![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on September 8 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 13 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Four foreign language Wikipedias have well-established biographies of this man whose work is copiously cited throughout English Wikipedia. The time has come for him to have his own article in English. CurtisNaito ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Ganser does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a biography article. His biography is basically a one-liner, he got a PhD in history and wrote a book. If the book is notable, write an article about the book and argue WP:BK instead of WP:BIO. But this article basically has "he wrote a book and two articles, all about false-flag conspiracy theories, and here's every review of the book we could find". I am sorry, but this is clearly a vanity entry. Even the photograph was apparently uploaded by Ganser himself. We have ample coverage of this type of conspiracey theory, and if the book or articles are relevant, they can be duly mentioned there in context, but this is nowhere near WP:BIO material. -- dab (𒁳) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I already note that the article has already been deleted, back in 2008. Already back then it was a clear vanity entr. CurtisNaito ( talk · contribs) re-created the in 2013. I do not see any indication that the notability situation has changed between 2008 and 2013, indeed all sources cited seem to predate 2008. If anything this would make the topic less notable than it used to be when it was still halfway about "current events". -- dab (𒁳) 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Alone, what is happening in German Wikipedia (Edit war about Ganser Article) is Korrumption der Gesamten Wikipedia und Brainwash like O.'s 1894. Thanks for this good Ganser entry in English. The German entry is schlicht und ergreifend katastrophal. O.'s 1984. God have mercy. And you please for my little English. I am sorry I wrote into Article, Wiki is not running well on my mobile and ich war verwirrt, would one be so nice to remove, cant find the switch button back to entry. Tx:-* What I wanted to say: Ganser IS relevant to Wikipedia, due to both the worth of his brave work and the actual scandal around Wikipedia itself. Wath documentary film Zensur. Zitronenknoedel ( talk) 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article categorized Ganser as both a conspiracy theorist and 9/11 conpiracy theorist. Yes, he has contributed to a critical book which was mostly written by historians. And yes, he considers alternative theories, too. That does not mean he favors them and makes them the only truth. -- Zz ( talk) 10:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This article says that Ganser: "The U.S. State Department stated in 2006 that Ganser had been taken in by long-discredited Cold-War era disinformation and "fooled by the forgery". In an article about the Gladio/stay-behind networks and US Army Field Manual 30-31B they stated, "Ganser treats the forgery as if it was a genuine document in his 2005 book on “stay behind” networks, Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe and includes it as a key document on his Web site on the book." [17]" In the article on the Field Manual 30-31b it doesn't say it's for sure that it was a forgery. Do you think this article should mention that, in order to be NPOV? Popish Plot ( talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Now the article is more balanced with also some positive voices about Gansers work. Before the article was one sided negative. I understand its not easy because different viewpoints hit each other here. Please try to keep the article balanced, thats just fair, as I said you find positive or negative voices if you are just willing to. Its unfair to call anyone conspiracy theorist. If you dont like the conspiracy theories go and fight them, not the messenger/researcher as a person. Spearmind ( talk) 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
would you please evaluate the researches of this scientist:
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-ii-aspo.html
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/11/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-iii.html
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-i-anti.html
thank you
79.197.67.163 ( talk) 20:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
RE this request: I, as a natural scientist, was curious, but find these texts extremely painful to read, they dilute any message they may contain in far too much background information for my taste. Hence, if you really feel this information should be integrated into the article, please act upon this feeling, and summarize them here. Michi zh ( talk) 11:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Kevin Barrett and his American Empire book is a morass of poorly sourced 911 conspiracy theory. It is not a suitable ref to be used in a BLP. It is not reliable. Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a section that has Ganser criticised for using hoax documents. The sentence used the phrase 'for basing some of his conclusions'. This does not conform to the ref which supports the sentence which reads: "One of the important documents that Ganser bases his claim of the big conspiracy on". I changed edit to "key" from "some". That seems to summarize the ref accurately. We could instead just quote. The formulation "some of his conclusions" is not WP:Verified. It does not conform to the ref. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean the US Army Field Manual in this article? /info/en/?search=US_Army_Field_Manual_30-31B ? Popish Plot ( talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no support for this inclusion that I can see. Is this WP:SYN? Is it Original Research? I can't tell. What is the basis for this inclusion, (aside from the obvious attempt to rubbish the author). Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The ref fails. Nothing in the first 50 pages of the book (or page 142) supports the assertion that the book is "based particularly off information from parliamentary inquiries in Italy and Belgium". While there is much discussion of those inquiries at those pages, there is quite literally nothing supporting that statement. That means it fails the core Wikipedia pillar of Verification. Worse, we actually have RS refs currently in the article directly contradict the statement. Other academics state (in whithering criticism) that Ganser based his book primarily off newspaper accounts. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Daniele Ganser's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ganser":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There was a deletion review of this article. To quote review: "The result was no consensus. Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)"
The clear implication, and simple reading of the discussion leads to the conclusion that this should be merged. In fact, six months ago the merger was proposed. No one has disagreed. Now the redirect has been reversed. Lets discuss. Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It might be interesting to know that the German article about Dr. Ganser caused a more than mild scandal in the German chapter. The controvery circles around the category "conspiracy theorist" that the Ganser article is broken under. Also, the introcuctory paragraph has led to a long-lasting edit war, when users wanted to change the sentence 1. "Er greift Verschwörungstheorien zum 11. September 2001 auf und stellt sie als von Historikern zu prüfende Erklärungsansätze dar." (He takes up conspiration theories concerning 9/11 and presents them as scientific approaches that are worth being evaluated by historians" (translation might not get all the implications) into a more neutral presentation of Ganser´s work: 2. "Ganser befasst sich außerdem kritisch mit den Anschlägen des 11. September 2001." (Ganser also deals/ works on critically with/ is also occupied with the attacks on 9/11). Attempts to edit the more neutral version have failed, regardless of numerous complaints on the discussion page and every user´s account that tried to edit the second version (2) [1] was immediately banned infinetely. Most of the time the article is closed for users´s edits , in October the Discussion page [2] has been under close supervision and editors are warned to be sanctioned at once if their edits are not within the now valid rules. On October, 25th, 2015, a documentary, directed by Biology teacher Marcus Fiedler from Oldenburg, was launched on youtube (teaser: [3] which used the Ganser article to explain the obscure structures of the German wikipedia, (full film [4]). It shows how a number of "inner-circle" administrators - dispite enourmous criticism from within the community and their fellows as well as from outside - use the means of blaming others of vandalism, of banning, reverting and hiding edits rather abritarily, misusing their power and not acting according to the community`s rules. This film has caused great outrage in part of the community and led to a huge number of fake accounts, hundreds of bans, overworked administration unable to deal with this situation (as far as I see it) inside the Wikipedia. There is the official policy to delete the mentioning of the film and to kick every (new) user out who refers to Ganser or the film. Outside Wikipedia, a campaign has started, aimed to change the illucit, predemocratic structures of Wikipedia in favour of a greater transparency on behalf of the administration, on "change.org". The petition demands "clear" (real) names, arguing that the well-established " Brockhaus" (equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica) has ceased to publish in 2014, so that Wikipedia has actually taken over the role of a monopolist in the field of encyclopedic work, which demands an extremely sensitive and responsible handling. Anonymous reverts and bans as regarded as counterproductive and undemocratic. - By the way, I am also banned on German Wikipedia. Why? On Thursday I wanted to inform rhe interested group of users on the discussion page about the talk Dr. Ganser was to hold on Witten University (North-Rhine-Westfalia) [5]. Its subject was the question of the power media have today and how to form one´s own opinion, [6]. As I´m an attentive person, with a more than delicate history as to censorship vs. free press, denouncing and misusing power in my homecountry Germany, I´m actually getting paranoic. And I do hope nobody will ban me for this edit. At least not infinetely as they ( MWExpert ( Diskussion) Benutzer:MBq did here and with many other users whose only crime was to mention the name "Ganser" or the film, as the "official policy" is to censor any information about this film with all means [7] [8]----- A whiter shade ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"[...]As I´m a German with a more than delicate history as to censorship vs. free press [...]" I am a German and I find this comment needless. Take a look at the United Kingdom, the case of The Guardian and documents given by Snowden. They forced to destroy all their back-ups. Even all the dictatorships in the world. Free press is an illusion. Especially nobody knows the projetct by British Empire 1900-1914 to started the war, its "divide et impera"-policy divides germans and jewish people, McKinder strategy of dividing Germany and Russia. All this actions by the british government is "canceled" in the "official" history. That's delicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.138.16 ( talk) 17:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daniele Ganser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The expression "History and Future of Energy Systems" may be confusing, as it may lead readers to believe that "History" and "Future of Energy Systems" are two actual and separate courses, while Mr. Ganser is listed as "lecturer in critical thinking" at the University of Sankt Gallen. Also, according to the variant of this article in German, Mr. Ganser attended "Rudolf Steiner" school. In case the article is conformal, it may be worth considering a mention, as the school and the movement inherit a tendency towards esotericism. In addition, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule and the University of Zürich have distanced themselves from Mr. Ganser's theories on "September 11" in 2006, while the University of Basel has demanded that this subject is not included in lectures and forbidden Mr. Ganser to hold personal presentations in their name and premises in 2011 following a presentation on this matter. lmaxmai ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
In the table one can read:
"accusing NATO of "false flag" terrorist operations"
This viololates (among others) wikipedia neutrality policy and should be taken away immediately.
Thanks for your opinions 0xkev ( talk) 13:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This viololatesWhy? How? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on September 8 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 13 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Four foreign language Wikipedias have well-established biographies of this man whose work is copiously cited throughout English Wikipedia. The time has come for him to have his own article in English. CurtisNaito ( talk) 03:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Ganser does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a biography article. His biography is basically a one-liner, he got a PhD in history and wrote a book. If the book is notable, write an article about the book and argue WP:BK instead of WP:BIO. But this article basically has "he wrote a book and two articles, all about false-flag conspiracy theories, and here's every review of the book we could find". I am sorry, but this is clearly a vanity entry. Even the photograph was apparently uploaded by Ganser himself. We have ample coverage of this type of conspiracey theory, and if the book or articles are relevant, they can be duly mentioned there in context, but this is nowhere near WP:BIO material. -- dab (𒁳) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I already note that the article has already been deleted, back in 2008. Already back then it was a clear vanity entr. CurtisNaito ( talk · contribs) re-created the in 2013. I do not see any indication that the notability situation has changed between 2008 and 2013, indeed all sources cited seem to predate 2008. If anything this would make the topic less notable than it used to be when it was still halfway about "current events". -- dab (𒁳) 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Alone, what is happening in German Wikipedia (Edit war about Ganser Article) is Korrumption der Gesamten Wikipedia und Brainwash like O.'s 1894. Thanks for this good Ganser entry in English. The German entry is schlicht und ergreifend katastrophal. O.'s 1984. God have mercy. And you please for my little English. I am sorry I wrote into Article, Wiki is not running well on my mobile and ich war verwirrt, would one be so nice to remove, cant find the switch button back to entry. Tx:-* What I wanted to say: Ganser IS relevant to Wikipedia, due to both the worth of his brave work and the actual scandal around Wikipedia itself. Wath documentary film Zensur. Zitronenknoedel ( talk) 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article categorized Ganser as both a conspiracy theorist and 9/11 conpiracy theorist. Yes, he has contributed to a critical book which was mostly written by historians. And yes, he considers alternative theories, too. That does not mean he favors them and makes them the only truth. -- Zz ( talk) 10:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This article says that Ganser: "The U.S. State Department stated in 2006 that Ganser had been taken in by long-discredited Cold-War era disinformation and "fooled by the forgery". In an article about the Gladio/stay-behind networks and US Army Field Manual 30-31B they stated, "Ganser treats the forgery as if it was a genuine document in his 2005 book on “stay behind” networks, Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe and includes it as a key document on his Web site on the book." [17]" In the article on the Field Manual 30-31b it doesn't say it's for sure that it was a forgery. Do you think this article should mention that, in order to be NPOV? Popish Plot ( talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Now the article is more balanced with also some positive voices about Gansers work. Before the article was one sided negative. I understand its not easy because different viewpoints hit each other here. Please try to keep the article balanced, thats just fair, as I said you find positive or negative voices if you are just willing to. Its unfair to call anyone conspiracy theorist. If you dont like the conspiracy theories go and fight them, not the messenger/researcher as a person. Spearmind ( talk) 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
would you please evaluate the researches of this scientist:
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-ii-aspo.html
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/11/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-iii.html
http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-i-anti.html
thank you
79.197.67.163 ( talk) 20:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
RE this request: I, as a natural scientist, was curious, but find these texts extremely painful to read, they dilute any message they may contain in far too much background information for my taste. Hence, if you really feel this information should be integrated into the article, please act upon this feeling, and summarize them here. Michi zh ( talk) 11:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Kevin Barrett and his American Empire book is a morass of poorly sourced 911 conspiracy theory. It is not a suitable ref to be used in a BLP. It is not reliable. Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a section that has Ganser criticised for using hoax documents. The sentence used the phrase 'for basing some of his conclusions'. This does not conform to the ref which supports the sentence which reads: "One of the important documents that Ganser bases his claim of the big conspiracy on". I changed edit to "key" from "some". That seems to summarize the ref accurately. We could instead just quote. The formulation "some of his conclusions" is not WP:Verified. It does not conform to the ref. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean the US Army Field Manual in this article? /info/en/?search=US_Army_Field_Manual_30-31B ? Popish Plot ( talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no support for this inclusion that I can see. Is this WP:SYN? Is it Original Research? I can't tell. What is the basis for this inclusion, (aside from the obvious attempt to rubbish the author). Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The ref fails. Nothing in the first 50 pages of the book (or page 142) supports the assertion that the book is "based particularly off information from parliamentary inquiries in Italy and Belgium". While there is much discussion of those inquiries at those pages, there is quite literally nothing supporting that statement. That means it fails the core Wikipedia pillar of Verification. Worse, we actually have RS refs currently in the article directly contradict the statement. Other academics state (in whithering criticism) that Ganser based his book primarily off newspaper accounts. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Daniele Ganser's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ganser":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There was a deletion review of this article. To quote review: "The result was no consensus. Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)"
The clear implication, and simple reading of the discussion leads to the conclusion that this should be merged. In fact, six months ago the merger was proposed. No one has disagreed. Now the redirect has been reversed. Lets discuss. Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It might be interesting to know that the German article about Dr. Ganser caused a more than mild scandal in the German chapter. The controvery circles around the category "conspiracy theorist" that the Ganser article is broken under. Also, the introcuctory paragraph has led to a long-lasting edit war, when users wanted to change the sentence 1. "Er greift Verschwörungstheorien zum 11. September 2001 auf und stellt sie als von Historikern zu prüfende Erklärungsansätze dar." (He takes up conspiration theories concerning 9/11 and presents them as scientific approaches that are worth being evaluated by historians" (translation might not get all the implications) into a more neutral presentation of Ganser´s work: 2. "Ganser befasst sich außerdem kritisch mit den Anschlägen des 11. September 2001." (Ganser also deals/ works on critically with/ is also occupied with the attacks on 9/11). Attempts to edit the more neutral version have failed, regardless of numerous complaints on the discussion page and every user´s account that tried to edit the second version (2) [1] was immediately banned infinetely. Most of the time the article is closed for users´s edits , in October the Discussion page [2] has been under close supervision and editors are warned to be sanctioned at once if their edits are not within the now valid rules. On October, 25th, 2015, a documentary, directed by Biology teacher Marcus Fiedler from Oldenburg, was launched on youtube (teaser: [3] which used the Ganser article to explain the obscure structures of the German wikipedia, (full film [4]). It shows how a number of "inner-circle" administrators - dispite enourmous criticism from within the community and their fellows as well as from outside - use the means of blaming others of vandalism, of banning, reverting and hiding edits rather abritarily, misusing their power and not acting according to the community`s rules. This film has caused great outrage in part of the community and led to a huge number of fake accounts, hundreds of bans, overworked administration unable to deal with this situation (as far as I see it) inside the Wikipedia. There is the official policy to delete the mentioning of the film and to kick every (new) user out who refers to Ganser or the film. Outside Wikipedia, a campaign has started, aimed to change the illucit, predemocratic structures of Wikipedia in favour of a greater transparency on behalf of the administration, on "change.org". The petition demands "clear" (real) names, arguing that the well-established " Brockhaus" (equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica) has ceased to publish in 2014, so that Wikipedia has actually taken over the role of a monopolist in the field of encyclopedic work, which demands an extremely sensitive and responsible handling. Anonymous reverts and bans as regarded as counterproductive and undemocratic. - By the way, I am also banned on German Wikipedia. Why? On Thursday I wanted to inform rhe interested group of users on the discussion page about the talk Dr. Ganser was to hold on Witten University (North-Rhine-Westfalia) [5]. Its subject was the question of the power media have today and how to form one´s own opinion, [6]. As I´m an attentive person, with a more than delicate history as to censorship vs. free press, denouncing and misusing power in my homecountry Germany, I´m actually getting paranoic. And I do hope nobody will ban me for this edit. At least not infinetely as they ( MWExpert ( Diskussion) Benutzer:MBq did here and with many other users whose only crime was to mention the name "Ganser" or the film, as the "official policy" is to censor any information about this film with all means [7] [8]----- A whiter shade ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"[...]As I´m a German with a more than delicate history as to censorship vs. free press [...]" I am a German and I find this comment needless. Take a look at the United Kingdom, the case of The Guardian and documents given by Snowden. They forced to destroy all their back-ups. Even all the dictatorships in the world. Free press is an illusion. Especially nobody knows the projetct by British Empire 1900-1914 to started the war, its "divide et impera"-policy divides germans and jewish people, McKinder strategy of dividing Germany and Russia. All this actions by the british government is "canceled" in the "official" history. That's delicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.138.16 ( talk) 17:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daniele Ganser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The expression "History and Future of Energy Systems" may be confusing, as it may lead readers to believe that "History" and "Future of Energy Systems" are two actual and separate courses, while Mr. Ganser is listed as "lecturer in critical thinking" at the University of Sankt Gallen. Also, according to the variant of this article in German, Mr. Ganser attended "Rudolf Steiner" school. In case the article is conformal, it may be worth considering a mention, as the school and the movement inherit a tendency towards esotericism. In addition, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule and the University of Zürich have distanced themselves from Mr. Ganser's theories on "September 11" in 2006, while the University of Basel has demanded that this subject is not included in lectures and forbidden Mr. Ganser to hold personal presentations in their name and premises in 2011 following a presentation on this matter. lmaxmai ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
In the table one can read:
"accusing NATO of "false flag" terrorist operations"
This viololates (among others) wikipedia neutrality policy and should be taken away immediately.
Thanks for your opinions 0xkev ( talk) 13:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This viololatesWhy? How? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)