Talk:Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL)

Article title

@Thatwhichmay: I reverted your move. As the first sentence of the article points out, yes, Gallagher is a member of the US Navy, and thus it is technically correct to refer to him as a sailor. It's perfectly correct to refer to him as a soldier, too, and this is much less misleading, since "sailor" leads to a picture of "guy who helps sail a boat." Article titles don't need to be hyper-precise like Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL accused of war crimes. If we REALLY had to indicate which branch of service he was in - which we don't currently - (US Navy) would be a better disambiguator anyway than "sailor". SnowFire (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I strongly recommend changing Soldier back to Sailor or US Navy. Largely because calling Chief Gallagher a Soldier takes away from the legitimacy of the article. Any member of the US Armed Force will see this and immediately treat the article as suspect. The US Military clearly makes the distinction between Solider(US Army), Sailor(US Navy), Airman (US Air Force), and Coastguardsman (US Coast Guard). These are not generalized terms, they actually have significant meaning and using them incorrectly is not only disrespectful to the histories of those organizations but can lead to confusion in terms of which Service is involved. The US Marines fall under the US Navy as well as the SEABEES, each of these organizations play a significant role in ground combat, yet they are Sailors. Try calling a Marine a Soldier and see what happens. The distinction here is significant.--Qst4 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia not the American Wikipedia... Soldier is more appropriate for disambiguation purposes. Within the piece the subject should be called a sailor though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

He is a member of the "United States" Navy not the "World" Navy, not the "English" Navy, not the "Tibetan" Navy. There is a long standing standard in place for categorizing US Service Members. He is a member of the United States Navy and should be classified as a Sailor or not at all. Since the rest of the article labels him as a member of the US Navy, what purpose does it serve to call him a Soldier in the title? That doesn't sound like an attempt to be disambiguous. The term "soldier" should be dropped from the title. I'll point to the title for William Calley [1] as an example.--Qst4 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t mean to be insulting but you lack a basic understanding of how wikipedia works, please review Wikipedia:Disambiguation before continuing this line of reasoning. If we want to be specific Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) (as suggested by SnowFire) would be the way to go, its less confusing than Sailor and is technically correct on all levels but I honestly don’t see a compelling argument to make that change. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

it's important to make a distinction as a Soldier is not a Sailor and the page may lose legitimacy if one who is actually familiar with the subject material. He may be a "soldier" in the broadest sense of the term, but being senstitive in language is absolutely necessary especially given how "high profile" the case --Thatwhichmay (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thatwhichmay: Well, we're in luck, because "the broadest sense of the term" soldier was exactly what the sense it was being used. Think of your audience as a 13-year old person in Singapore or the like if it helps. Nearly any member of the armed services is a soldier, that's sufficient. If we really hate (soldier), would (Navy SEAL) or (US Navy member) work? Those are a lot more clear than "sailor" and less misleading IMO.

Qst4: Unfortunately, there's quite a few other Ed Gallaghers, including Eddie Gallagher (footballer). So "Eddie Gallagher" straight-up is not an option unless he becomes vastly more notable than the footballer and thus the primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was moved again. I'm surprised that "soldier" is really provoking that much of a response from people thinking it misrepresents SEALs, but could just be me. Maybe (US Navy) would be better after all? Category:United States Navy SEALs personnel uses "(Navy SEAL)" it seems, so that's an option as well. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We do need a disambiguation, and IMO "soldier" is fine because it is often used as a generic term for members of the military. "Sailor" is inappropriate; SEALS are virtually never referred to as "sailors". "U.S. Navy" or "Navy SEAL" would be possible, but I see nothing wrong with "soldier". In the meantime there should be no more moves of the article without discussion and consensus. If it happens again I will move-protect the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cateau63: See the above discussion. It is not soldier as in "member of the US Army" but soldier as in "anybody in any military." That said, you aren't the only person who dislikes "soldier". If you feel strongly about it, I can open a formal move request discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. That said, if moved at all, something like (Navy SEAL) would be the disambiguation used, not plain SEAL. SnowFire (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Lets just move it to Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL), I think we have consensus for a move and near consensus on a the new name. On a side note I think its important to keep in mind that with a politically charged page like this some people are going to object to the name no matter what it is, especially because its a military page and wikipedia is full of armchair generals. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm fine with moving to (Navy SEAL) if it ends the endless page moves (despite originally picking "soldier" myself). @MelanieN:, any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I would lean more toward (U.S. Navy) for a couple of reasons. One, we don't usually give a person's rank or unit or other such identifier in the article title; I can't think of another example. Two, just because we know what a SEAL is doesn't mean that most readers do. And three, since this is a kind of controversial article - he is being courtmartialed for possible murder after all - I'm not sure we want to make such a huge point about him being a SEAL. Some people might take it as trying to smear the whole force. I'm not totally against (Navy SEAL), but I'd like to raise these points for consideration and see what people think. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong; there are several people at Category:United States Navy SEALs personnel that are disambiguated using (Navy SEAL). So this is not unheard of. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of existing pages that use (Navy SEAL): Robert J. O'Neill (Navy SEAL), Don Shipley (Navy SEAL), and William Owens (Navy SEAL). There are many examples beyond that but I think the point is proven. As I said before literally any name will be taken as a slight or a smear by someone, it isnt wikipedia policy that a name must satisfy everyone. Doing a cursory search I can’t find any names that use (US navy) for disambiquation purposes, have you found any? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I will go along with (Navy SEAL) since it isn't as unusual as I thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And now that it is at a consensus title I will move-protect it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Image

@Thatwhichmay: Since you added the image to the article - do you know who uploaded that image to Commons? Was it you? I've opened Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChiefGallagherInCombat-700x438.jpg after waiting a few days after pinging the uploader there - it's possible this is a "good" image in that it's freely licensed, but there currently isn't enough information to ascertain that. Hopefully this image can be fixed rather than deleted... SnowFire (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

    @SnowFire: No, I did not upload this image. Thatwhichmay (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ChiefGallagherInCombat-700x438.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Year of birth

@SnowFire:, I disagree with your removal of his year of birth. Birthdate is a vital piece of information for a biography, usually included in the first sentence, right after the name. In some cases we do not know their exact date of birth, but we know from a Reliable Source article how old they were at the time that article was written. This can be used to estimate (not guess) the year of birth within one year, which is indicated with “c.” or “circa” meaning approximately. See MOS:CIRCA. Knowing he was 39 in April 2019 means he was born in either 1979 or 1980. With April being less than halfway through the year, we assume he hasn’t had his birthday yet and will be turning 40 later in 2019, so we list his birth year as 1979. That is not a certainty - it is a guess based on the odds - which is why we label it “c.”. For other examples of this practice see Ronne Froman, Laura Yeager, or Jeff Berry (mixologist). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm familiar with "circa", yes. I think that if we write a birth year here and it turns out to be wrong, it will have bad effects - rebound through the Internet and cause citogenesis, making it harder to suss out the real birth year due to people using Wikipedia's guessed birth year, and possibly even a boomerang for news stories by bloggers who don't care about accuracy and will write "Wikipedia caught fabricating birthdays". If you think we absolutely must have this data, let's spell it out so there's no risk of error: "born 1979 or 1980" rather than the skippable "c."

Note, I'm guilty of this as well. I invented "1217" as a wild guess death year and felt better about it by slapping a "c." on it at David of Dinant many years ago, but I think I was wrong in retrospect, and should have just used fl. . But I'm sure the 1217 date has now circulated through the Internet, and it's too late to stop that. SnowFire (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your concerns are unjustified (CIRCA is a widely used guideline here and everywhere, and you are the first person I have ever heard to express concern about it). But if you feel that strongly about it, we can say "born 1979 or 1980" and restore the category as "year of birth unknown". I do think we need to get this information into the article in some way. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, MOS:CIRCA does say that "When a date is known to be either of two years" to use the "born x or y" method. My concern about using "c." is more for living people in the news - I think "circa" is fine for historical figures, and readers will need to know what circa means anyway if they're reading about history. This is less true for low-information readers checking up a recent news story. SnowFire (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I second snowfire’s concerns about citogenesis, especially as the subject is currently in the headlines. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with "born 1979 or 1980" which is now in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Governments violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

The charge he was found guilty of will be tossed because of the government spying on the defense emails. A direct violation of the search part of the 4th Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything in a reliable source that says this (aka not-a-blog)? This talk page is for improvement of the Wikipedia article not general discussion of the case, so this needs to lead to adjusting or changing the article somehow. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Constitution of the United States is the reliable source. It is a historical document over 200 years old. Searching e mails is the same thing as breaking in your house and reading documents in your desk 200 years ago . Illegal way to gain information. When the governments prosecutor put the shadow tags on the e mails he violated the Constitution. That is why he was removed in disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP issue with witness?

@Yoninah: Question about this edit: [2] . You removed the name of the witness who changed his story, citing a "BLP issue" - I haven't restored it just yet, but what exactly is the BLP issue here? We definitely have references and entire stories that both name the witness and write that it's possible he'll be tried for perjury if the prosecution is really adamant. Said witness is a public figure now so it's not like this is juvenile court with redacted names (and his name is already in the article anyway...). Am I missing something here? SnowFire (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't name living people who are peripheral to the subject who have been accused but not convicted of a crime. Sure, the reader can click on your cites and see his name for themselves. We do the same on crime articles, where people peripheral to the crime (like the perpetrator's parents) are not named per BLP. Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I edited the other places he was mentioned. Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Eh, not seeing it. If we completely ignore the potential crime charge, it would still be relevant to discuss this person - they provided dramatic testimony that got Gallagher off. That doesn't seem "peripheral" or at all comparable to relatives like parents; it's closer to Jacob Portier, who was intimately involved in the allegations. It's important to be very clear about what happened; there were multiple medics involved here, so leaving his name out and just talking about "the medic" can lead to a potentially misleading article. Per WP:BLPNAME, "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." - it absolutely does here.

This is also a more minor note - the above is my main argument - but from a nitpicky standpoint, "accused but not convicted" doesn't work here (at least for the murder aspect, not the perjury aspect). Since the witness had immunity, they CAN'T be convicted of murder. They did, however, confess, which is about as close as is possible here. "Convicted" isn't everything, plenty of cases where this requirement is waived when it isn't feasible (suspects who are already dead but blatantly guilty, suspects who fled jurisdiction, etc.). SnowFire (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. I'm not the expert here; I'm only doing what I've seen on other articles and talk pages. You could go ahead and revert my changes; we'll see if someone calls it out when it appears on the main page. BTW I expedited its appearance so it's running tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I do agree that if it had been just a normal witness, it'd be a lot more borderline a case where erring on the side of caution made sense, but I think including the name is safe & ethical here. SnowFire (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

his pingas

xsources