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)

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)