This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 July 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
So we just show photos of dead people on Wikipedia now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 ( talk) 20:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Thatwhichmay: I reverted your move. As the first sentence of the article points out, yes, Gallagher is a member of the US Navy, and thus it is technically correct to refer to him as a sailor. It's perfectly correct to refer to him as a soldier, too, and this is much less misleading, since "sailor" leads to a picture of "guy who helps sail a boat." Article titles don't need to be hyper-precise like Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL accused of war crimes. If we REALLY had to indicate which branch of service he was in - which we don't currently - (US Navy) would be a better disambiguator anyway than "sailor". SnowFire ( talk) 11:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The article was moved again. I'm surprised that "soldier" is really provoking that much of a response from people thinking it misrepresents SEALs, but could just be me. Maybe (US Navy) would be better after all? Category:United States Navy SEALs personnel uses "(Navy SEAL)" it seems, so that's an option as well. Thoughts? SnowFire ( talk) 14:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
We do need a disambiguation, and IMO "soldier" is fine because it is often used as a generic term for members of the military. "Sailor" is inappropriate; SEALS are virtually never referred to as "sailors". "U.S. Navy" or "Navy SEAL" would be possible, but I see nothing wrong with "soldier". In the meantime there should be no more moves of the article without discussion and consensus. If it happens again I will move-protect the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I am glad the matter is resolved but the distinction between soldier and sailor is not unique to the USA. The lead Soviet sniper in Stalingrad was a sailor and members of his original naval division now on land asked to formally wear their sailors jersey underneath their "land" combat clothing, which was granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.235.118.48 ( talk) 10:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@ SnowFire:, I disagree with your removal of his year of birth. Birthdate is a vital piece of information for a biography, usually included in the first sentence, right after the name. In some cases we do not know their exact date of birth, but we know from a Reliable Source article how old they were at the time that article was written. This can be used to estimate (not guess) the year of birth within one year, which is indicated with “c.” or “circa” meaning approximately. See MOS:CIRCA. Knowing he was 39 in April 2019 means he was born in either 1979 or 1980. With April being less than halfway through the year, we assume he hasn’t had his birthday yet and will be turning 40 later in 2019, so we list his birth year as 1979. That is not a certainty - it is a guess based on the odds - which is why we label it “c.”. For other examples of this practice see Ronne Froman, Laura Yeager, or Jeff Berry (mixologist). -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I second snowfire’s concerns about citogenesis, especially as the subject is currently in the headlines. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 18:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Yoninah: Question about this edit: [2] . You removed the name of the witness who changed his story, citing a "BLP issue" - I haven't restored it just yet, but what exactly is the BLP issue here? We definitely have references and entire stories that both name the witness and write that it's possible he'll be tried for perjury if the prosecution is really adamant. Said witness is a public figure now so it's not like this is juvenile court with redacted names (and his name is already in the article anyway...). Am I missing something here? SnowFire ( talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Delta fiver: In response to the awards section you're adding ( link), there's multiple problems:
No problem. SnowFire ( talk) 22:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I read that he killed two additional civilians in a salon article. I think this wikipedia article should point out who are civilians and who is isis solider captives rather than leave that to the reader to guess. I read a salon article that said this, "Describing his behavior as reckless and bloodthirsty, several men from Gallagher’s platoon said he gunned down a 15-year-old girl walking along a riverbank in Afghanistan and an old man carrying a water jug. They testified that Gallagher regularly fired into civilian crowds. " https://www.salon.com/2019/07/05/the-curious-case-of-eddie-gallagher-did-donald-trump-help-a-navy-seal-get-away-with-murder/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not 100% but I'm reading the rules and it looks like articles like this are supposed to be about the case and not the person. Is this wrong?
Regarding this edit;
It seems a little strange that we are citing charges without mentioning the actual accusation. If we look at other famous accused murderers (e.g. O. J. Simpson, Mark Aldrich, Marguerite Alibert) there's usually a description of the actual accusation. NickCT ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Year of birth: change from "1979 or 1980" to "1980" 74.118.176.12 ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
REPUTATION--The current state reads "By 2015, Gallagher had acquired a reputation as someone who was more interested in fighting terrorists and less interested in compliance with rules.[6]" This statement is completely subjective and can't be supported by any facts reported in the NYT article. The NYT article clearly states that the Navy considered Gallagher to be their very best, so Gallagher's reputation with the Navy was excellent. MasseyTom ( talk) 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
....Therefore, this statement could be considered libelous, maybe?? MasseyTom ( talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
REPUTATION--Should Wikipedia be about repeating uncorroborated hearsay from the NYT? MasseyTom ( talk) 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I have a small question about the intro text. Is it common practice to put the accusations in the first sentence when describing a person. I had a quick look at wikipedia Adolf Hitler and it takes even this mass murderer tot depict him as evil on sentence nr 5. I was just wondering, is it just to begin from start with describing de accusations. Why not first depict other thing, for instance: Edward R. Gallagher (born 1979 or 1980)[1] is a United States Navy SEAL Special Warfare Operator. He was decorated several times and served the navy for 19 years. ......
I just mean to say, it looks so disrespectful and unbalanced to put the accusations in from the get go in this wikipedia item.
Best regards, Johan from the Netherlands
@ all: thanks for the replies, best regards Johan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.101.167 ( talk) 17:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
He will retire November 30,2019 per the Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC) IT is now December 2, 2019 he has been retired for two days you still have him active why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 ( talk) 18:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the justification for a table listing all offenses as the first item under "Criminal allegations?" This is already a long section and the same material is covered in the body paragraph. In addition, the entire table is linked to a primary source. The problems with this are numerous, and I see no precedent elsewhere for presenting information in such a manner. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Further, the current table is sourced to a document from Scribd, which appears to be a site for pirated documents and other material. Can't imagine a worse source for a BLP. This material cannot remain in the article with that sourcing. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Like I've said a zillion times, I'm not the one who added this. MOS:LISTBULLET doesn't say anything about the topic we're talking about, so I am baffled - it was a table, not even a bulleted list, and the manual of style is about formatting not about content inclusion and certainly doesn't say anything about the proper way to display charges, so ???. The source is fine. I don't know where you're getting the idea that Task & Purpose is unreliable, but it is perfectly normal news source. If you believe it isn't, WP:RSN is the proper place to ask for it to be banned, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Anyway, the above isn't even the main issue, you'll note that I haven't recently restored the table - I was talking about including some of the lesser offenses as prose as a compromise to you & Melanie, but you aren't even responding to that. Anyway. You made a series of edits that I did revert because I don't see it as an improvement. This article was closely sourced to its references for obvious reasons. There were no scare quotes whatsoever in this article, those are normal quotes. For your adjectives that require close sources - indeed, I agree, but if you bothered to actually read the reference, you'll see that's directly from the reference: "In a two-day preliminary hearing at Naval Base San Diego that concluded Thursday, prosecutors presented accounts from several other SEALs in Chief Gallagher’s platoon describing his behavior as reckless and bloodthirsty." [4] If you want to help out, you need to read the sources - this article is written extremely close to them as is. SnowFire ( talk) 22:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1) There is reporting in reliable sources that "Task and Purpose" has questionable editorial practices. This makes it not suitable for BLP sourcing.If you want to include material in a BLP, the burden is on YOU to prove or gain consensus on the source as being reliable. If you can't do that, it stays out. Not the other way around. 2) It is irrelevant that you didn't originally insert the table. No one cares, and certainly not me. You repeatedly reinserted it and argued for it on the talk page. You take responsibility for content when you re-add it after another editor removes it. If it violates BLP, you are subject to consequences for restoring it. 3) The "table" in the article is an effective "list" of offenses and covered by MOS:BULLETEDLISTS. 4) Your recent revert is frivolous and shows apparent bad-faith. Putting short phrases in scare quotes is not appropriate prose for an article. That's not legitimate attribution, that's casting doubt on the veracity of the statement. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
t was not in bad faith any more than your change was in bad faith.. You offer no reasoned objection in your edit summary other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and individual words don't require attribution. That's what WP:SCAREQUOTES are. It doesn't matter if that word or a similar word was used in the source. When it's put in quotations, it appears to cast doubt on the truth of the statement or treat it as if it were questionable. That's the kind of editorializing that negatively impacts articles, along with edit-warring and use of bad sources on BLPs. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
(de-indent) Wikieditor, I'm trying to help, I really am. You are being a sore winner here. I'm happy to use other sources solely to make you happy, since anything citable to T&P can easily be cited elsewhere for such a heavily covered subject. I am solely trying to convince you not to run around and remove every T&P citation you see because you think declaring it's bad yourself due to one article you read instantly makes it bad across Wikipedia. There is actually a system on Wikipedia for deprecating sources, and as I have told you several times, Task & Purpose is not on that list: you can search for it here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You can go to the noticeboard I linked and actually get it deprecated if the Wikipedia community agrees with you. All I am saying is that T&P is not on that list, so your claim is the one that is "obviously untrue." But like I've already said, you don't trust me, so please ask somebody else at that noticeboard who can be a neutral third party source on if T&P is okay to cite.
For quotes, we'll have to agree to disagree, but it's my stylistic preference to keep the quotation marks here because it's directly reporting what the source said, and I can see readers assuming that perhaps these adjectives or phrases were just a Wikipedia editor's invention. SnowFire ( talk) 04:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Normally I would let it pass but you are so clearly adamant I really don't like to let bullies win who keep loudly insisting on their way or their highway, and any deviation must be dishonesty. So. I guess there's no more productive collaboration to be had here.You couldn't provide stronger evidence that your serial reverts are WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as opposed to efforts to constructively improve the article. T&P may be an appropriate source for other articles, but given the publicly aired issues regarding its editorial judgment and possible political influence, it is almost certainly not a good source for a controversial BLP. I'm not going to repeat myself on scare quotes. Just consider the different between
Gallagher's behavior was called "reckless" by his colleagues"versus
Gallagher's behavior was called reckless by his colleagues."This is not a direct quote from the article, but rather meant to illustrate why the quotes are unnecessary for attribution (that is done in-text) and how the quotes have the effect of casting doubt on the statement. This is a very simple concept, and one that is followed consistently across WP. This article isn't an exception. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I am going to say the one more time. Open the article. Use CTRL-F (or ⌘-F on a Mac!). Search for "Task". You won't find any hits. This entire, ridiculous conversation was because I raised the possibility on this talk page of using a T&P reference that I found after 5 seconds of searching on the Internet. Since you obviously hate the publication just so damn much, I am fine with not actually using it and sourcing the exact same material from elsewhere. This is why I asked you to stop being a sore winner: the "problem" is moot. You will just have to take my word for it that I don't see an issue with using T&P as a reference, and also that you're not going to convince me that I was somehow "wrong" to ever link it in the first place and I should be falling all over myself to denounce T&P as evil because you shared a link.
For quotes, you'll just have to learn that other people read such things differently than you do. Neither of our versions is right or wrong. SnowFire ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
SnowFire You are now edit-warring with multiple editors on this page. Your comments show clear
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
MelanieN, do you have any guidance here? This seems to me like blatant
WP:POINTY behavior.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)\
SnowFire To address your other nonsense, 1) you are outright lying when you talk about "suggesting" using a source. You reinserted the content in the article with that source, so you used that source, you didn't "suggest" it. Perhaps herein lies the problem: using a T&P reference that I found after 5 seconds
you are sloppy in your selection of sources and it shows. Don't edit BLPs if you can't be bothered to find proper sources. 2) You are also continuing to edit-war with me and others. It has nothing to do with "hating" T&P, it's your inattention to detail and stubbornness in reverting the article to your preferred version that's the issue here. You've definitively proven over the past 24 hours that you are not here to improve the article, so perhaps it's time for you to walk away.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. You both have laid out your positions and I don't think there is anything more to be gained by you two talking to each other. When two people disagree at Wikipedia, we look for consensus through third, and fourth, and fifth opinions. About whether to include the table, my position above is clear and has nothing to do with whether Task & Purpose is a Reliable Source or not. I think the table is inappropriate because it emphasizes - by repetition/duplication/redundancy if you will - a bunch of charges for which he was found not guilty. I would feel that way even if it came from a mainstream source - although the fact that no mainstream source has chosen to publish something like this also speaks volumes. AFAIK the list of charges is factually correct, but it is irrelevant overkill when it comes to reporting on this case. Any fourth/fifth/etc. people care to chime in with an opinion? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920 Task & Purpose is entirely reliable and is known for high quality in-depth reporting (your characterization of the Atlantic article is disingenuous and shows the same lack of care and due regard you pointed out from SnowFire), but I agree with you and MelanieN that the table is out of the ordinary and pretty much entirely redundant. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 11:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
In New York, at Task & Purpose, Weinstein’s departure has already had a palpable effect. Iscol, as promised, has relinquished full editorial control to Keller. It seems clear to staff members that Iscol deeply cares about the integrity of the site. Perhaps this was a wake-up call. There’s a search for a new, fully independent editor in chief. It’s unclear whether Keller will remain in the role. If the site does not mature, more departures may soon follow.
My description of the article was exactly on point. You have offered nothing to back up your assertion that "Task and Purpose" is "entirely reliable" other than empty platitudes. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm neither interested in glorifying Eddie Gallagher nor in villifying him. All I'm wondering is whether he, due to his many deployments to the Middle East, suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that went untreated. Why is there no mention of this in the article? I mean, how could someone NOT get PTSD from being deployed to a war zone EIGHT TIMES? Again, I'm not saying that excused what he did, I'm simply saying that, if he he DID have untreated PTSD, it's easy to see how he did the despicable things he's been accused of doing. Does anyone know whether Gallagher could've had or has PTSD? Even a Google search yields little in the way of results that one would expect to exist. DreamJuggler ( talk) 16:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eddie was never actually trained as a SNIPER. There is no record of him completing NSW Sniper, or Marine Sniper training. He lied to his teammates in his service training jacket and his Enlisted Evaluations. 209.22.222.65 ( talk) 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added the age of the teenager killed to the article, I think it is valuable to mention that this person was a child soldier, but I'm unsure of the correct place to include this. Some useful documents to use as references are the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 21:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
When this article pops up on google It has a header statement saying hes a navy seal and pardoned war criminal. I cant seem to find the actual text that needs to be changed to stop that from being displayed but its factually incorrect. Eddie Gallagher was never convicted of a war crime, simply a UCMJ violation which is very different (for example cheating on your spouse is a UCMJ violation but not a war crime). Furthermore he didn't receive a pardon he simply had his demotion reversed after being found guilty of possessing pictures of downed enemy combatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.232.191 ( talk) 06:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I will google and see how it shows up. You are correct, in no wise is Gallagher a war criminal. If taking photos with a corpse makes one a war criminal then war criminals are legion.
F. L. ( talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Just checked—does not show up as war criminal but (Soldier). Also, incorrect. He is a sailor. Navy SEAL would be most accurate maybe. But, meh. F. L. ( talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This article lacks a basic factual account of what is alleged to have happened with the 17-year-old ISIS combatant. If you have some reason to know what day and month that incident occurred, this article doesn't have any information on the matter. It also doesn't really indicate the year, out loud. Give the basic situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priceyeah ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has removed the claim that Gallagher "killed the guy" from the lead. In body, we note his lawyer (at the time) says this is not new info and he misspoke. This is perhaps reason to not give it such weight to add it to lead, especially if adding it to the lead implies significance and thereby implies that this is new info. I think it was treated by RSs to be new info and I think we should infer he knows what the words he used mean, but adding it here for discussion. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@ SnowFire: why did you re-insert the picture of the minor in your ?
I don't think it's appropriate to show a corpse of a minor on wikipedia, especially with an unblurred face.
-- Maps58 ( talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The person in the picture is 17 years old you have it listed as 13 on the picture. Also the young man was captured after being mortally wounded so yes they did kill him because he died of his wounds from combat so don't make it as suggestive that he killed a captured enemy combatant. 2600:6C5D:5A00:2A93:EAE5:70:BFBD:6F14 ( talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
In December of 2021, Apple TV+ broadcast a limited four episode streaming series documenting the events and trial that transpired from those events.
In the Apple TV+ broadcast, Gallagher claims, “Everybody was on the same page, along with me. Like I didn’t give a shit what happens to him…. We can’t outright kill this dude in front of, so we’re just going to do medical treatments on him until he expires. You know, we’ll get some medical practice out of it… We were not trying to save this guy. It was full on board to making this guy feel pain. It was just an ISIS fighter, the guy needed to die. I mean, he was already on death’s door…we just helped it along the way. I guess the [medical procedures] were just like cherry on top.”
Gallagher further states in the broadcast: “Are we here to win or not? It seems that, if we play by the rules that are given to us, we’re not going even come close to winning. You have to get your hands dirty a little bit, to win. If I did stab him, no, I don’t think I did anything wrong. Even if I had taken a knife out and stabbed him, I don’t think, I should not be on trial for murder, for killing an ISIS terrorist.”
This was added by User:Bticho with a link to the Apple TV's show website. It is very useful, but I think it's WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR as it involves an editor picking individual phrases and comments out of the primary source that that editor finds significant. We would need a reliable source to do that picking out and analysis. The link also doesn't indicate where the quotes are from, so we cannot verify the quotes. Omit for now because it's a WP:BLP and don't want to keep stuff up that we cannot verify. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 04:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 July 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
So we just show photos of dead people on Wikipedia now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 ( talk) 20:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Thatwhichmay: I reverted your move. As the first sentence of the article points out, yes, Gallagher is a member of the US Navy, and thus it is technically correct to refer to him as a sailor. It's perfectly correct to refer to him as a soldier, too, and this is much less misleading, since "sailor" leads to a picture of "guy who helps sail a boat." Article titles don't need to be hyper-precise like Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL accused of war crimes. If we REALLY had to indicate which branch of service he was in - which we don't currently - (US Navy) would be a better disambiguator anyway than "sailor". SnowFire ( talk) 11:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The article was moved again. I'm surprised that "soldier" is really provoking that much of a response from people thinking it misrepresents SEALs, but could just be me. Maybe (US Navy) would be better after all? Category:United States Navy SEALs personnel uses "(Navy SEAL)" it seems, so that's an option as well. Thoughts? SnowFire ( talk) 14:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
We do need a disambiguation, and IMO "soldier" is fine because it is often used as a generic term for members of the military. "Sailor" is inappropriate; SEALS are virtually never referred to as "sailors". "U.S. Navy" or "Navy SEAL" would be possible, but I see nothing wrong with "soldier". In the meantime there should be no more moves of the article without discussion and consensus. If it happens again I will move-protect the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I am glad the matter is resolved but the distinction between soldier and sailor is not unique to the USA. The lead Soviet sniper in Stalingrad was a sailor and members of his original naval division now on land asked to formally wear their sailors jersey underneath their "land" combat clothing, which was granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.235.118.48 ( talk) 10:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@ SnowFire:, I disagree with your removal of his year of birth. Birthdate is a vital piece of information for a biography, usually included in the first sentence, right after the name. In some cases we do not know their exact date of birth, but we know from a Reliable Source article how old they were at the time that article was written. This can be used to estimate (not guess) the year of birth within one year, which is indicated with “c.” or “circa” meaning approximately. See MOS:CIRCA. Knowing he was 39 in April 2019 means he was born in either 1979 or 1980. With April being less than halfway through the year, we assume he hasn’t had his birthday yet and will be turning 40 later in 2019, so we list his birth year as 1979. That is not a certainty - it is a guess based on the odds - which is why we label it “c.”. For other examples of this practice see Ronne Froman, Laura Yeager, or Jeff Berry (mixologist). -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I second snowfire’s concerns about citogenesis, especially as the subject is currently in the headlines. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 18:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Yoninah: Question about this edit: [2] . You removed the name of the witness who changed his story, citing a "BLP issue" - I haven't restored it just yet, but what exactly is the BLP issue here? We definitely have references and entire stories that both name the witness and write that it's possible he'll be tried for perjury if the prosecution is really adamant. Said witness is a public figure now so it's not like this is juvenile court with redacted names (and his name is already in the article anyway...). Am I missing something here? SnowFire ( talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Delta fiver: In response to the awards section you're adding ( link), there's multiple problems:
No problem. SnowFire ( talk) 22:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I read that he killed two additional civilians in a salon article. I think this wikipedia article should point out who are civilians and who is isis solider captives rather than leave that to the reader to guess. I read a salon article that said this, "Describing his behavior as reckless and bloodthirsty, several men from Gallagher’s platoon said he gunned down a 15-year-old girl walking along a riverbank in Afghanistan and an old man carrying a water jug. They testified that Gallagher regularly fired into civilian crowds. " https://www.salon.com/2019/07/05/the-curious-case-of-eddie-gallagher-did-donald-trump-help-a-navy-seal-get-away-with-murder/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not 100% but I'm reading the rules and it looks like articles like this are supposed to be about the case and not the person. Is this wrong?
Regarding this edit;
It seems a little strange that we are citing charges without mentioning the actual accusation. If we look at other famous accused murderers (e.g. O. J. Simpson, Mark Aldrich, Marguerite Alibert) there's usually a description of the actual accusation. NickCT ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Year of birth: change from "1979 or 1980" to "1980" 74.118.176.12 ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
REPUTATION--The current state reads "By 2015, Gallagher had acquired a reputation as someone who was more interested in fighting terrorists and less interested in compliance with rules.[6]" This statement is completely subjective and can't be supported by any facts reported in the NYT article. The NYT article clearly states that the Navy considered Gallagher to be their very best, so Gallagher's reputation with the Navy was excellent. MasseyTom ( talk) 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
....Therefore, this statement could be considered libelous, maybe?? MasseyTom ( talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
REPUTATION--Should Wikipedia be about repeating uncorroborated hearsay from the NYT? MasseyTom ( talk) 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I have a small question about the intro text. Is it common practice to put the accusations in the first sentence when describing a person. I had a quick look at wikipedia Adolf Hitler and it takes even this mass murderer tot depict him as evil on sentence nr 5. I was just wondering, is it just to begin from start with describing de accusations. Why not first depict other thing, for instance: Edward R. Gallagher (born 1979 or 1980)[1] is a United States Navy SEAL Special Warfare Operator. He was decorated several times and served the navy for 19 years. ......
I just mean to say, it looks so disrespectful and unbalanced to put the accusations in from the get go in this wikipedia item.
Best regards, Johan from the Netherlands
@ all: thanks for the replies, best regards Johan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.101.167 ( talk) 17:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
He will retire November 30,2019 per the Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC) IT is now December 2, 2019 he has been retired for two days you still have him active why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 ( talk) 18:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the justification for a table listing all offenses as the first item under "Criminal allegations?" This is already a long section and the same material is covered in the body paragraph. In addition, the entire table is linked to a primary source. The problems with this are numerous, and I see no precedent elsewhere for presenting information in such a manner. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Further, the current table is sourced to a document from Scribd, which appears to be a site for pirated documents and other material. Can't imagine a worse source for a BLP. This material cannot remain in the article with that sourcing. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Like I've said a zillion times, I'm not the one who added this. MOS:LISTBULLET doesn't say anything about the topic we're talking about, so I am baffled - it was a table, not even a bulleted list, and the manual of style is about formatting not about content inclusion and certainly doesn't say anything about the proper way to display charges, so ???. The source is fine. I don't know where you're getting the idea that Task & Purpose is unreliable, but it is perfectly normal news source. If you believe it isn't, WP:RSN is the proper place to ask for it to be banned, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Anyway, the above isn't even the main issue, you'll note that I haven't recently restored the table - I was talking about including some of the lesser offenses as prose as a compromise to you & Melanie, but you aren't even responding to that. Anyway. You made a series of edits that I did revert because I don't see it as an improvement. This article was closely sourced to its references for obvious reasons. There were no scare quotes whatsoever in this article, those are normal quotes. For your adjectives that require close sources - indeed, I agree, but if you bothered to actually read the reference, you'll see that's directly from the reference: "In a two-day preliminary hearing at Naval Base San Diego that concluded Thursday, prosecutors presented accounts from several other SEALs in Chief Gallagher’s platoon describing his behavior as reckless and bloodthirsty." [4] If you want to help out, you need to read the sources - this article is written extremely close to them as is. SnowFire ( talk) 22:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1) There is reporting in reliable sources that "Task and Purpose" has questionable editorial practices. This makes it not suitable for BLP sourcing.If you want to include material in a BLP, the burden is on YOU to prove or gain consensus on the source as being reliable. If you can't do that, it stays out. Not the other way around. 2) It is irrelevant that you didn't originally insert the table. No one cares, and certainly not me. You repeatedly reinserted it and argued for it on the talk page. You take responsibility for content when you re-add it after another editor removes it. If it violates BLP, you are subject to consequences for restoring it. 3) The "table" in the article is an effective "list" of offenses and covered by MOS:BULLETEDLISTS. 4) Your recent revert is frivolous and shows apparent bad-faith. Putting short phrases in scare quotes is not appropriate prose for an article. That's not legitimate attribution, that's casting doubt on the veracity of the statement. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
t was not in bad faith any more than your change was in bad faith.. You offer no reasoned objection in your edit summary other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and individual words don't require attribution. That's what WP:SCAREQUOTES are. It doesn't matter if that word or a similar word was used in the source. When it's put in quotations, it appears to cast doubt on the truth of the statement or treat it as if it were questionable. That's the kind of editorializing that negatively impacts articles, along with edit-warring and use of bad sources on BLPs. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
(de-indent) Wikieditor, I'm trying to help, I really am. You are being a sore winner here. I'm happy to use other sources solely to make you happy, since anything citable to T&P can easily be cited elsewhere for such a heavily covered subject. I am solely trying to convince you not to run around and remove every T&P citation you see because you think declaring it's bad yourself due to one article you read instantly makes it bad across Wikipedia. There is actually a system on Wikipedia for deprecating sources, and as I have told you several times, Task & Purpose is not on that list: you can search for it here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You can go to the noticeboard I linked and actually get it deprecated if the Wikipedia community agrees with you. All I am saying is that T&P is not on that list, so your claim is the one that is "obviously untrue." But like I've already said, you don't trust me, so please ask somebody else at that noticeboard who can be a neutral third party source on if T&P is okay to cite.
For quotes, we'll have to agree to disagree, but it's my stylistic preference to keep the quotation marks here because it's directly reporting what the source said, and I can see readers assuming that perhaps these adjectives or phrases were just a Wikipedia editor's invention. SnowFire ( talk) 04:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Normally I would let it pass but you are so clearly adamant I really don't like to let bullies win who keep loudly insisting on their way or their highway, and any deviation must be dishonesty. So. I guess there's no more productive collaboration to be had here.You couldn't provide stronger evidence that your serial reverts are WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as opposed to efforts to constructively improve the article. T&P may be an appropriate source for other articles, but given the publicly aired issues regarding its editorial judgment and possible political influence, it is almost certainly not a good source for a controversial BLP. I'm not going to repeat myself on scare quotes. Just consider the different between
Gallagher's behavior was called "reckless" by his colleagues"versus
Gallagher's behavior was called reckless by his colleagues."This is not a direct quote from the article, but rather meant to illustrate why the quotes are unnecessary for attribution (that is done in-text) and how the quotes have the effect of casting doubt on the statement. This is a very simple concept, and one that is followed consistently across WP. This article isn't an exception. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I am going to say the one more time. Open the article. Use CTRL-F (or ⌘-F on a Mac!). Search for "Task". You won't find any hits. This entire, ridiculous conversation was because I raised the possibility on this talk page of using a T&P reference that I found after 5 seconds of searching on the Internet. Since you obviously hate the publication just so damn much, I am fine with not actually using it and sourcing the exact same material from elsewhere. This is why I asked you to stop being a sore winner: the "problem" is moot. You will just have to take my word for it that I don't see an issue with using T&P as a reference, and also that you're not going to convince me that I was somehow "wrong" to ever link it in the first place and I should be falling all over myself to denounce T&P as evil because you shared a link.
For quotes, you'll just have to learn that other people read such things differently than you do. Neither of our versions is right or wrong. SnowFire ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
SnowFire You are now edit-warring with multiple editors on this page. Your comments show clear
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
MelanieN, do you have any guidance here? This seems to me like blatant
WP:POINTY behavior.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)\
SnowFire To address your other nonsense, 1) you are outright lying when you talk about "suggesting" using a source. You reinserted the content in the article with that source, so you used that source, you didn't "suggest" it. Perhaps herein lies the problem: using a T&P reference that I found after 5 seconds
you are sloppy in your selection of sources and it shows. Don't edit BLPs if you can't be bothered to find proper sources. 2) You are also continuing to edit-war with me and others. It has nothing to do with "hating" T&P, it's your inattention to detail and stubbornness in reverting the article to your preferred version that's the issue here. You've definitively proven over the past 24 hours that you are not here to improve the article, so perhaps it's time for you to walk away.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. You both have laid out your positions and I don't think there is anything more to be gained by you two talking to each other. When two people disagree at Wikipedia, we look for consensus through third, and fourth, and fifth opinions. About whether to include the table, my position above is clear and has nothing to do with whether Task & Purpose is a Reliable Source or not. I think the table is inappropriate because it emphasizes - by repetition/duplication/redundancy if you will - a bunch of charges for which he was found not guilty. I would feel that way even if it came from a mainstream source - although the fact that no mainstream source has chosen to publish something like this also speaks volumes. AFAIK the list of charges is factually correct, but it is irrelevant overkill when it comes to reporting on this case. Any fourth/fifth/etc. people care to chime in with an opinion? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920 Task & Purpose is entirely reliable and is known for high quality in-depth reporting (your characterization of the Atlantic article is disingenuous and shows the same lack of care and due regard you pointed out from SnowFire), but I agree with you and MelanieN that the table is out of the ordinary and pretty much entirely redundant. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 11:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
In New York, at Task & Purpose, Weinstein’s departure has already had a palpable effect. Iscol, as promised, has relinquished full editorial control to Keller. It seems clear to staff members that Iscol deeply cares about the integrity of the site. Perhaps this was a wake-up call. There’s a search for a new, fully independent editor in chief. It’s unclear whether Keller will remain in the role. If the site does not mature, more departures may soon follow.
My description of the article was exactly on point. You have offered nothing to back up your assertion that "Task and Purpose" is "entirely reliable" other than empty platitudes. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm neither interested in glorifying Eddie Gallagher nor in villifying him. All I'm wondering is whether he, due to his many deployments to the Middle East, suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that went untreated. Why is there no mention of this in the article? I mean, how could someone NOT get PTSD from being deployed to a war zone EIGHT TIMES? Again, I'm not saying that excused what he did, I'm simply saying that, if he he DID have untreated PTSD, it's easy to see how he did the despicable things he's been accused of doing. Does anyone know whether Gallagher could've had or has PTSD? Even a Google search yields little in the way of results that one would expect to exist. DreamJuggler ( talk) 16:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eddie was never actually trained as a SNIPER. There is no record of him completing NSW Sniper, or Marine Sniper training. He lied to his teammates in his service training jacket and his Enlisted Evaluations. 209.22.222.65 ( talk) 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added the age of the teenager killed to the article, I think it is valuable to mention that this person was a child soldier, but I'm unsure of the correct place to include this. Some useful documents to use as references are the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 21:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
When this article pops up on google It has a header statement saying hes a navy seal and pardoned war criminal. I cant seem to find the actual text that needs to be changed to stop that from being displayed but its factually incorrect. Eddie Gallagher was never convicted of a war crime, simply a UCMJ violation which is very different (for example cheating on your spouse is a UCMJ violation but not a war crime). Furthermore he didn't receive a pardon he simply had his demotion reversed after being found guilty of possessing pictures of downed enemy combatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.232.191 ( talk) 06:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I will google and see how it shows up. You are correct, in no wise is Gallagher a war criminal. If taking photos with a corpse makes one a war criminal then war criminals are legion.
F. L. ( talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Just checked—does not show up as war criminal but (Soldier). Also, incorrect. He is a sailor. Navy SEAL would be most accurate maybe. But, meh. F. L. ( talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This article lacks a basic factual account of what is alleged to have happened with the 17-year-old ISIS combatant. If you have some reason to know what day and month that incident occurred, this article doesn't have any information on the matter. It also doesn't really indicate the year, out loud. Give the basic situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priceyeah ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has removed the claim that Gallagher "killed the guy" from the lead. In body, we note his lawyer (at the time) says this is not new info and he misspoke. This is perhaps reason to not give it such weight to add it to lead, especially if adding it to the lead implies significance and thereby implies that this is new info. I think it was treated by RSs to be new info and I think we should infer he knows what the words he used mean, but adding it here for discussion. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@ SnowFire: why did you re-insert the picture of the minor in your ?
I don't think it's appropriate to show a corpse of a minor on wikipedia, especially with an unblurred face.
-- Maps58 ( talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The person in the picture is 17 years old you have it listed as 13 on the picture. Also the young man was captured after being mortally wounded so yes they did kill him because he died of his wounds from combat so don't make it as suggestive that he killed a captured enemy combatant. 2600:6C5D:5A00:2A93:EAE5:70:BFBD:6F14 ( talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
In December of 2021, Apple TV+ broadcast a limited four episode streaming series documenting the events and trial that transpired from those events.
In the Apple TV+ broadcast, Gallagher claims, “Everybody was on the same page, along with me. Like I didn’t give a shit what happens to him…. We can’t outright kill this dude in front of, so we’re just going to do medical treatments on him until he expires. You know, we’ll get some medical practice out of it… We were not trying to save this guy. It was full on board to making this guy feel pain. It was just an ISIS fighter, the guy needed to die. I mean, he was already on death’s door…we just helped it along the way. I guess the [medical procedures] were just like cherry on top.”
Gallagher further states in the broadcast: “Are we here to win or not? It seems that, if we play by the rules that are given to us, we’re not going even come close to winning. You have to get your hands dirty a little bit, to win. If I did stab him, no, I don’t think I did anything wrong. Even if I had taken a knife out and stabbed him, I don’t think, I should not be on trial for murder, for killing an ISIS terrorist.”
This was added by User:Bticho with a link to the Apple TV's show website. It is very useful, but I think it's WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR as it involves an editor picking individual phrases and comments out of the primary source that that editor finds significant. We would need a reliable source to do that picking out and analysis. The link also doesn't indicate where the quotes are from, so we cannot verify the quotes. Omit for now because it's a WP:BLP and don't want to keep stuff up that we cannot verify. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 04:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)