Talk:Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL)

Really?

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)

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Year of birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP issue with witness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They all changed their story. Many times and that was the problem with the prosecution’s case. Even on the stand, all three of the accusers gave new accounts. 204.156.113.250 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Disputed medals section

@Delta fiver: In response to the awards section you're adding (link), there's multiple problems:

• The most important problem is that it is ENTIRELY UNREFERENCED. This is a requirement for inclusion on controversial topics. Where is this list coming from? How are we supposed to know it's even accurate? Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy. It's not negotiable. Everything else in this article is exhaustively referenced. The fact that Gallagher was awarded two Bronze Stars is referenced, for example.
• Even if references are found, they need to be proportionate and relevant. Gallagher was not notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) as a SEAL in 2016. There are many decorated SEALs with fine careers who don't have Wikipedia articles. Gallagher isn't Audie Murphy, in other words, someone famous specifically FOR valor and being decorated.
• As said in edit summaries, such awards sections are not common in other military biographies, and this absolutely is relevant. It's not really Wikipedia's style to do this; this is an encyclopedia, not an awards directory. I'd oppose it just the same for almost any military biography. When something like this is done - European nobles who rack up a bunch of awards merely for existing, say - it's usually in an appendix-like section at the end, not right in the middle of the article.
• Finally, even if we decided that Gallagher's awards deserve more coverage, we certainly don't need complete coverage of awards, just the relevant ones. Some of those decorations go to basically anybody who saw combat in Afghanistan - but we've already established in the "Career" section Gallagher saw combat in Afghanistan, and the fact he received the distinction for having done so doesn't add anything nor is a surprise. Imagine I wanted to know how much wealth Jane Smith had. It is more direct and relevant to say "a bank account with 200K dollars and a house in Santa Fe" than to say "a bank account with 200K dollars, a house in Santa Fe, a purse with 120 dollars, some loose change in her back pocket, a safe deposit vault with a cheap jewel that her mother gave to her, maybe an inheritance when her dad dies," etc. Stick to the interesting ones. News stories do bring up the Bronze Stars, so keep those in, the minor stuff isn't relevant. SnowFire (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with an awards section per say... But each award needs to be properly cited. Delta Fiver’s argument "It perfectly matches the ribbon layout including stars and valor devices on the ribbons, worn by the SEAL to the court hearings. The SEAL wasn't reported for stolen valor anywhere, which again adds to authenticity and proves all ribbons to being earned and received honestly.” makes a mockery of wikipedia policy. A simply review WP:RS of clearly indicates this is a facetious argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that I had taken another look at the claims made by both of you, I realized that I was, in fact, wrong and I would like to apologize, I actually do most of the stuff stated regarding the inclusion of important and interesting information on other articles, I guess I was clouded by my misjudgment, sorry again for being pushy and frankly outright annoying. Thank you for the help and advice it's greatly appreciated. Delta fiver (talk), 21:37, 05 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional murders

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)

That is all already in the article - the Afghanistan incident in "Career", the random shots in "Criminal allegations." SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This was thrown out in court because the judge realized the accuser said it was told to him by a different SEAL. They questioned that SEAL and he was clueless to the claim it originated with him. The accuser then said he saw the bullet vapor trail that killed the civies. The judge realized he fabricated the events. 204.156.113.250 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a biography of Gallagher?

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?

It can go either way. What you're referring to is usually applied to where there's a single bad event to cover - Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward for an example (rather than separate articles on the 2 victims & 1 perpetrator). This case is a bit more borderline, but there were several alleged crimes rather than one, spread out over a period of time, and the victim's names were unknown (or possibly even non-existent). Additionally, Gallagher was found innocent on most of them, so it'd be something like "Allegations against Eddie Gallagher" or "Trial of Eddie Gallagher", but even this is misleading, because Gallagher's career & background is very relevant and this article covers more than just the trial. "Eddie Gallagher" is the center of the topic, so is the best title IMO. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:SnowFire. This one is a little ambiguous. I think you'd be justified if you sought to rename this article under a WP:BLP1E rationale. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The circumstances have changed since August, anyway - this is no longer close to BLP1E after this case ended up indirectly resulting in the dismissal of the Secretary of the Navy! SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Include description of accusations in the lead

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)

If you want to add some more detail to the lede, that's fine, but I suspect it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with something that is both accurate and "non-prejudical". i.e. "accused of stabbing a helpless captive" vs. "accused of stabbing an evil ISIS fighter". It's especially tricky here since the names of the victims are not known and the defense "won" on most of the charges, so it'd need to be extra-clear that these are allegations being described. I was thinking that booting that detail to the body might be better, but if you have a better phrasing, feel free to give it a go. SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think if you take out the words "helpless" or "evil" from your examples above, that seems non-prejudicial. Are you against describing the 17-year old as simply "a 17-year old ISIS fighter"? NickCT (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you really feel strongly about it, go ahead and put it back, I'm just afraid that we'll see endless edits upping or downing the "sympathy" level (e.g. leaving out whether they were a prisoner or not). SnowFire (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

Year of birth: change from "1979 or 1980" to "1980" 74.118.176.12 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reputation

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)

@MasseyTom: The NYT article is a reliable source; if you dislike the slant of their article, contact them. That said, it is not "completely subjective" and the NYT article does indeed cite interviews that Gallagher's reputation changed and was diminished, with several soldiers giving statements that he was not considered the very best, and that they sabotaged his sniper rifle due to his habit of taking militarily pointless potshots. Gallagher's defense team hasn't argued that the allegations against him didn't happen (which would be weird); they've just argued that the complaints were from malcontents who didn't like Gallagher and exaggerated / fabricated bad things he did. That's consistent with his reputation being tarnished. SnowFire (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, here's the quote in the NYT article, which this is a really direct paraphrase of:

When Chief Gallagher took over leadership of the platoon in 2015, SEALs said, he already had a reputation as a “pirate” — an operator more interested in fighting terrorists than in adhering to the rules and making rank. [3]

I think it's safe to say that politically speaking. He leans towards the right wing, seeing that his new gig nowadays is a right wing social media influencer. That doesn't necessarily mean he's a redneck bully but objectively speaking. He created an online store where he and his wife sell shirts mocking the Navy SEALs as "mean girls" because they actually officially testified that Gallagher was “freaking evil” and a “psychopath,”. People don't collectively testify unless it's really serious. He is also a strong Trump supporter. I think such info I mentioned, should be added in to give a more wider CONTEXT. The mentioned NYT quote, which to me, seems to be a biased apologist defending his morals and believe it definitelt shouldn't be the only thing in the wiki article to explain his reputation. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/after-pardon-for-war-crimes-fmr-navy-seal-eddie-gallagher-becomes-right-wing-social-media-influencer-brand-spokesperson/amp/ 14.202.177.65 (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a small question about the 1st part

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

Unfortunately for Mr. Gallagher, he was not famous for his service as a Navy SEAL (of which there are hundreds in current service, almost all of which have been decorated several times). There are lots of enlisted / NCO SEALs out there, the vast majority of which do not have Wikipedia articles. The only reason why Gallagher ended up in the news was the allegations against him. SnowFire (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johan - Yes. It's common practice if a person is primarily notable for the accusations against him. Hitler is notable for a lot of things. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@ all: thanks for the replies, best regards Johan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.101.167 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Retirement date

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)

"Rap sheet"

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)

The justification is to list out the "minor" charges like the details of the drug possession charge. While I agree this is normally unusual, Gallagher was actually convicted on one of the "lesser" charges, and even this minor conviction ended up bizarrely super-relevant, since President Trump went to the mat as far as fighting for Gallagher to not even be demoted or disciplined at all despite the conviction. So this is a rare time where all those minor charges are relevant. Most people famous for this on Wikipedia are either convicted on the big ticket stuff, or else let off the hook entirely, and it's rare that when there's a small conviction there's still tons of sourced material talking about the aftermath of that "minor" conviction. Gallagher has quite possibly the most "notable" demotion for an enlisted man for posing for a photograph with a casualty in history.

For sourcing, I agree the direct Scribd link is a bit shaky, but it's easily replaced with https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-seal-war-crimes-charge-sheet . SnowFire (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The focus this article places on the subject's full disciplinary record is disproportionate compared to how it's been treated in reliable sources. Further, "Task and Purpose" does not appear reliable either. It's unfortunate that you immediately restored the content without further discussion and still used a questionable source to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the "rap sheet" table and I have removed it pending further discussion here. All but one of these charges are things that he was acquitted of. Whatever you may think of the verdict or the process, legally he is innocent of all but one of these charges. We already describe the charges in great detail; a table listing them is overkill. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor: To be clear, I was not the editor who originally added that table, Wikieitor. I don't find your claim that Task & Purpose is unreliable due to a bog-standard management / editorial dispute they had in the past compelling; it's a news website that is not known for being "Tabloidy". It is not a "questionable" source, any more than Navy Times is. (Allow me to rephrase your complaint: the better complaint is that many other news websites didn't cover the full charge list, which implies that it's disproportionate coverage to focus too much on it due to one post. That would be a fair reason to remove the table, but claiming unreliability? Nah.)

MelanieN, I think it's a fair "appendixy" type section for the details. I don't believe all the charges are listed in great detail though; would you object to including a sentence or two detailing the additional minor charges? SnowFire (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

SnowFire An "appendix" isn't a typical part of a Wiki body. MOS:LISTBULLET clearly advises against including a table of alleged offenses. Your insistence on a) presenting material in a fashion recommended against by MOS style guidelines and b) use of sources inconsistent with the quality we expect for a BLP isn't acceptable, and I consider this a dead issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:43, 28 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)

First of all:

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)

This isn't productive. I haven't even re-inserted the table recently, just trying to clarify some of the extremely strange things you've said. Look, I already gave you a good reason to argue against it - disproportionate coverage. I'm not dead set on keeping it. I am set on refuting the strange idea that "somebody wrote a story about staff turnover at a news company so therefore completely unrelated articles are suspect" if you are going to keep pushing it. What you describe is not even close to something that would indicate that the source is unreliable - there are literally hundreds of articles about staff turnover and disputes at The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc. None of this means that they're unreliable sources, especially for something as boring and as easily verified as the list of charges, something that isn't even something "editorial slant" (whether to the left or right) could possibly affect! For #3, no, it isn't, but this conversation is too petty and boring to go into great detail. You are citing a Manual of Style bit on how to properly format bulleted/numbered lists. The charge list was a table, so therefore your cited guideline doesn't apply (MOS:TABLE is the relevant guideline), but I don't think your complaint was "really" about formatting, so let's move on?

For #4, no, it was not in bad faith any more than your change was in bad faith. However, you can't just remove something and say it needs to be supported by sources when it already is. Like I said before, everything is closely matched to the sources in this article already. You're misinterpreting the quotes as well, they are not scare quotes, they are used for direct quotes as well. This isn't about editorial style, this is just normal formatting. SnowFire (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem w/ Task and Purpose reported on by the Atlantic had to do with editorial interference by the CEO for political reasons, which resulted in their ouster. That's not just "staff turnover." The comparison to the NYT (and other reliable outlets you named) is completely inappropriate. As for my other edits and your comment 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)

For Task&Purpose: I think we've both said our piece here. If you feel really strongly about it, you can bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - that's where unreliable sources can be discouraged or soft-banned across Wikipedia.

For this article: You are misreading the use of quotes. Those quotation marks are strictly being used for the normal, boring purpose of quotation marks - to emphasize that they are a direct quote of the source, and not a phrasing a Wikipedia editor made up. There are more quoted bits than usual in this article, but that's strictly because the case was so radioactively controversial that using a lot of direct quotes makes sense to avoid any accusations of bias. I can assure you that none of them were intended as scare quotes, i.e. to make the quoted phrase appear less reliable or somehow inaccurate. Quite the reverse. SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to bring anything up at WP:RSN in this scenario. I will say it again, the onus is on you to prove that a source is reliable if you are advocating it to be used in a BLP. If you can't understand this basic tenet of BLPs, you shouldn't be editing them. And if you try to reinsert another unreliable source in this article, I will report it at WP:BLPN and you at WP:ANI for violating sourcing standards and edit-warring at BLPs. For you to act as if the CEO being fired because of editorial tampering is "staff turnover" is just laughably dishonest. As to scare quotes: Individual words don't require attribution, full quotes do. This article is littered with isolated phrases in quotes, which is exactly what WP:SCAREQUOTES is about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a useful conversation anymore if you feel that merely explaining to you my views is worthy of sanction. This article is one of the best-sourced articles on Wikipedia that was made with WP:BLP very closely in mind, with every sentence closely referenced. If you feel that my actions are somehow worthy of "report", then yes, please report this to ANI about how I have nicely explained to you the reasoning behind my actions and how I haven't even re-added the table after MelanieN stepped in to second your comment. I would suggest however that you should be more interested in general Wikipedia policies and not any one editor.

If Task & Purpose was declared a deprecated source, I certainly wouldn't cite it. So - like I said - please go make a section asking for input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think Task & Purpose is fine, the status quo, so no, the onus is on you to get it deprecated. (This conversation is especially bizarre since I have not actually added it back and don't intend to since you've expressed such vehement disagreement! But no, the article you describe is not anywhere close to something that gets a news source banned. But you clearly don't want to hear that from me, so please ask elsewhere. Maybe I'm crazy.)

For scare quotes, please read the Wikipedia article scare quotes. They are not any use of quotes ever. They are only very specifically for implying irony or disagreement. That is not how the quotes in this article are being used. Would it help if an additional reference tag was added immediately after them to make clear that they are Actual Quotes? I made an edit, take a look. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just say that you giving a source the OK makes it the "status quo?" This is, obviously, untrue. Once a source's reliability has been reasonably challenged, you need to either find a new source or gain consensus on the reliability of the source. You've done neither, and as of now there's no consensus for the table.

The fact that a word is directly drawn from an article is a reasonable point, but when a number of isolated phrases or words are surrounded in quotes, that's not clear. At the very least, it's confusing to the reader. I still don't believe we need attribution for individual words in most circumstances, unless it's clear that one word was the entirety of what was said on a subject. We should be striving to removing these quotes and summarize the contents of the respective sources in a way that doesn't make excessive use of quotations (for the reasons I described above). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:45, 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)

Your "stylistic preference" is irrelevant, just like your unilateral belief that a source is reliable (despite public criticism of its editorial practices leading to the firing of the CEO, which you dishonestly characterized as "normal turnover"). Individual words do not require attribution, and the notion that somehow the quotes are meant to supply attribution is just disingenuous. You are edit-warring and violating norms of BLP sourcing, and you need to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This conversation is at an end. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Call me wrong if you want but don't call me dishonest ever again. It's even more ridiculous because, I repeat, I have not even used Task & Purpose. Why the hell are you even arguing with me, anyway? You already know I disagree. Go get T&P banned if you want to make an impact.

For quotation marks, you're the one edit warring your own weird stylistic preference and belief that all quotes are scare quotes. 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. SnowFire (talk) 20:26, 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)

Yes, I used T&P as a source in one edit because I am not psychic and did not know that in the near future you would insist on a full-fledged freakout discussion about this source. You'll note that in deference to your views, I have not attempted to re-instate this edit since. Like I said. You won! Congratulations! I'm not attempting to use this T&P source you hate so much since you made clear how evil it is in your mind! Why are you hounding me constantly on this?! SnowFire (talk) 21:57, 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)

Horse Eye Jack Nice to see your turn-around on the table as totally inappropriate, considering your previous reverts in concert with SnowFire. As for the Atlantic article, perhaps you're the one in need of a second look. You tell me what this means:

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 never passed judgement, I just said it was worthy of discussion and we are now discussing it as it should be. Also its revert, singular, not reverts. Suggesting that I acted in concert with another editor is just silly, I’l leave you to your disputations. The meaning of “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.” is clear to me, it means that Task and Purpose currently has proper editorial independence. I note that the Atlantic contends that the interference occurred on an extremely small portion of Task and Purpose’s articles and was addressed almost immediately. If you want to challenge the reliability of Task and Purpose there are channels through which to do so and this is not one of them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss something, a good way to do that is by discussing it. The talk page of an article is the place to challenge use of sources in that article as well as content. You reinserted a contentious piece of a BLP without discussion. The paper "addressed" the "problem" by FIRING it's CEO. We don't know that the editorial influence affected "only a small number of articles." Who knows what other editorial controls are in place. It's also new and unestablished. These are not the makings of a reliable source. Spare me the BS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

PTSD?

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)

If you're just theorizing, that's called WP:OR (original research) and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source discussing it, then the topic may be suitable for inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Multiple cited sources within the article state that he attended Marine scout sniper school. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Being specific about the age of the child killed

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)

Would be WP:OR to mention imho. This claim might be included in secondary sources. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Pardoned war criminal

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)

Article should include better description of incident

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)

We "killed the guy" claim

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)

Debate on image where a corpse of a minor is seen

@SnowFire: why did you re-insert the picture of the minor in your edit?

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)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Not saying it's a great image to include, but it seems relevant. SnowFire (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Picture is wrong

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)

Apple TV

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)