Talk:Marc Garlasco

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

message: Could somebody explain what is wrong with this paragraph? nableezy - 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It fails to exploit the comic potential of someone called A. Hole for a start. That may not be pertinent. Apart from that it seems fine. It's a balanced piece by the BBC, they picked who they regarded as appropriate information sources and it's summarised in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You want an exploitation of A. Hole?  Here is an article from Ann Coulter doing just that.  enjoy Just for the record, there was an R. Soule in my class in high school.  A very nice fellow with an unfortunate handle. Stellarkid (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, who is Mr. Hole? And Militaria-net? Is that an RS for our purposes? Or is it enough to be quoted in passing in a newspaper? The Gerry Gable quote doesn't really seem rlevant now, does it? I've put the other quote back in, because I'm flexible like that. IronDuke 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems "rlevant" in lots of other places on Wikipedia to be referenced in a reliable newspaper or major media source, and this is.  Your arguments smack of systematic bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.198.4 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Militaria-net is not being cited, so I am not sure why you would ask if it is a reliable source. nableezy - 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently A. Hole is a seller of replica Nazi memorabilia. 10 points to his parents for the clairvoyance. Other than being mentioned once in a newspaper, how is his opinion notable again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know that it is, though I dont know that matters. nableezy - 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nab, I'm confused (easily done). Do you or do you not think Hole is an RS for our purposes?IronDuke 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

message: Nazi scandal engulfs Human Rights Watch  4 page article in the Times Online.  Includes a photo with caption : "Marc Garlasco lost his job at Human Rights Watch over his enthusiasm for Third Reich memorabilia"  Stellarkid (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link - added one piece of information to the Aftermath section. Fletcher (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article on Garlasco in the Times 

message: The article about Marc Garlasco  is outdated and needs to be updated. 
This to my mind includes three steps:
1: a summary of his carreer steps more than a decade ago. The amount of detail now in the description of his work for the Pentagon and of his work for HRW seems unnecessary long and  - as has been argued many times before - one sided. Comparing Mr/ Garlasco's page to that of other people with similarly interesting carreers would make it more appropriate if his past work was summarised in one or two paragraphs. FOr example, one para on Pentagon. One para on HRW. 
2. A summary should still mention 'the controversy', but much shorter and with the right context. As agued before, there is a multitude of sources confirmin ghtat Mr. Garlasco has no tNazi sympathies and that there is sufficient evidence that Mr. Garlasco is cirtical of all parties that, according to him, harm civilians during hostilities. he has written extensively on harm caused by Israel, Hamas, Taliban, NATO, Serbia, the US, Iraq, ... Yet the unsubstantiated, 14 year old suggestion that Garlasco would be anti-Israel, or anti-semitic is getting a disproportional amount of attention. The logical way to solve this is to summarise to 1 paragraph explaining the fact that came to light, the response from Garlasco and HRW. 
3. New entries should be allowed to add information on the carreer of Mr. Garlasco after 2012, or similar size to the information on much older work. SO, let's say one para on his work with the UN, one on on misscelaneous and one on his current work at PAX.  Allwilbert (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to suggest some new matreial? Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For step 1 I did suggest a summarised text about his time at Pentagon. But that got reverted. By you Slatersteven? I'm new to this so please let me know why. And how the process works to get this done. Do I post it here first, for review? Review by whom? Thanks Allwilbert (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed a lot of cited content. Also I asked about new material, not removing "out of date" material. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to update this article