Talk:Daniele Ganser

Notability

Four foreign language Wikipedias have well-established biographies of this man whose work is copiously cited throughout English Wikipedia. The time has come for him to have his own article in English.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. He's still a conspiracy nut, but notable.Pär Larsson (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ganser does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a biography article. His biography is basically a one-liner, he got a PhD in history and wrote a book. If the book is notable, write an article about the book and argue WP:BK instead of WP:BIO. But this article basically has "he wrote a book and two articles, all about false-flag conspiracy theories, and here's every review of the book we could find". I am sorry, but this is clearly a vanity entry. Even the photograph was apparently uploaded by Ganser himself. We have ample coverage of this type of conspiracey theory, and if the book or articles are relevant, they can be duly mentioned there in context, but this is nowhere near WP:BIO material. --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I already note that the article has already been deleted, back in 2008. Already back then it was a clear vanity entr. CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) re-created the in 2013. I do not see any indication that the notability situation has changed between 2008 and 2013, indeed all sources cited seem to predate 2008. If anything this would make the topic less notable than it used to be when it was still halfway about "current events". --dab (𒁳) 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep I was inspired to re-create the article after it had been deleted because Ganser's book is widely cited throughout Wikipedia and because there are already articles about him on many foreign language Wikipedias. However, I only spent a portion of one day gathering information on him so there's probably more good information on him out there which can be used to expand the article in time. My view is that Ganser is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography because of his widely-reviewed academic book, his activism with groups like the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, and his bringing to attention of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Note that Ganser's research had occasionally garnered the attention of not just other academics, but also the CIA and State Department. Even if we might say that Ganser possibly does not meet the specific notability criteria of an academic, surely we can at least pass the article on general notability criteria.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Alone, what is happening in German Wikipedia (Edit war about Ganser Article) is Korrumption der Gesamten Wikipedia und Brainwash like O.'s 1894. Thanks for this good Ganser entry in English. The German entry is schlicht und ergreifend katastrophal. O.'s 1984. God have mercy. And you please for my little English. I am sorry I wrote into Article, Wiki is not running well on my mobile and ich war verwirrt, would one be so nice to remove, cant find the switch button back to entry. Tx:-* What I wanted to say: Ganser IS relevant to Wikipedia, due to both the worth of his brave work and the actual scandal around Wikipedia itself. Wath documentary film Zensur. Zitronenknoedel (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist?

The article categorized Ganser as both a conspiracy theorist and 9/11 conpiracy theorist. Yes, he has contributed to a critical book which was mostly written by historians. And yes, he considers alternative theories, too. That does not mean he favors them and makes them the only truth. -- Zz (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the article itself, virtually every qualified academic who has discussed his work has labelled him as an advocate of rather unusual conspiracy theories. There can be no doubt that most scholars view him as a conspiracy theorist, though I suppose we can leave out the word "notable" if you prefer. As for being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, in the citations provided (the book edited by 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin and the interview) he says that he knows of reliable sources that state that 7 World Trade Center could not have been brought down by the attack alone and he also expresses doubt that an aircraft hit the Pentagon. I believe these stances alone qualify him as being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but if there is doubt then I could add to the article a lecture Ganser gave at the University of Basel in 2011 in which he admits in a way to being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. What he actually states is that all theories about the 9/11 attacks are conspiracy theories, so from his perspective anyone, including himself, who puts forward an idea about the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theorist. He goes on to argue that there are three conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks, all of which he emphasizes to be equally academically valid theories, including the theory that the United States was attacked by surprise, the theory that the United States government was aware of the attack in advance but allowed it to occur, and the theory that the United States government actually engineered the attack itself.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Its highly unfair to call anyone "Conspiracy Theorist". Mainly it is used to discredit people and their work and to avoid discussions about the theory itself. Its personal judging, some people may agree others not but this is not the way wikipedia should work. If I say president A is a nut some may agree others, again, not. But it should not appear in WP. So if someone describes a person as conspiracy theorist in a publication it becomes the truth for wikipedia? No please. "Conspiracy Theorist" is a negative term "used primarily by the main stream media to slander anyone who questions their monopoly on truth." So everyone who questions the official conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist? This is ridiculous. Its absolutely justified to ask for example why the fall oft WTC Building 7 was not discussed in the 9/11 commission report. And no "virtually every qualified academic who has discussed his work has labelled him as an advocate of rather unusual conspiracy theories." This is not true. I just added a praising source and it can be more. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have their opinions you may agree or you may not. This is not a ideological war should be fought in wikipedia articles. So we should leave it by the known facts. No, Ganser does not describe himself as conspiracy theorist. Not in 2011 (Basel) and not in his 2014 lecture at the university of Tubingen. Not in "a way", not anyways. See yourself here. I deliver the source because CurtisNaito does not. He speaks about it starting from 33:00 in the video. Or here and here in swiss newspapers. I citate from the video: "Many people who ask questions about 9/11 are dismissed as people who believe in conspiracies" or "The question is who are the conspirators." Conspiracies are common events in history. You just need two or more people for that. Ganser questions the official 9/11 conspiracy theory but does not make any of the alternative theories his own opinion.Spearmind (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of reliable, academic sources cited in this article associating Ganser with conspiracy theories, so describing him as a conspiracy theorist is reasonable. You say that it is "highly unfair to call anyone" a conspiracy theorist, but if that was true by Wikipedia standards, then the Wikipedia category of "conspiracy theorist" wouldn't even exist. David Ray Griffin is described as a conspiracy theorist in his article as well.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A wikipedia category "conspiracy theorist" does not exist! Thats just untrue like Ganser would describe himself a conspiracy theorist. If I call someone a nut or an conspiracy theorist, than it is a personal opinion. Other people may have the opposite opinion. Always this term is used meant negative to discredit a person. There is no space in wikipedia for personal opinions without a source. What I saw here is an unjustified unbalanced negative article about a person. I recently added a more postive citation about him, of course there are much more outta there. David Ray Griffin is no longer described a conspiracy theorist here without giving a source for such a personal devaluation! You could instead describe him as skeptic of the "official" conspiracy theories. Conspirators usually want to assure that all skeptics are considered to be irrational. Right? Such ideological wars should be fought somewhere outside wikipedia. Furthermore your sources do not and cannot imply that Ganser makes the theories discussed in his books become his own opinion, the sources just show personal opinions of an author. Associating someone with discussing alternative theories does not mean these are his very own theories. It is highly unfair to call any person conspiracy theorist because this term is a personal tag. Some people agree with it others not. It would make sense to discuss the theories itself instead of blaming the researcher of theories circulating in the public.Spearmind (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's the opinion of a significant number of reliable sources, then it's okay to put it in the article. A Wikipedia category "Category:Conspiracy theorists" does indeed exist, and if you check his article, David Ray Griffin is also placed in a subcategory of the conspiracy theorist category.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any source which calls Ganser conspiracy theorist. That he is discussing conspiracy theories does not justify the label conspiracy theorist. He does not have his very own 9/11 theory which you must know if you watched the 2011 video or the newspaper articles I posted. As researcher he is discussing the 3 theories already on the market: surprise theory, let-it-happen-on-purpose theory and make-it-happen-on-purpose theory. None of them becomes his own theory at all!Spearmind (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

However, the theories advocated by Ganser in relation to Operation Gladio are clearly described as conspiracy theories in academic publications. According to Ganser, all theories relating to the 9/11 attacks are conspiracy theories, though Ganser has made repeated attempts to disprove the "surprise theory" which is the one advocated in Wikipedia's own article on the 9/11 attacks.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course all theories relating to the 9/11 attacks, including the official one, are conspiracy theories. In any circumstance two or more people are involved and thats already all you need to call something a plot or conspiracy. The question is who are the conspirators. Attempting to disprove one theory does not create a "conspiracy theorist" a negative term for a researcher. Ganser has not claimed in his book NATO's Secret Armies, Operation Gladio And Terrorism In Western Europe (2005) that there would be a Gladio conspiracy "between USA, CIA, NATO and the European countries". Ganser shows the cooperation of NATO with different of its european member states establishing Stay Behind structures. According to Ganser military secret services worked together in several countries with CIA or MI6. Is it a conspiration? Ganser does not say so. I would not call this "Stay Behind" system, which really makes sense in the Cold War time, a conspiracy either, since it was directed to defend against hostiles from abroad. Ganser separates activities in segments on national levels in his book(for example: Italy and Belgium). And according to Ganser in some countries conspirations on a national level! took place in order to avoid moves towards communism. Italy was very critical here at this time. Thats what my reference (book: 9/11 and American Empire) confirms in the article. Ganser writes in his introduction: "In each country, leading members of the executive, including Prime Ministers, Presidents, Interior Ministers and Defence Ministers, were involved in the conspiracy, while the 'Allied Clandestine Committee' (ACC), sometimes also euphemistically called the 'Allied Co-ordination Committee' and the 'Clandestine Planning Committee' (CPC), less conspicuously at times also called 'Coordination and Planning Committee' of NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe(SHAPE), coordinated the networks on the international level." A legitimate statement. Hansen's citation brought up something which is not to find in Gansers book, which is available on Web Archive and ready to be searched in its pdf format. 15 times you will find the word conspiracy, but not the one Hansen describes.Spearmind (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This article says that Ganser: "The U.S. State Department stated in 2006 that Ganser had been taken in by long-discredited Cold-War era disinformation and "fooled by the forgery". In an article about the Gladio/stay-behind networks and US Army Field Manual 30-31B they stated, "Ganser treats the forgery as if it was a genuine document in his 2005 book on “stay behind” networks, Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe and includes it as a key document on his Web site on the book." [17]" In the article on the Field Manual 30-31b it doesn't say it's for sure that it was a forgery. Do you think this article should mention that, in order to be NPOV? Popish Plot (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its their statement, if it is wrong it doesnt matter. Its a citation. Also the way Hansen a conspiracy describes is absolutely not correct. So leave them their opinions and go and find another source saying the opposite. If it is only in context with Ganser.Spearmind (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now the article is more balanced with also some positive voices about Gansers work. Before the article was one sided negative. I understand its not easy because different viewpoints hit each other here. Please try to keep the article balanced, thats just fair, as I said you find positive or negative voices if you are just willing to. Its unfair to call anyone conspiracy theorist. If you dont like the conspiracy theories go and fight them, not the messenger/researcher as a person.Spearmind (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

additional pieces of evidence

would you please evaluate the researches of this scientist:

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-ii-aspo.html

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/11/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-iii.html

http://sochi2014-nachgefragt.blogspot.de/2014/08/daniele-ganser-und-sein-umfeld-i-anti.html

thank you

79.197.67.163 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RE this request: I, as a natural scientist, was curious, but find these texts extremely painful to read, they dilute any message they may contain in far too much background information for my taste. Hence, if you really feel this information should be integrated into the article, please act upon this feeling, and summarize them here. Michi zh (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of Kevin Barrett material

Kevin Barrett and his American Empire book is a morass of poorly sourced 911 conspiracy theory. It is not a suitable ref to be used in a BLP. It is not reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that Kevin Barrett (conspiracy theorist) had his own wikipedia page until he was deleted last year as not being noteable. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, John B. Cobb still has his own article, and he endorsed the book as well. It's an independent, secondary source so I think we should include it, but we can phrase it neutrally. I don't want the material in question to be stated as a definitive fact, we can just say that it's the opinion of the book's author.

Oh, by the way, Capitalismojo, do you have any opinion on whether we should keep Ganser in the "9/11 conspiracy theorists" and/or "conspiracy theorists" category? Spearmind is against this category. I lean towards keeping, but I'm open to changing the article in some way if there are neutrality problems.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no refs that support having the category "9/11 conspiracy theorists" in this biography article. That isn't saying much because there are almost no RS refs for this person. The book is another matter. As the admin closer of the 2nd deletion nomination said this article should probably be moved over to an article about the book. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think American Empire is RS for anything except the opinions of the author. Do we include it? I think its addition tends to suggest that Ganser is a conspiracy theorist. He may well be such (he almost says that he is in the interview that has been added to the External Links) but...this is a BLP. We should be careful about such things. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo you have a personal opinion here again. Do I think Hansen is suitable or notable? It doesnt matter. I criticize the very negative and on sided touch of the article and there are other voices outta there. So the book of Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb and Sandra Lubarsky is a notable ref. It does not matter if its suitable for you or not.Spearmind (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to confom to ref.

We have a section that has Ganser criticised for using hoax documents. The sentence used the phrase 'for basing some of his conclusions'. This does not conform to the ref which supports the sentence which reads: "One of the important documents that Ganser bases his claim of the big conspiracy on". I changed edit to "key" from "some". That seems to summarize the ref accurately. We could instead just quote. The formulation "some of his conclusions" is not WP:Verified. It does not conform to the ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think using the word "key" is the simplest approach but would agree with using the entire quote for accuracy's sake. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the US Army Field Manual in this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army_Field_Manual_30-31B ? Popish Plot (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, We are not talking about the supposed field manual in this particular section. We are talking about a line in the article about Ganser's reliance on that document. We have a ref (actually multiple refs) stating that this was a critical piece that Ganser relied upon for his conclusions. An editor has attempted to downplay that importance conrtary to what the the refs specifically state. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You talk about key conclusions (=personal opinion) where Hansen writes about important documents as base for (one) claim. "One of the important documents that Ganser bases his claim of the big conspiracy on is an American field manual." So I decided to use Hansen's own words.Spearmind (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Review "done for the CIA"

There is no support for this inclusion that I can see. Is this WP:SYN? Is it Original Research? I can't tell. What is the basis for this inclusion, (aside from the obvious attempt to rubbish the author). Capitalismojo (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If we go to the ref we see this " Studies in Intelligence All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in Studies in Intelligence and CSI Publications are those of the Authors. They do not necessarily reflect official positions or views of the Central Intelligence Agency or any other US government entity, past or present." That would mean that this disclaimer should be removed. It should remain clear on this article (as it used to be) that this review is that of the academic author. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Peakes review for the CIA. Its only published on their website and nowhere else. The disclaimer does not change anything. This fact is notable since CIA activities is discussed in Gansers book.Spearmind (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not so much. We don't insert disclaimers about Krugman as "done for the New York Times". We don't talk about any academic in such a fashion when they are writing reviews like this. That is not NPOV. Creating the impression that the opinion writer has some sort of COI is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Accepted, it must not be necessarily in the article itself if it remains in the ref description.Spearmind (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

NATO's Secret Armies section lead ref needed

The ref fails. Nothing in the first 50 pages of the book (or page 142) supports the assertion that the book is "based particularly off information from parliamentary inquiries in Italy and Belgium". While there is much discussion of those inquiries at those pages, there is quite literally nothing supporting that statement. That means it fails the core Wikipedia pillar of Verification. Worse, we actually have RS refs currently in the article directly contradict the statement. Other academics state (in whithering criticism) that Ganser based his book primarily off newspaper accounts. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, the inquiries are discussed on p 14 or 142. Out of this you could argue its based on these inquiries or not. The sentence was never filled with a ref before. CurtisNaito wrote the sentence at the very beginning of the article jan. 2013 without giving a ref. The books foreword explains without going in to detail with specific countries.Spearmind (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Daniele Ganser

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Daniele Ganser's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ganser":

• From Strategy of tension: See Daniele Ganser, NATO's Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Frank Cass, London, 2005. Extracts and documents available here.
• From Operation Gladio: Ganser, Daniele. "Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO's Secret Stay-Behind Armies," Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, South Orange NJ, Winter/Spring 2005, Vol. 6, No. 1.
• From Grey Wolves: Ganser, Daniele (2005). NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. Routledge. p. 240. ISBN 9781135767853.
• From Projekt-26: The British Secret Service in neutral Switzerland, Daniele Ganser, in Intelligence and National Security, Vol.20, n°4, December 2005, pp.553-580

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

There was a deletion review of this article. To quote review: "The result was no consensus. Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)"

The clear implication, and simple reading of the discussion leads to the conclusion that this should be merged. In fact, six months ago the merger was proposed. No one has disagreed. Now the redirect has been reversed. Lets discuss. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merger. This is a de-facto deletion because all the content is being deleted and only certain select portions of it were actually integrated into other articles. During the deletion review, four votes were against deletion and only two votes in favor. The number of people who oppose this move is double the number of people in favor. I advise Capitalismojo to re-nominate this article for deletion at a later date, rather than attempt a deletion which at present is opposed by a substantial consensus of surveyed Wikipedia users.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I should point out furthermore that not a single person in the deletion review ever said anything about "merging" the article. Because this is a deletion, it should be handled in the normal procedural manner for deletion. If controversy still exists over notability, we should take this back to deletion review at a later date. For now, however, I think the recent deletion review already settled this matter.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as WP:AfM. This is a merge discussion, not deletion. I think we can gain editor consensus at talk to complete the merger. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is no consensus right now. Perhaps we should ping all the editors involved in the recent deletion review to re-submit their opinions. If necessary, we could do this as part of a general "request for comment". However, at this particular moment there is definitely a consensus against this form of de-facto deletion. No one should undertake a unilateral merge which is against consensus.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that the deletion discussion was "no consensus" but that the closing admin specifically discussed moving this material to the book...Right? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What he said was "Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired". We can certainly discuss changing this from an article about "Daniele Ganser" to an article about "NATO's Secret Armies", but we should have consensus before we do that. I actually am gradually seeing more merit in the possibility of turning this into an article about the book rather than the man, but earlier you were trying to merge this article into the article on Operation Gladio, which was not mentioned by the closing admin. I don't think that that particular option is currently supported by anyone but yourself and I strongly oppose it. If we do change the article, we should change it from an article on Daniele Ganser to an article on NATO's Secret Armies, not merge it into Operation Gladio.

Also, I'm not sure why you deleted the part about Ganser receiving "his PhD from the University of Basel". It looks to me like the source does say that.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. From ref: "Daniele Ganser ... studied history, English and philosophy in Basel, Amsterdam and London. He received his PhD in History in September 2001 for a thesis on NATO’s secret stay-behind armies and terrorism in Western Europe." Where does it say where he was awarded the degree? It doesn't. We could add that he has a PhD but we don't know where it's from. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Scandal on German Wikipedia

It might be interesting to know that the German article about Dr. Ganser caused a more than mild scandal in the German chapter. The controvery circles around the category "conspiracy theorist" that the Ganser article is broken under. Also, the introcuctory paragraph has led to a long-lasting edit war, when users wanted to change the sentence 1. "Er greift Verschwörungstheorien zum 11. September 2001 auf und stellt sie als von Historikern zu prüfende Erklärungsansätze dar." (He takes up conspiration theories concerning 9/11 and presents them as scientific approaches that are worth being evaluated by historians" (translation might not get all the implications) into a more neutral presentation of Ganser´s work: 2. "Ganser befasst sich außerdem kritisch mit den Anschlägen des 11. September 2001." (Ganser also deals/ works on critically with/ is also occupied with the attacks on 9/11). Attempts to edit the more neutral version have failed, regardless of numerous complaints on the discussion page and every user´s account that tried to edit the second version (2) [1] was immediately banned infinetely. Most of the time the article is closed for users´s edits , in October the Discussion page [2] has been under close supervision and editors are warned to be sanctioned at once if their edits are not within the now valid rules. On October, 25th, 2015, a documentary, directed by Biology teacher Marcus Fiedler from Oldenburg, was launched on youtube (teaser: [3] which used the Ganser article to explain the obscure structures of the German wikipedia, (full film [4]). It shows how a number of "inner-circle" administrators - dispite enourmous criticism from within the community and their fellows as well as from outside - use the means of blaming others of vandalism, of banning, reverting and hiding edits rather abritarily, misusing their power and not acting according to the community`s rules. This film has caused great outrage in part of the community and led to a huge number of fake accounts, hundreds of bans, overworked administration unable to deal with this situation (as far as I see it) inside the Wikipedia. There is the official policy to delete the mentioning of the film and to kick every (new) user out who refers to Ganser or the film. Outside Wikipedia, a campaign has started, aimed to change the illucit, predemocratic structures of Wikipedia in favour of a greater transparency on behalf of the administration, on "change.org". The petition demands "clear" (real) names, arguing that the well-established "Brockhaus" (equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica) has ceased to publish in 2014, so that Wikipedia has actually taken over the role of a monopolist in the field of encyclopedic work, which demands an extremely sensitive and responsible handling. Anonymous reverts and bans as regarded as counterproductive and undemocratic. - By the way, I am also banned on German Wikipedia. Why? On Thursday I wanted to inform rhe interested group of users on the discussion page about the talk Dr. Ganser was to hold on Witten University (North-Rhine-Westfalia)[5]. Its subject was the question of the power media have today and how to form one´s own opinion, [6]. As I´m an attentive person, with a more than delicate history as to censorship vs. free press, denouncing and misusing power in my homecountry Germany, I´m actually getting paranoic. And I do hope nobody will ban me for this edit. At least not infinetely as they (MWExpert (Diskussion) Benutzer:MBq did here and with many other users whose only crime was to mention the name "Ganser" or the film, as the "official policy" is to censor any information about this film with all means[7] [8]-----A whiter shade (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Take the drama and political efforts elsewhere. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your critical remarkCapitalismojo, . Which part, in particular, does not meet the criteria of a discussion page? I´d be willing to delete the respective sentence if I were convinced. Still, the happenings are both "drama" and also an outrageous case of POV in a very sensitive political area. Do you think editing under the existing paragraph "Conspiration Theory" above would be more appropriate? --A whiter shade (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"[...]As I´m a German with a more than delicate history as to censorship vs. free press [...]" I am a German and I find this comment needless. Take a look at the United Kingdom, the case of The Guardian and documents given by Snowden. They forced to destroy all their back-ups. Even all the dictatorships in the world. Free press is an illusion. Especially nobody knows the projetct by British Empire 1900-1914 to started the war, its "divide et impera"-policy divides germans and jewish people, McKinder strategy of dividing Germany and Russia. All this actions by the british government is "canceled" in the "official" history. That's delicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.138.16 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

True, but it´s still worth mentioning and saying "Look here! There are outrageous things going on! I am not willing to accept that as it is against the principles the Wikipedia stands for." if one suspects or even proves misuse of power on such an important project on the level of administration and higher. As far as your examples are concerned: Sorry, I know too little to judge on them. But shouldn´t we encourage whistleblowers like Snowdon in other resorts (even it is the clandestine part in Wikipedia...), too and help them if the power structures threaten to silence them? (You see, I did some minor changes in my former edit.) --A whiter shade (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Wikipedia and its (I will grant you, severe and ubiquitous) problems belong in Wikipedia: namespace, or even on meta. Certainly not on the talkpage of random individual conspiracy theorists who made it their mission to create wikidrama in order to protect their own vanity biography pages. Administrators are right to clamp down on attempts to create drama in WP:COI-WP:FRINGE corners of the project. I must ask why we even keep this biography page -- Ganser wrote about Gladio and about 9/11. Fine, so cite his publications in proper context in articles on the respective topics. THere is no reason to create biography pages for everyone who has ever written any book or paper cited anywhere on Wikipedia. This page doesn't cover any WP:BIO noteworthy biographical information. It simply discusses Ganser's contributions to the two topics mentioned. This is not sufficient reason to keep a biography page. --dab (𒁳) 07:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"This is not a blog. Take the drama and political efforts elsewhere."

This is a talk page and considering that articles here have the high aspiration of educating and informing and considering that they receive a lot of attention, discussions about relevant aspects mentioned in articles should be legitimate. lmaxmai (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniele Ganser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110112244/http://www.danieleganser.ch:80/Biographie.html to http://www.danieleganser.ch/Biographie.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-127177.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Background

The expression "History and Future of Energy Systems" may be confusing, as it may lead readers to believe that "History" and "Future of Energy Systems" are two actual and separate courses, while Mr. Ganser is listed as "lecturer in critical thinking" at the University of Sankt Gallen. Also, according to the variant of this article in German, Mr. Ganser attended "Rudolf Steiner" school. In case the article is conformal, it may be worth considering a mention, as the school and the movement inherit a tendency towards esotericism. In addition, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule and the University of Zürich have distanced themselves from Mr. Ganser's theories on "September 11" in 2006, while the University of Basel has demanded that this subject is not included in lectures and forbidden Mr. Ganser to hold personal presentations in their name and premises in 2011 following a presentation on this matter. lmaxmai (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Person

In the table one can read:

"accusing NATO of "false flag" terrorist operations"

This viololates (among others) wikipedia neutrality policy and should be taken away immediately.

Thanks for your opinions 0xkev (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This viololates Why? How? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Later Work section

I recently noticed some wording in the Later Work section that conflicted with our policy on neutrality. Since this is a BLP, we need to be particularly careful in our wording Here are the parts that need improvement:

• The following are words to watch and should be avoided: though, claimed, notes. As stated in policy "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said".

• We should avoid stating someone’s opinion in Wikivoice. Policy says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". In the sentence “Kullik states that Ganser ignores counter-evidence and utilizes historical revisionism and conspiracy theories to support his anti-American criticism ”, we should make clear that it is Kullik who is describing Ganser's work as "anti-American criticism". I suggest saying that “Kullik states that Ganser ignores counter-evidence and utilizes historical revisionism and conspiracy theories to support what he called anti-American criticism".

• On an unrelated matter, why are italics being used in the quote beginning “The US installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the new prime minister … “?

Burrobert (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Extra care is needed with more loaded terms Maybe we already used extra care?

  what he called anti-American criticism Who is "he"? Your suggestion sounds as if it is Ganser who calls it that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I explained above why we are not being careful enough. We could amend my suggestion to make it clearer that it is Kullik who is describing Ganser's work as "anti-American criticism". What about "Kullik states that Ganser ignores counter-evidence and utilizes historical revisionism and conspiracy theories to support what Kullik calls anti-American criticism"? Burrobert (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have any other thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Whatever we decide about the wording, it is a disproportionate response to add the "neutrality of this section is disputed" tag on the basis of the perceived ambiguity of 1-2 words. It makes it seem like there are substantive issues with the overall content of the section, which you so far have not mentioned. I have removed the tag.

On a more substantive note, I believe the way the sentence is currently written makes it clear that Kullik is referring to Ganser's Anti-American criticism, whereby it is implied that Kullik thinks this is anti-American criticism. Your suggested change would make the sentence slightly convoluted without fundamentally changing the current meaning. By the way, Ganser employing anti-US criticism is well-documented as being a reality (ie. Ganser has often criticized the U.S.), in half a dozen sources cited in the article so I almost feel like the point is moot, if it even needed to be addressed at all. Wickster12345 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I explained above why No, you did not. The page is called "Words to watch" and not "Words to avoid". and should be avoided is your invention, the page itself does not say it.

Ganser is a conspiracy theorist, and his ideas are far-out and not connected to reality. Only those who are themselves conspiracy theorists disagree with that. It is also clear that he is anti-American. It is correct to use words that "call their statement's credibility into question", as MOS:CLAIM puts it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag while a discussion is ongoing. See WP:DETAG for policy about when to remove a tag.

• I disagree that the current formulation makes it clear that "anti-American criticism" is Kulik's description. If my suggestion is too convoluted let's find an alternative.
• There is a difference between "anti-American criticism" and "criticism of the US". "Criticism of the US" is a fact while "anti-American criticism" is opinion. It suggests the criticism is being motivated by "fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred". The article Anti-Americanism is relevant here. Anyway, when I raised these issues I had not actually looked at the sources to see whether we had interpreted then correctly. I have now looked at Kulik's review. Afaict, he does not use the term "anti-American criticism". He does refer to "criticism of American politics". So, the problem with the use of wiki-voice would be solved by saying "Kullik states that Ganser ignores counter-evidence and utilizes historical revisionism and conspiracy theories to support his criticism of the US". This would also be a closer summary of Kulik's review.
• Any comments about the use of "words to watch"? Burrobert (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is simply all factually incorrect. Kullik says “ Das Buch ist daher eine Schatzkiste für alle Amerikakritiker und -hasser” he also says “ In seinem neuesten Buch „Imperium USA. Die skrupellose Weltmacht“ knüpft er inhaltlich an seine früheren Publikationen an und wartet mit einem langen Sündenregister amerikanischer Verfehlungen auf. It’s very clear Kullik refers to Ganser’s anti-American sentiment as such, no qualifications. Furthermore, you say “ “There is a difference between "anti-American criticism" and "criticism of the US". If you assume Anti-American criticism in English to have the same meaning in German as “Amerikakritik” then I think your statement is incorrect as well. Wickster12345 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I want to remind you that Wikipedia:DETAG also states that “ Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag” I genuinely don’t see the purported problem you are identifying, but for the purposes of further discussion let’s keep the tag. So far there is no consensus that the tag is justified or that changes need to be made. Wickster12345 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• The translation I have for that passage is "The book is therefore a treasure trove for all critics and haters of America. In his latest book “Empire USA. The unscrupulous world power” he builds on the content of his earlier publications and comes up with a long list of sins of American misdeeds". He does not say Ganser is a "hater of America". He says the content of the book may be of interest to people of who are critics of the US and "American haters". Since you said earlier that it is clear that Ganser is a US critic ("Ganser has often criticized the U.S."), why not use "criticism of the US" rather than "anti-American criticism". I don't assume that "Anti-American criticism" in English has the same meaning as “Amerikakritik” in German. Is there a reason why I should?
• You aren't an uninvolved editor. You have edited the article fairly extensively and are arguing strongly for one point of view. There is no consensus either way regarding the tag since the discussion is on-going. I am surprised by the level of push-back on what I thought were uncontroversial minor violations of Wiki policy in a BLP.
• Any comments about the use of "words to watch"?

Burrobert (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"Amerikakritik" is a German term that broadly refers to a type of criticism, that has been academially covered by political scientists, journalists and historians since the end of World War 2, directed at the United States and its influence, culturally or (especially) geopolitically in German-speaking countries. It is much closer in meaning to anti-American criticism, which is a subcategory of overall "criticism of the U.S.". An example of the latter would be criticizing the structure of the U.S. government (eg. its particular brand of representative democracy, or the influence of money in American politics). Hence, Ganser engaging in anti-American criticism is the more fitting term because he criticizes the geopolitical influence of America on Europe as opposed to more arcane things/facets that 'constitute' the U.S. as a country and entity. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the semantic analysis of the term "Amerikakritik". As I see it there are two approaches. Either we use the phrase "criticism of the US", in which case Wikivoice can be used. Or we use the phrase "anti-American criticism" (which has been used elsewhere in the article), in which case we need to be clearer that this is Kulik's opinion. The other point that I raised though relates to the use of "words to watch". Btw, we are probably spending more time on this than it deserves. Burrobert (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't explained what issue you have this section in terms of "words to watch", you've just reminded us to follow the official policy regarding "words to watch". What words are being used in this section that should not be used?

Regarding your other point, I would pick "anti-American criticism" while specifying that this is Ganser's opinion. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Pardon, Kullik's opinion. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"The following are words to watch and should be avoided: though, claimed, notes".

• though: "Though affirming that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal ... "
• claimed: "He has further claimed that Ukrainian President ... " and in an earlier section "In this book, Ganser claims that Gladio units ..."
• notes: "Kullik further notes that ..."

I may have a more detailed look at the page as there is at least one other oddity. The following appears to be a comment by a Wikipedia editor based on their own research: "It received little to no coverage in the general and academic presses. One of the few reviewers, ..." Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Then feel free to change the words to watch to "states, says etc..." and remove the apparent original research sentence. Wickster12345 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do so, you have no objections from me and others it seems, suggesting consensus for your position, I will remove the tag in a few days if no one else adds to this debate, as called for by the appropriate policy. Wickster12345 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed those words and the editorial comment. The remaining issue was Kulik's remark about "anti-American criticism". I made some suggestion, but they were considered unclear and convoluted. Ideally we could place the phrase in quotation marks, but it is not actually a quote from Kulik. Perhaps, we could replace it with the German "Amerikakritik"? Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The bigger issue, as you pointed out is a semantic one with regards to “Anti-American criticism” vs. “criticism of the U.S”, I would avoid using the term “Amerikakritik” because it’s German and most readers wouldn’t know what to do with it Wickster12345 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Anti-American" seems more of a propaganda term that should not be used in Wikivoice. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As I explained above: ""Amerikakritik" is a German term that broadly refers to a type of criticism, that has been academically covered by political scientists, journalists and historians since the end of World War 2, directed at the United States and its influence, culturally or (especially) geopolitically in German-speaking countries. It is much closer in meaning to anti-American criticism, which is a subcategory of overall "criticism of the U.S.". An example of the latter would be criticizing the structure of the U.S. government (eg. its particular brand of representative democracy, or the influence of money in American politics). Hence, Ganser engaging in anti-American criticism is the more fitting term because he criticizes the geopolitical influence of America on Europe as opposed to more arcane things/facets that 'constitute' the U.S. as a country and entity."

If you really want to change it to "criticism of the U.S." as far as I'm concerned, feel free to do so, in my opinion you'd be missing a key lexical nuance, however. Wickster12345 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Amerikakritik" does not seem to have that specific definition from what I'm seeing. It seems ambiguous at the very least. See this page here that refers to it as a term explicitly contrasting "anti-Americanism." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference either way, if you want to change it to criticism of the U.S., go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. Wickster12345 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the term "anti-American criticism" with "criticism of the US". There didn't seem to be any objections to that here on the talk page. However, @Lute88:, who has so far not participated in the discussion, reverted the change. The polite thing for that editor to do would be to explain their reasoning here. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)