he does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. How do I find those on other Talk Pages?

I read through the section you linked (and the other sections, which seemed to go on ad infinitum). It looks like concensus was never reached. At one point you polled and tried to show concensus (A.Sniper + Slatersteven + IronDuke + Yourself vs L0b0t + Anon). By my count there were actually two IPs involved, and a more complex distribution of viewpoints. Here's what I got (I added my vote in as well):

Use Nazi-era or remove 'Nazi' altogether:

• L0b0t => Nazi-era, or WW2 German
  • Repeatedly
• 70.236.45.99 => Remove word Nazi (POV)
  • Repeatedly
• 68.78.0.78 => Nazi-era
  • 'Many of the sources do say "Nazi-era".'
• Galen => Nazi-era, or WW2 German
  • RS used to support term "Nazi" also use "Nazi-era".

Use Nazi with 'Alleged':

• Slatersteven => Remove word Nazi, or use the word alleged.
  • "I say eitehr remove the word Nazi (or NArrrzi) or include the word alledged." 14:32, 29 September 2009
• No More Mr Nice Guy => Use word alleged
  • "I completely agree with Slatersteven above."
  • "It says he is an alleged collector of Nazi memorabilia. That is both neutral and factually correct."

Use word 'Nazi':

• A.Sniper => Generally pro use of the word Nazi.
• IronDuke => Generally pro use of the word Nazi. Wants MG to deny collection is Nazi.

That's 3 for Nazi-era, 1 against the word Nazi flat out, 2 for Nazi with "alleged", and 2 for Nazi alone. So, I'm curious how the term "Nazi" without "alleged" came to be used now both in the sub-heading and in the lead. It seems at a minimum the word "alleged" should be in there as it would certainly be more neutral. "Nazi-era" wouldn't need the word "alleged" because no one contests that the collection is from that era.

I'm curious about how WP:NPOV applies here. It seems according to NPOV, quantity of RS counts more than editors' reasoning. What's more, in this case many RS were news organizations. I don't understand how we can consider news organizations as neutral themselves – wouldn't trusting them break NPOV immediately? Then, WP:ALLEGED says we should use "alleged" when "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". But collecting Nazi-era memorabilia isn't illegal and applying morality to that expertise or hobby seems impossible with our very-incomplete knowledge – so is that wrongdoing? How does a decision like this get made? Galen (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Previously, I changed the lead to say, "Garlasco was suspended by HRW with pay, “pending an investigation", on September 14, 2009 after it was alleged his collection of Nazi-era memorabilia biased his HRW research." Besides the "Nazi-era" term, was there anything else wrong with this statement? From my reading (countless articles at this point), it seems the controversy wasn't that he collected memorabilia he was an expert in, but that said expertise and collection affected his objectivity (which it COULD do if he collected it because it was Nazi – which he has explained is not true – he collects American and German memorabilia because of his family history). Many people collect controversial memorabilia, but few are in a position requiring objective observation. The sentence was supported by the RS cited. Can we re-insert that wording? Galen (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What is alleged is that he collected Nazi memorabilia, not that the memorabilia was Nazi. That's what Slatersteven said and I agreed with.

"Wrongdoing" doesn't have to be illegal. People are alleged to have cheated on their wives, for example.

And yes, NPOV relates to what sources say not what editors think. That's why an argument against using the word Nazi at all would be invalid, for example. Per WP:UNDUE, we should strive to represent things in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, which is why we should use "Nazi memorabilia" here. That's the term most reliable sources use.

I don't disagree with you on newspapers, but they are considered reliable sources here.

There's a yellow box near the top of the page on the right that says "archives", that's where you can find the archives. On other pages it might be somewhere else but always near the top before the actual discussion. I tried to point this out at the beginning of this discussion but may not have been specific enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it. So I'd like to re-add the word alleged into the text, first in the lead, and secondly in the section header. Any objections to adjusting the lead to explain he was suspended after it was alleged he collected "Nazi German memorabilia" (according to RS)? And secondly, any objections to adjusting the section header from "Suspension over Nazi memorabilia" to "Suspension over allegations"? He wasn't suspended for collecting memorabilia; he was suspended because bloggers alleged the collection could compromise his objectivity. Citation 3 (NPR) says, "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." Galen (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged definitely belongs in the lead. I'm pretty sure it was there at one point. Feel free to put it back.

I think "Suspension over allegations", is too general. We could do suspension over allegations of Nazi memorabilia collection, but that's a bit long. How about Nazi memorabilia controversy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I changed the lead. For the subhead, I'm brainstorming a few more RS supported options: "Suspension over controversy", "Suspension over alleged Nazi memorabilia", "Non-disciplinary Suspension", "Suspension over bias allegations". The last is the most accurate. Like RS have noted, he was suspended not because he had memorabilia, but because bloggers alleged his objectivity was compromised by the collection. The second-to-last option, also accurate, might be the best segway from HRW career into the suspension. Thoughts? Galen (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of those are either too general or plain imprecise. The last one isn't accurate either. He was suspended because they were supposedly going to investigate if he collects Nazi memorabilia or not. I don't recall HRW ever saying they're going to investigate bias in their reports. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to update this article

The article about Marc Garlasco is outdated and needs to be updated.

This to my mind includes three steps:

1: a summary of his carreer steps more than a decade ago. The amount of detail now in the description of his work for the Pentagon and of his work for HRW seems unnecessary long and - as has been argued many times before - one sided. Comparing Mr/ Garlasco's page to that of other people with similarly interesting carreers would make it more appropriate if his past work was summarised in one or two paragraphs. FOr example, one para on Pentagon. One para on HRW.

2. A summary should still mention 'the controversy', but much shorter and with the right context. As agued before, there is a multitude of sources confirmin ghtat Mr. Garlasco has no tNazi sympathies and that there is sufficient evidence that Mr. Garlasco is cirtical of all parties that, according to him, harm civilians during hostilities. he has written extensively on harm caused by Israel, Hamas, Taliban, NATO, Serbia, the US, Iraq, ... Yet the unsubstantiated, 14 year old suggestion that Garlasco would be anti-Israel, or anti-semitic is getting a disproportional amount of attention. The logical way to solve this is to summarise to 1 paragraph explaining the fact that came to light, the response from Garlasco and HRW.

3. New entries should be allowed to add information on the carreer of Mr. Garlasco after 2012, or similar size to the information on much older work. SO, let's say one para on his work with the UN, one on on misscelaneous and one on his current work at PAX. Allwilbert (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Care to suggest some new matreial? Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

For step 1 I did suggest a summarised text about his time at Pentagon. But that got reverted. By you Slatersteven? I'm new to this so please let me know why. And how the process works to get this done. Do I post it here first, for review? Review by whom? Thanks Allwilbert (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You removed a lot of cited content. Also I asked about new material, not removing "out of date" material. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)