Talk:Marc Garlasco

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)

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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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." — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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)

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)

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. [9]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)

About "88"

I see that an editor has added a speculative section about the significance of "88" ([10]). I've removed it, for reasons mentioned here: [11].

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)." [12]. 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)

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. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|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 [13] 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)

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)

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)