Talk:Jim Molan

Ribbon for Legion of Merit

Note that in his official photograph here, Jim is wearing the wrong ribbon for his Legion of Merit. In the pic he is wearing the ribbon for a Legionnaire, but he was awarded an Officer grade, as can be seen in this pic - the difference being that the Legionnaire grade is ribbon only, whilst the Officer grade has a gold mini-medal embellishment. PalawanOz (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-Military Career

I've just read his book "Running the War in Iraq" and I think that some of his arguments will be extremely pertinent to the upcoming White Paper. So I've added a few career details and links to a few of his speeches and papers. If he writes a few more things then there may need to be a "Publications" section, but I'll leave it as is for the moment. 124.19.39.185 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for Israel's actions in the 2008-2009 Gaza War

It was just questioned why I added this section to the article:

When the United Nations Human Rights Council released a report on the Gaza War that accused Israel and Hamas of war crimes and potential crimes against humanity, Jim Molan spoke up saying that ""as a soldier who has run a war against an opponent [al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups] not dissimilar to Hamas, facing problems perhaps similar to those faced by Israeli commanders, my sympathies tend to lie with the Israelis." Jim then goes on to say that Goldstone unquestionably accepted Hamas's claims and disregarded Israeli claims: "But having stated my prejudice, I think I may be more honest than Goldstone, who seems to pass off his prejudices in a report that cannot be based on fact, and uses judicial language and credibility to do so. It comes down to equality of scepticism: if you refuse to believe anything the Israelis say, then you have no right to unquestioningly accept what Hamas says."<ref name="UN's bias binds Gaza">[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26152548-7583,00.html UN's bias binds Gaza], The Australian, 2 October 2009.</ref>

Jim Molan has written an editorial in the Australian newspaper in support of Israel's actions and he is being cited all over the place for having this opinion. Thus it is notable. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked: "What's your point in including this? It's not clear how this addition is relevant to an article about Jim Molan.". Thank you for responding.

However, you haven't really answered my question.

Whether this is "notable" and/or "true" is not the issue. (If it weren't notable or true, we wouldn't be having this "conversation" ... )

The issue is relevance. i.e. How, why, and to what is this relevant?

The section is something of an "orphan"; it doesn't seem to relate to anything else in the article.

The fact that Molan has an opinion on this matter may be relevant, but relevant to what?

Jim Molan is no "shrinking violet" - he is well known for having, and expressing, many opinions on many things, some of them quite controversial, and some of them very important to issues that were current at the time he expressed the opinions.

Why is this particular opinion of particular note or interest? (Particularly when none of his other opinions are mentioned?)

I hope this makes my question a bit clearer this time. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My adding of this information to this article is not a claim that other instances are not notable. I am working on the article dealing with the Goldstone Report. Jim Molan has been given a whole paragraph in that article detailing his views and his views are being used to justify Israel actions in the Gaza War, see United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Military_experts. If his opinion is notable in that context, it makes sense to also state those opinions in this article. If Jim Molan has other opinions on other topics that are notable, then they should be included in this article as well. Currently my focus is not Jim Molan, but rather the Goldstone report and tying together articles that deal with it. What I think you are noticing is that Jim Molan's article is in need of expansion. It will, because this is Wikipedia, happen in a haphazard manner in fits and starts, but that is to be expected.

I do believe that if Jim Molan's opinion is notable enough to be included in the article on the Goldstone report it is surely notable enough to include in his own biography.

If your argument is that Jim Molan opinions are not worth including because he has a lot of them and is generally outspoken, then maybe you should bring that up on the Goldstone report as right now they believe Jim Molan's opinions are relevant in the context of the response to this international war crimes investigation.

--John Bahrain (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your reply.

" ... is not a claim that other instances are not notable. " - 1) True. 2) Again, you're missing or avoiding the point. The point is relevance, not notability.

"and his views are being used to justify Israel actions in the Gaza War" - Are they? Where?

(They are not being used in the United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict article for that purpose.)

"If his opinion is notable in that context, it makes sense to also state those opinions in this article." - Does it? Why? Yes, his opinion about the report is relevant in an article about the report. But I don't see why or how his opinion about the report is relevant to an article about him.

"If Jim Molan has other opinions on other topics that are notable, then they should be included in this article as well." - I disagree. As I keep repeating, the criterion is relevance, NOT (just) notability. No matter how "notable" they are, if they're not relevant, then they should NOT be included.

"Currently my focus is not Jim Molan, but rather the Goldstone report and tying together articles that deal with it." - Fair enough.

"What I think you are noticing is that Jim Molan's article is in need of expansion. It will, because this is Wikipedia, happen in a haphazard manner in fits and starts, but that is to be expected." - Agreed.

"If your argument is that ... " - No, that is not my argument. Nor is that my opinion. Nor is that what I said above.

"as right now they believe Jim Molan's opinions are relevant in the context of the response to this international war crimes investigation." - 1) Well, his comments are about the report, not about the investigation. And I believe "they" should continue to believe Molan's comments are relevant to the report - I believe that Molan is indeed "a military expert" on this topic. 2) Even Goldstone himself has made comments about the report and what it does and does not say, how it should and should not be interpreted and used, etc.

I hope that addresses your concerns and answers your questions.

Now, could you please explain how this is relevant to the Jim Molan article?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By-the-way: I would NOT characterise Molan's editorial as "Support for Israel's actions in the 2008-2009 Gaza War", and I'm not sure why you are/have. His comments are about the report, not about Israel's actions. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)