Talk:Mathew L. Golsteyn

Golsteyn's Amazon comment

As of 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Golsteyn's Amazon comment, that triggered an investigation into his friends, is still online, here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like this paragraph about the Amazon review was particularly noteworthy or important to this subject's life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Liz, ideally the way we should cover related topics is that:

1. Those related topics will all link to each other. When article A is related to article B, article A should contain a wikilink to B, and Article B should contain a wikilink to A.
2. The links to related articles should be well placed within the articles.
3. Some links require little context to make plain to readers how they relate to the article they are reading. Others may require a sentence, or even a brief paragraph, providing context. Sadly, vandals and POV pushers sometimes trim that context so severely it effectively obfuscates the relation between the two topics
4. Only one article should go into detail on a topic. When one article provides a paragraph of context for a link to a related article care should be used to make sure it doesn't start to duplicate details of the main exposition in the other article. Duplicating the details is problematic for two reasons. The two accounts could contradict one another. Even if they didn't contradict one another, when first drafted, they could diverge if the main article's intellectual content is changed when new developments require an update.

It isn't always obvious which of a pair of related articles should explain some development common to both of them. Resolving disagreements over such placement should be done with a maximum of civility, because, although it might seem obvious, these disagreements are usually ones where there is "no right answer".

Personally, I think the intersection of Mathew Golsteyn, and his online review, Will Swenson, his friend who was profoundly affected by the online review, The Wrong War, the book Golsteyn reviewed, and Bing West, the former senior Pentagon official who wrote the book, merits more coverage. There could be good faith disagreement as to which article(s) should be expanded.

When I wrote the material you see now I didn't realize that Bing West was embedded in the unit Golsteyn commanded. I didn't realize that he devoted almost two whole chapters to the time he spent with Golsteyn's unit. He was also embedded in Swenson's unit. Both officer's medals were for actions described in West's book, a book written by a former senior Pentagon official.

I don't know whether West and Golsteyn knew one another, were friends, prior to the embed. However, West quotes Golsteyn in other publications. He cited him as a perfect example of the kind mixed Afghan-Special-Forces unit necessary to win the war. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently, that section shows that the delays in Swenson's award ("administrative errors") didn't begin until after Golsteyn posted the Amazon review. This is directly contradicted by the Washington Times source, and the Stars and Stripes source that it relies upon. Stars and Stripes says that the controversy involved in the delay of the award was because Swenson criticised Army leadership after the battle. From Stars and Stripes: "Swenson’s Medal of Honor nomination was delayed for at least two years after officials lost the information, which has also lead to controversy. Skeptics have accused Army officials of burying his award because of harsh criticism he leveled in the days following the attack, saying commanders did not respond quickly enough to calls for support." Either a source needs to be found linking the delay in Swenson's MoH award to Golsteyn's Amazon review, or that information needs to be removed. Sperril (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What kind of bomb killed the two marines...

The article currently says it was a "roadside IED". Some RS say the Marines opened a booby-trapped sliding door. Author Bing West, who was embedded with Golsteyn's unit, said it was a garage door that had the bomb attached. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The current wording (which I believe I wrote but am totally open to changing, we want this to be accurate) is based off of the NYTimes article titled "Twist in green berets story...", which used the wording "roadside bomb." Which source mentioned the sliding door? Is West's work a primary source? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• West was embedded with Golsteyn's unit, so, yes, as an eyewitness, it is a primary source.
• Fwiw, a bomb attached to a garage door style door, in a street bazaar, could be described as a "roadside bomb". These bazaars can consist of alcoves, in this case sealable with a garage door style door, lining a relatively narrow street. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Actual charges

The article currently says Golsteyn is charged with war crimes. Some legal commentators have stated or implied he committed a war crime, and of course he has high profile defenders, who dispute he committed any crimes at all.

If I am not mistaken the actual charge is "premeditated murder".

Can we cover the opinions of those legal commentators who describe it as a war crime? (1) it would have to be attributed; (2) balanced against the opinions of his defenders. For charges, if the formal charge is "premeditated murder" that deserves pride of place.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The charge is murder, the wording "war crimes" was based off of (I believe) the Washington times article. It does seem that war crimes was more commentary by the source, they were crimes allegedly committed during war, but I guess not war crimes in the traditional sense. Since most sources do not use the "war crimes" wording, and since that could actually be a BLP violation, I support removing the wording and simply stating the charge of "premeditated murder". And of course we must remember that they are just charges and that he hasn't been tried or convicted yet.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Mathew L. Golsteyn → ? – There was a fairly controversial discussion earlier about deleting this page. The discussion did not reach consensus, but many folks leaned towards turning this into an event page per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLP1E. I am thus opening this RM to propose renaming and refocusing the page on the incident and continuing aftermath/developments. I'm not sure what the new name should be, and am looking for suggestions/consensus. Perhaps something along the lines of Operation Moshtarak murder, Investigation of Mathew L. Golsteyn, Operation Moshtarak Green Beret incident and so on... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral Although I proposed this I do not currently have a strong opinion any which way and thus am why I'm looking for discussion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral, with a slight preference to keep the current name. Out of the three alternatives, Investigation of Mathew L. Golsteyn is my 2nd choice. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Operation Moshtarak is first choice. Murder in the title is a non-starter as is Golsteyn's name. Death of Rasoul (Taliban bomb maker) is second choice. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

February 9th Wapo interview...

I just added a couple of paragraph based on Golsteyn's February 9th Wapo interview. I did my best to keep it neutral, but I expect it to be controversial.

If you are going to rewrite this material I encourage you to explain your edits here.

Only simple and noncontroversial edits should be explained solely with an edit summary. Geo Swan (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New information I did not include

The account offered an account of the source of the version that Golsteyn and a colleague took the suspect “back to his residence and assassinated him.”

"An agent with U.S. Criminal Investigation Command who watched a recording of Golsteyn’s polygraph test wrote in one early report that Golsteyn told his interviewers that he and one other U.S. soldier had taken the deceased Afghan “back to his residence and assassinated him.” But Army officials conceded at a 2015 administrative hearing known as a Board of Inquiry that Golsteyn did not say that, Golsteyn said. The Army declined to comment."

I didn't include coverage of this. I'd welcome opinions on inclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Correction to Golsteyn article

He graduated from West Point in 2002, not 2006. This detail comes from a 2015 Washington Post article, which has been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.72.255.12 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Questionable...

Someone changed the article so that the man Golsteyn killed was characterized as being an "enemy combatant".

I think this is highly questionable.

1. Golsteyn merely suspected this man was an enemy, because he was fingered by an informant. He was not captured during a firefight. He wasn't captured with a gun in his hand. Ever since the USA's first days in Afghanistan US forces have experienced being duped by wily Afghans, who routinely lied, and used claims that their rivals in long-standing feuds were members of the Taliban, to get the USA to even up their feuds.
2. The Bush administration started to use the US-centric term Enemy Combatant. It is not a term defined in International law. The Obama administration officially abandoned the term.

   The Bush administration's use of the term was highly problematic, as it differed so widely from the term Lawful Combatant, which is defined in the Geneva Conventions.

Some differences between Bush enemy combatants and lawful combatants as defined in International law

Lawful combatant	Bush term enemy combatant	notes
does not apply to veterans, who have been discharged	applied to veterans of previous wars applied to veterans who had served during peace time applied to Afghans who had been civil servants, not actual combatants applied to foreigners who had been drafted at 18 by countries with universal military service applied to individuals who had served on our side during the 1991 Gulf War applied to youths who had attended summer camps where there was a shooting range where they took target practice applied even to little old ladies who innocently donated to what they thought were legitimate charities, if US intelligence suspected someone at that charity had diverted the charity's resources to a project with an association with terrorism	In 2005, during Murat Kurnaz's habeas corpus, judge Joyce Hens Green put the DoJ on the spot, and asked whether a "little old lady, from Switzerland" could be considered an enemy combatant, merely for making what she thought was an legitimate charity. She was informed the little old lady COULD be considered an "enemy combatant".

So, I am removing this questionable term. Geo Swan (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Full pardon November 15,2019

He was just issued a full pardon by President trump. If he was fully pardoned his silver star should be re awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Defense content

Howdy hello! I have reverted some additions that I believed were not neutral. The issue is that they lend undue wieght, and rely heavily on direct quotations. While some of the material might be included, it needs to be presented using prose, and supported only by reliable secondary sources. The existing sources were overly primary, i.e. just quotes from people involved, not objective news coverage. I would be willing to work to create a neutral version that presents things using reliable sources, but the reverted version is not satisfactory. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)