Talk:Carolyn Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carolyn Wood article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 14, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Sources?

I have edited the article to address specifically the wording of "slowly beaten to death" and the claim that"the doctor who performed his post-mortem said his legs were so badly injured they would have had to have been amputated, if he had lived". I can't find any sources to verify the amputation claim, but would be comfortable for this to be reinstated if sources can be found. Anybody?? --Cactus.man ✍ 10:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I read it in the New York Times :Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail
The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner.
It also says:
But among those mentioned in the new reports is Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, the chief military intelligence officer at Bagram. The reports conclude that Captain Wood lied to investigators by saying that shackling prisoners in standing positions was intended to protect interrogators from harm. In fact, the report says, the technique was used to inflict pain and sleep deprivation.
Since the NYTimes requires a subscription to read articles that are more than about two weeks old, that link above should not work. I don't know why it does. -- Geo Swan 12:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I am also not sure why the link works, but it seems to, no complaints here. That is one reason why I didn't list sourcewatch.org in the external links. It just gives protected NYT page links for the sources. Seems reasonable to me to to cite this 'working' source in the article though. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't Jehl a Controversial Source

Given that the secondary news articles cite to the Congressional Record, which is an original source online, why not use the CR instead of an article by Jehl at the NY Times. Jehl appears to be on a right-wing NYT watch list [1] and after their own sourcing scandals, the NYT itself is no longer considered an unimpeachable source, even by moderates. If this article were to survive AfD, then it will have to be re-written due to POV. Why not go back to the original public domain sources and avoid stories by writers with an agenda? Joaquin Murietta 14:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I found a link to the entire testimony quoted by the NY Times. The NY Times quotes from the Senate Armed Service Committee hearing are, IMO, completely fair in their representation of its discussion of Wood's role. I'll add it later tonight.
You haven't explained why we should put more trust in your site that monitors the NY Times than we would in the NY Times itself. -- Geo Swan 23:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] POV clean up needed

Essentially this article, like all the others, sources from the press releases of defense counsel. Those press releases end up in the newspapers. This is not a criticism of Clive, he is doing what lawyers do. The issue is whether an encyclopedia loses credibility by becoming a megaphone for one point of view. Joaquin Murietta 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting both images that have been posted. One is an obvious smear, although ironic since it is Captain Wood who is fighting modern day Nazis. The other is from an unknown source. The tag claims that it's a promotional image but without a source there can be no promotion. And since it was posted by the same user who posted the smear, I have doubts about its integrity. -- Randy2063 16:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The image of the blond woman with Captain's bars is Captain Wood. I recognize her from the recent CBC documentary on Abu Ghraib. I suspect that the image is a screenshot from that documentary. I wrote a note to the person who posted it, recommending the use the screenshot tag, not the promotional tag. -- Geo Swan 21:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bio stub issues

The bio facts are totally missing. The Bronze star mention doesn't identify if this is a combat-v or not. Date of birth is missing. Education is missing. Joaquin Murietta 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My recollection is that Captain Wood has been described as being 34 years old. (unsigned comment)

[edit] questioning the disputed facts notice

The disputed facts notice says:

"The dispute is about Pre-trial detention in Guantanmo Bay."

Wood is said to have played a central role in the Bagram abuse scandal, and in the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. But her only involvement in Guantanamo Bay was her discussions with General Miller and his aides when he came to offer his advice from Guantanamo to American forces in Iraq.

The disputed facts notice says:

"Accuracy and NPOV issues exist with respect to the republishing of press releases and other statements issued by defense counsel on behalf of a group of clients.."

I'd like to invite more specificity here. Much of the article is based on court martial testimony, not defense counsel press releases. -- Geo Swan 23:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to invite more specificity here. -- Why not say, I invite instead of I'd like to invite. Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If you have links to the court martial testimony, put them here--------------------------->

  • Whose court martial?
  • Sgt. James P. Boland, of the reserve 377th Military Police Company in Cincinnati
  • Spc. Brian Cammack, of the 377th MP
  • Pfc. Willie V. Brand, of the 377th MP
  • Sgt. Anthony Morden, of the 377th MP
  • Sgt. Christopher W. Greatorex, of the 377th MP
  • Sgt. Darin M. Broady, of the 377th MP
  • Capt. Christopher M. Beiring, commander of the 377th MP
  • Staff Sgt. Brian L. Doyle, of the 377th MP
  • Sgt. Duane M. Grubb, of the 377th MP
  • Sgt. Alan J. Driver, of the 377th MP
  • Spc. Nathan Adam Jones, of the 377th MP
  • Spc. Glendale C. Walls, of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion from Fort Bragg, N.C.
  • Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo, of the 519th MI Battalion
  • Sgt. Joshua Claus, of the 519th MI Battalion
  • Pfc. Damien M. Corsetti, of the 519th MI Battalion
  • Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*Date?

  • Ongoing. The last charge was laid just a couple of weeks ago. -- Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*Who were the judges?

  • Various. -- Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • where was it held?
  • Those in Captain Wood's old outfit were, I believe, court-martialed in Fort Bragg. -- Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Which branch of military?
  • Army -- Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*What was result?

  • Various. Many had the charges dropped. There were some fines. The harshest sentence so far was five months imprisonment, reduction in rank to private, and a bad-conduct discharge. Only seven have finished their courts-martial. -- Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*Was it open to the media?

  • I believe so. -- Geo Swan 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*Links or URLS to transcript of proceedings (as opposed to press releases)

  • I have already provided a number of specific links to the passages in official inquiries that address Captain Wood's role. Posted by Geo Swan

(The above comments were inserted after my original comment. I have put my comments in bold. Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)) Also, these "answers" are non answers. Carolyn Wood has not been court-martialed. This entire article is a slam fest against her based on speculation. Someday, there may be evidence against her. Some day it may appear that she is innocent. But she has never been court-martialed and this is a sexist attack on a female soldier, who should be presumed innocent at this point. ' Joaquin Murietta 16:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You call the article a "slamfest". But you --- again -- neglect to point to a single specific passage that you consider represents a biased point of view. Forgive me, but if you aren't willing or able to make the effort to be specific about what you consider biased you should prepare to see us tailor our efforts to take your concerns seriously to the amount of effort you put into phrasing them in a clear, civil manner.
Please explain how you can describe an article that cites official DoD inquiries as "based on speculation".
Do you mean to imply that my contributions to this article are, somehow, part of a sexist attack? If so, I encourage you to look more closely. I don't believe you will find a single contribution I have made to this or any other article that could be described as a "sexist attack".
A presumption of innocence does not mean we should suppress the discussion of well-documented, authoritative primary sources. -- Geo Swan 17:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename this article?

(As of today: Rename - 2, As is 2) Joaquin Murietta 16:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Comment moved below Joaquin Murietta 16:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


I would like to propose renaming this article or at least offering a place for people to access other Carolyn Woods out there. My suggestion is to rename it to Captain Carolyn Wood. --Nickfinck 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That suggestion would not meet our guidelines on article naming, WP:NC, which prohibit using titles in article names. What other notable people are named "Carolyn Wood"? -Will Beback · † · 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote or comment here on renaming this article to The case against Carolyn Wood

  1. Rename It is now November and this article is still posted for cleanup. Most of the information in the article is an argument that Carolyn Wood has broken the law. There has been no effort to create a true bio for Carolyn Wood. In the past month, new, poorly-written, articles have been created on the Guantanamo Bay, the prisoners and the lawyers, soldiers and other people involved. I have rewritten a bunch of them, particularly the shoddy stubs about "prominent" lawyers, but this Wood article should perhaps be renamed "The case against Carolyn Wood'? Of course she has never been been charged or court-martialed, but the new title would be a more accurate representation of the true subject of this article. Joaquin Murietta 16:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Are there any precedents for JM's suggestion of renaming an article about someone in this way? I don't think that JM's new name suggests a neutral point of view.
  • Rather than use innuendo, I would prefer that JM state their concerns about other's contributions in a civil, specific manner. I have assured JM, many times, that I will give any serious, civil, specific questions they have serious, civil, specific answers.
  • In the interests of transparency and clarity I will point out something JM neglected to record here. On October 14th JM initiated an {afd} on this article. The justification they gave was that it did not conform to the NPOV policy. This was a violation of wiki policy. A perceived POV is not grounds for deletion. Further, they had made no attempt to identify which parts of the article they thought did not conform to a NPOV. Several people asked them why they initiated an {afd} over perceived POV. But they did not attempt to answer.
  • Wood has practically nothing to do with the unfolding Guantanamo scandal. Her only tie to Guantanamo is that she would have met Geoffrey Miller, the commandant of the camp in Cuba, and his team, when they visited Abu Ghraib.
  • The {accuracy} tag complains about republishing defense counsel press releases. But the documents cited in the article are not defense counsel press releases. They are the reports of official US military inquiries.
  • JM is also the contributor who applied the {cleanup} tag. I believe that the proper use of these tags oblige a contributor to set out, in a civil, serious, specific manner, why they apply. -- Geo Swan 17:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename It would be more honest, as this has become a loonfest kangaroo court. But you might as well stay out of this, JM, at least for the moment. We can hope that those who read this article will recognize its extreme nature for what it is. There will be time enough to do some editing in the weeks to come. -- Randy2063 19:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to a remark about the above post, I should clarify that there was no insult intended in my use of the term loonfest. It applies to no one in particular. I'm seeing it as one article in a tide of propaganda. Contrast this to the one on Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dossary: He generally gets a presumption of innocence while she gets a presumption of guilt. If we were to study only Wikipedia, we might get the impression that most prisoners in this war are innocent, and that it's Carolyn Wood who belongs in prison.
That's particularly ironic, given that most of the claims against her are from guards trying to deflect attention after they've been charged with actual crimes. She hasn't, nor does it appear that she should be.
Randy2063 20:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical Suggestion

This article is about a person, not a forthcoming trial or pending charge. Your suggestion to rename it is nonsensical and I will not be 'voting'. The subject of the article is the person, not any non existent 'case'. If you disagree with the content, fix it, do not waste time and energy with spurious renaming proposals.

As for your application of the {{Disputeabout|}} tag, you state in the reasoning:

Pre-trial detention in Guantanmo Bay. Accuracy and NPOV issues exist with respect to the republishing of press releases and other statements issued by defense counsel on behalf of a group of clients.

What connection does this article have to any of the matters outlined in your reasoning? Wood was not stationed in Guantanamo, there are no 'defense counsel press releases and other statements' and there is no 'group of clients'. Cut and paste is a powerful double edged sword, use it with care. Please explain clearly exactly where, and what specific content there is in the article that you dispute, with relevant reasons. Failing that, I intend to remove the tag. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Cactus Man. I agree completely.
Plus, the very phrase, "pretrial detention" implies a highly biased POV.
  • The detainees are not being held awaiting trial.
  • Only nine of the detainees have been charged. And they were not charged in a real court of law.
  • They will be judged using secret evidence their attorney's won't have a meaningful chance to refute.
  • Three of the initial JAG attorneys initially slated to serve as prosecutors requested reassignment when the chief prosecutor promised them that all the evidence that would serve to clear the defendants would be classified, so the defense attorneys couldn't get access to it.
  • The allegations against some of the detainees, as revealed in their combatant status review tribunals, are laughably, tissue thin.
  • "You were traveling wearing a watch from the same manufacturer as that used to manufacture the timers in time-bombs." Yes, like 100,000,000 other innocent people.
  • "An alias of your name was found on an al Qaida hard drive". Gareth Hughes, the fellow who provided some of the Arabic versions of the names of some of the people we are interested in, has given us an indication as to how tricky tranliterating Arabic names are.
  • "You were friends with someone we had under surveillance".
  • To call their detention "pretrial detention" is an insult to the principles of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. -- Geo Swan 18:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with most of what you say, but the key point in relation to this talk page is that none of these issues relate whatsoever to the Carlyn Wood article. She has no direct connection to the Guantanamo detainees. I think the points you make could well be perfectly valid on the various detainee articles that JM has 'splatter-gunned' with his "pretrial detention" tags, but I don't think that they really apply to this page. It appears that JM has simply pasted his pretrial detention "template" across here without really checking the context. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Phrases Like Nonsensical

Isn't that a little argumentative? How do rude comments further the discussion? Joaquin Murietta 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of the {disputeabout} tag

JM revised their {disputeabout} tag today.

  • JM still claims there are POV concerns with the article.
  • Yet JM still has not made a meaningful good faith attempt to specifically identify any POV issues they have about this article in this, or any other talk page.

JM, perhaps you don't realize it, but by slapping on essentially identical {disputeabout} tags to half a dozen articles, without making any meaningful attempt to identify what you consider POV, you are giving the appearance of a lack of good faith.

That is easily fixed. Just start making the effort to be specific about what you think is POV. -- Geo Swan 18:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

1. assume good faith 2. You have not responded to the thoughtful comments I put on several talk pages. 3. When I edit your articles, you get mad and stomp around. 4. I rewrote several of them, but but it takes too much time and your tantrums are wearing. 5. My problem with your articles is that you create dozens of them, mispellings, misplaced commas, dangling participles, and all. Your sources are often the press releases from defense attorneys. Or cagedprisoners.org. There are POV issues. There are spelling issues. The articles need work. Lots of work. Why don't you ask for some formal peer review? Why not write one good article a day instead of five stubs? Joaquin Murietta 08:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another reason why this article is sub-standard

I have removed the second of two unsourced images posted by a new user. User:Geo Swan has been aware of the issue, has posted on the new user's talk page, but did not use the customary warning tags and apparently feels it is A-OK to use unsourced and copyvio images to further his obsession with Carolyn Wood. The images are:

  • Image:She Wolf of the SS.jpg This is one of two photos uploaded by a new user User:Whosyourdaddy to support a tagged article Carolyn Wood. This one is obviously from a copyright source, the cover of a DVD on Amazon [2]
  • Image:Carolynwood.jpg This is one of two photos uploaded by a new user User:Whosyourdaddy to support a tagged article Carolyn Wood. This one is unsourced but purports to be released. No source is given for the image.

Joaquin Murietta 14:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it again after it was replaced again by User:24.86.172.42. I'm beginning to regret removing the other one when it first appeared (Image:She Wolf of the SS.jpg) as that could serve as an additional warning to readers as to the nature of this article. -- Randy2063 15:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Huh? What are you talking about, it seems to be a copyright violation and can't be used. What "warning" do readers need? --203.98.138.164 16:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The real picture of Captain Wood is a screenshot. As such, if properly tagged, it would qualify as fair use, not a {copy-vio}. -- Geo Swan 19:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
JM, do you think it would be possible for you to make contributions to the articles that we are both interested in, without making malicious comments about my contributions? Characterizing me as "obsessed" is a personal attack. You know full well you shouldn't make that kind of assertion. Similarly, calling the presence of an unsourced image my "tacit use" of the image is also a personal attack. How exactly is the use of unsourced images here my responsibility? -- Geo Swan 19:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
GS, Read my lips: "tacit use" is not a personal attack. Calling me a "bandit" is a personal attack. Posting the S&M video photo of a porn star on the Carolyn Wood webpage is also a personal attack, not only on Wood, but on the fragile Wikipedia community. 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
preceding unsigned comment was posted by User:Joaquin Murietta
JM, did you mean to suggest I had something to do with the posting of the picture from "Ilsa she-wolf of the SS" on the Carolyn Wood page? I believe you know I had absolutely nothing to with the posting of either of those images.
Calling me "obsessed" is clearly a personal attack. As I said above, we both know you know you should not make that kind of assertion.
I never called you a bandit, or a "mexican bandit", or a "right-wing cuban" I have already pointed out to you that I have never made any kind of personal attack on you.
Concerning attacks on the fragile Wikipedia community -- you don't consider your baseless attacks on me, my character, my honesty, damaging to the Wikipedia community? -- Geo Swan 15:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I am so tired of you following me around and trying to piss me off. Joaquin Murietta 05:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of the {dispute} tag

User:Joaquin Murietta keeps placing {dispute} tags on this and other articles that are related to the US "war on terror". Dispute tags say:

"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

But JM doesn't make a meaningful effort to offer an defensible explanations as to what aspects of the articles he feels are in dispute. I've called on him for explanations of what he considers under dispute.

Earlier today JM went and removed the sources section from this article. He removed it without explanation. Then a few hours later he placed a dispute tag on the article. Note what he said on October 16:

"...Why not go back to the original public domain sources..."

Well, I showed my good faith by complying with his request. Rather than cite the interpretations of Captain Wood's role in newspaper articles I went and read official inquiries. It was a lot of work. Those official inquiries found evidence, and drew conclusions, that JM may not like reading. But, if he wants to dispute them, I call on him to find comparably authoritative sources that draw different conclusions. If he can't do that I think his placing of the {dispute} tag is simply indefensible.

Removing my notes to the authoritative sources he requested I use, and then slapping on a dispute tag, invites readers who share his POV to dismiss or attack the conclusions in the article as unsubstantiated, when they were substantiated, from highly authoritative sources.

JM's first comment on this article was when he initiated the {afd} procedure on it. Note: JM violated the {afd} procedure by attempting to justify the afd on the basis that the topic was "inherently POV". The rules for {afd} are clear. POV disputes are not grounds for deletion. Note: Typically, JM didn't even make a token effort to try to outline what he considers instances of biased POV then. He still hasn't made a meaningful effort. I believe that by placing a {dispute} or {npov} tag he undertakes a responsility to be specific about what prompted him to place the tag. Note JM's earlier highly bogus {dispute} tags.

Note a comment JM left on this talk page prior to his recent indefensible edits. He writes as if I am engaged in some kind of childish grudge match. My contributions to the wikipedia are all motivated by having its coverage be full, fair, and comprehensive. Like other sincere wikipedia contributors I aim to confine my contributions to a neutral point of view. I won't claim that I reach this goal, 100% of the time. But I think I do an okay job. I listen to other contributors who can cite specific instances where I fall short of an NPOV. JM can't or won't cite specific instances where he thinks I fall short of NPOV.

With regard to his recent assertion that I follow him around -- I believe the record clearly shows that JM follows my edits, and not vice versa. There was a period when every time I edited an article I was aware there was a very high chance that he would invoke the {afd} procedure on it. During that time he filed a new {afd} on articles I started every day. -- Geo Swan 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of the carolynwood.jpg image

I thought we figured out that this image had been correctly tagged as a screenshot, and, as such, was eligible for remaining on the wikipedia. I would like to see the discussion around its deletion. So, when was it deleted, and under what grounds. -- Geo Swan 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • it appears the image was copyvio and the image has been deleted from Wikipedia. Joaquin Murietta 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I contacted the administrator who removed the image. It was not removed because it was a {{copyvio}}. It was removed because the wrong tag had been applied. The tag that had been applied was {{screenshot}}. This tag is only supposed to be applied to screenshots from video-consoles or computer programs. There is a separate tag for {{tv-screenshot}}s. The person who uploaded the image was, presumably, contacted, warning them that the image might be removed. But they had stopped editing shortly after they initiated this controversy. I won't defend their uploading of the other image they uploaded. But I believe that one of the contributors to this article violated WP:BITE in their subsequent criticism. In particular their accusation of {{copyvio}} for the uploader's other image was over-kill. That image didn't belong on the Carolyn Wood article -- its placement was editorializing. But uploading it to the wikipedia was not, I believe, a {copyvio}, as JM claimed. I believe it unquestionably would have qualified for a {{movie poster}} tag. Once the uploader received JM's inappropriately harsh criticism the uploader permanently abandoned the wikipedia.
  • The proper image deletion procedure, I believe, would have been for the person who changed the liscense tags, starting the image deletion countdown, should have changed the caption where the image was used on this article, to warn those of us who had the article on our watchlist that the image's use was being challenged. That wasn't done.
  • I repeat -- not a copyvio. -- Geo Swan 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very well. I stand corrected. It was not a copyvio. Joaquin Murietta 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and sourcing issues for this article

Again, does this article meet the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Specifically, under Wikipedia:No original research, "articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any novel synthesis (of published material) designed to advance a position." This article presents a case against a living person, relies on tabloids and culled quotations from sources. This appears to be "original research". Joaquin Murietta 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Joaquin Murietta has invited several people to come to this talk page and offer an opinion as to whether they correctly tagged this article as {unencyclopedic}.
JM mentions, in passing, that they initiated the deletion procedure against this article. But he neglected to mention his justification for the nomination -- "the subject is nn and there are POV issues, which probably cannot be solved by editing." -- Readers should note that JM had not previously made an attempt to voice his POV concerns on the article's talk page.
Note: When the {afd} failed JM immediately applied this {disputeabout} tag. Please note the appearance it gives of a lack of seriousness on JM's part -- as the disputeabout tag has nothing to do with the subject, but rather has to do with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
I have made many attempts to take JM's POV concerns seriously. I have frequently requested JM make serious, civil efforts to discuss his POV and other concerns -- with very little success I have to report. JM maintains a page User:Joaquin Murietta_GS that seems to be devoted to tracking the progress of their disputes with me.
Note: JM's recent concern is that the article cites tabloid sources, without specifying which sources he considers tabloid. But, on October 16, 2006 he did name a newspaper he considers unreliable -- the New York Times.
The article cites official US army reports. Perhaps these are what JM calls "culled quotations". I worked hard to find the sections of those reports that dealt with Captain Wood. I would be very interested to read a serious explanation, from JM, or anyone else, as to how those quotations are unfair. -- Geo Swan 15:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to express my opinion and my sincere intentions are not to offend anyone (especially GeoSwan whom I consider a very talented editor) because I recognize the effort made in this article. I agree with JM's point of view in that this article does not meet the standards of a bio. The article is supposed to be about the life of Carolyn Wood and not only about one part of her life. The fact that it doesn't contain any information about her early life nor about what became of her after the trails, leads me to believe that there is a political agenda to it. It is a well researched article and the sources stated seem to be reliable, however we must remember that there are many newspaper articles which are biased (with the exception of official records). It seems to me that the research is focused only on the accusations against her and not on her life in general. Wheather the article sould be renamed or not, I don't know, however from my observations on this talk page and realizing that the topic is a little heated, I suggest that the topic be taken up with the arbitration committee. Just my two cents, Tony the Marine 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Capt. Wood is not a public figure. She was not directly involved in the specific incidents at Bagram or Abu Ghraib that are cited here. It makes this read like it was just another excuse to bash U.S. policy.
It's true that she expanded interrogation techniques but not beyond the bounds that might be considered by a non-lawyer to be a reasonable expansion under the circumstances. She was cited for actions contributing to the war effort, and in that respect she probably saved lives. And in a war where the enemy shields themselves among civilians, and often kills them deliberately, this portrayal of her as something akin to a war criminal is upside down.
I feel this article is fast becoming obsolete. Her name was dragged through the mud by guards who had been accused of crimes, but as one of the article's links shows, that was never expected to get very far. And as the events have played themselves out, it hasn't. -- Randy2063 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been involved in the discussions here before, so I will comment again. There are a wide ranging series of issues that Joaquin has raised, each of which merit examination:
  • On the article page itself, he has placed {{Unencyclopedic}}. This calls into question the article's merit as an encyclopaedia entry.
  • This section is titled "NPOV and sourcing issues for this article". This suggests that Joaquin has concerns that the article is lacking a NPOV, and that the sources are unreliable.
  • His opening discussion questions whether the article meets the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
  • He goes on to argue that the article is effectively original research.
Encyclopaedic Merit: I would argue that this is definitely a worthy entry for an encyclopaedia, since it is a biography about an American soldier who was instrumental in shaping military interrogation policy in Afghanistan, and subsequently Iraq. Significant wars of the 21st century, the political aftermath of the wars and the contributory factors of that fallout are eminently encyclopaedic. The result of the original AfD debate also supported it's merit as an article.
NPOV: Is the article written from a NPOV? Perhaps not, it does appear to present largely one side of the controversies that Wood was involved in. If there is credible and verifiable alternative information that can be found, then by all means include that. The apparent lack of such material, however, does not mean that the existing verified and cited information should be excised as POV, because it is validly sourced and referenced. You make reference to the fact that Wood has not been courtmartialled Joaquin. If that can be verified, work it into the article appropriately.
Cited Sources: I think there is no doubt that the sources cited are reputable and reliable. The Guardian, CBC, USA Today and official US govermental official reports are all referenced. Where are the "tabloids" that you refer to Joaquin? The Knight Ridder organisation is the only one I am unfamiliar with, perhaps that one source is what you mean?
Biographies of Living Persons: Carolyn Wood is not a public figure, I think we can all agree on that. However, her role in establishing the interrogation policies in Afghanistan and Iraq has made her notable enough for inclusion in WP. That dictates that the biography should be confined to the issues of notability. From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
... there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.
There could be some more brief information on her early career perhaps, but other than that, it has been correctly confined to issues of notability.
Original Research This is clearly not original research, rather a well researched presentation of factual information concerning a soldier who was instrumental in establishing US military interrogation Policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. That it might be uncomfortable reading for some is not relevant. From Wikipedia:No original research:
All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
In a nutshell: is it a valid encyclopaedia article: YES; are there NPOV issues: POSSIBLY, {{sofixit}}; are the sources cited reliable and reputable: YES; does it meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: YES; does it constitute original research: NO.
The article does have some minor problems though. It could be cleaned up and filled out with more basic, non intrusive biographical information. The footnote numbering for the references seems to be completely out of synch right now. I'm not that experienced in the system, so will let someone else {{sofixit}}.
Finally, in recognition of previous slightly heated discussions, I welcome Joaquin's 'Calm Tag'. We can discuss this rationally and arrive at a better article. And Tony's suggestion of a referral to ArbCom is premature (no offense intended Tony). This is now a content dispute, let's thrash it out here first. ArbCom is the avenue of last resort after other resolution attempts have failed. Anything presented there now would be instantly rejected and swept swiftly out of the door. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the Calm Tag up . I suggest that this article be discussed on its merits, not on the unfortunate past disucssions between editors. This article purports to be a biographical article about a living person. Carolyn Wood was not court martialed. She is not a public figure. One option is to re-name it "The Case Against Carolyn Wood". Another option, and I thank Tony the Marine for it, is to Arb Comm it. Can we discuss these options, please Joaquin Murietta 02:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is renaming the solution?

This article purports to be a biography, but does not include any facts other than the prison controversy, gleaned from news sources. Other than that incident, the subject is nn. Should this article be re-named to "The Case Against Carolyn Wood"? Joaquin Murietta 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose renaming this article. It is a biography, written in conformity with the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for non public figures. That is, it confines itself to the issues that the person is notable for and does not stray intrusively into other areas of their life. There is no "case" against Carolyn Wood, so your renaming proposal is confusing. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Miss Wood a "Non-Public Figure?"

Does this article run afoul of the following policy "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of credible, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability...In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Joaquin Murietta 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

She's definitely a non public figure:
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status.
The biography therefore is in compliance with the guideline (not a policy BTW). --Cactus.man ✍ 09:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

There are several issues to be resolved here. The first, and most important, is whether the article has encyclopaedic merit. If the answer is yes, then we can move on to solving the other issues. If not, then the article may be put up again on AFD. Let's debate this properly before degenerating into a mass disagreement across several areas. We can then move on to each area in turn:

  • Biographies of Living Persons
  • NPOV
  • Sources
  • Original Research

I believe that the article is clearly encyclopaedic, should be kept, can be improved and expanded upon. Before this is agreed, further progress is not possible. Please comment. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested that some opposition to this article is based on that it may be "uncomfortable reading for some" but that is not the case. I am quite comfortable with facts as long as they are relevant and lead to an understanding of the truth.
This article is based around two issues: Specific claims of abuse at Bagram and Abu Ghraib.
What is the factual basis for linking any of these to Wood? A bunch of lawyers for the abusers tried to make such claims before their trials. That's it. You could say that barking dogs and stress positions were determined to be excessive by military lawyers, but is that what these claims are about? No. Is that what this article is about? No.
How much of the notable abuse was authorized under the expanded guidelines issued by Wood? Zero.
What's the deal about the "compliance blows"? That entire paragraph seeks to imply that Wood set the stage for that abuse. But prison guards are routinely given nightsticks to deal with violent prisoners. There's nothing notable about that.
This article takes true incidents and tries to link them to a non-public figure in a misleading way. That's what's wrong with it. Having an article about Carolyn Wood would be like having one for the principal at Columbine High.
-- Randy2063 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Randy, you question the factual basis of links between Wood and the claims of abuse at Bagram and Abu Ghraib. Sorry, I believe you are mistaken to think that it was only the lawyers of the guards and interrogators who linked Wood with the abuses.
  1. General Ricardo Sanchez, when trying to explain how autorization for expanded interrogation techniques went out over his signature, said that the techniques were "drafted at the Company Commander level" -- by which he meant Company Commander Carolyn Wood.
  2. Colonel Marc Warren, Sanchez's chief legal advisor testified, before Congress, on Wood's role in the abuse.
  3. Captain Christopher Beiring, who commanded the MP guards who shared responsibility for the prisoners with Wood's interrogators, testified that he and his troops had not been trained in how to handle prisoners who may have had intelligence value, so he relied on Wood, who he believed had had that training, for guidance on what was and wasn't allowed.
These are links that are all part of the public record, that have nothing to do with the cases against the enlisted guards and interrogators.
The Fay and Church reports have already been mentioned. And I strongly encourage you to read the pertinent sections from them. I believe your conclusions are at odds with those reports. If the article really is linking Wood's name to real incidents in a misleading way, then it should be a simple matter for you, or JM, or anyone else who thinks the quotes are misleading, to go and check them for themselves. Have you downloaded a copy of abobe acrobat, or gsview? They are both free, and work well. I know large pdfs can be a drag to read. But I provided you with the page numbers and paragraphs I cited. You aren't obliged to trust whether I quoted out of context. By all means, read the whole chapter.
Regarding the big deal about the "compliance blows" -- there is a big difference between a prison guard who uses force in a manner consistent with his or her training and written regulations, to subdue an unruly prisoner, or quell a disturbance, and a guard who administers blows to a helpless, bound captive, to get a sadistic thrill. Are you unaware that this is what Wood and Beiring troops were doing?
These knee strikes lead to the death of one of the prisoners. The pathologist who examined his body ruled that his death was a homicide. Troops under her command, and under the command of a colleague who looked to her for guidance, killed a captive, The pathologist ruled this death was a homicide. Yet she did not take the obvious step of putting a stop to the techniques that caused the first death. Are you seriously denying that her inaction does not link her to the second death? -- Geo Swan 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful to post comments consecutively instead of moving them around. I have trouble figuring out what people have said when they post comments inside of comments. Could we agree to do that? Having said this, I agree with what Randy2063 said above. Therefore, I think the first question, is the article encyclopedic -- my answer is no because she is nn. Joaquin Murietta 21:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
JM, you called on all of us to calmly discuss this article on its merits. Well, Cactus Man calmly asked you some serious questions. I am eager to read serious answers as well.
  1. You hinted that the article was "original research" because it cited "tabloid sources". Like Cactus Man, out of respect for your request that we all remain calm and discuss the article on its merits, I took the time to double-check the article's references and external links. I can tell Cactus Man that Knight-Ridder is one of the largest chains of newspapers in the USA. I can tell him that they publish the very respectable San Jose Mercury -- that it is not a tabloid source. I can tell him that, while it uses tabloid sized pages, USA Today is a tabloid only in size, that it does not publish disreputable, poorly-researched articles, which are sensational or slanderous -- what most people think of as "tabloid journalism. Please explain what you meant with your tabloid comment.
  2. Without being specific, you indicated that you regarded the article as containing original research because it "culled quotations". I calmly call on you for a serious explanation of your "culled quotation" comment. As I said above, you, or anyone else who feels that the quotes from the Fay and Church reports are misleading is completely welcome to read the official Army reports for themselves, so you can be specific in explaining how those quotes are misleading.
  3. I think Cactus Man had already anticipated your most recent NN comment. He quoted passages from the wiki guidelines that addressed how to write biographies of non-public figures who find themselves at the nexus of one or two important incidents. I am disappointed that you didn't choose to answer his points. I look forward to a calm, serious reply.
  4. I think I will continue to follow the convention that we respond immediately after the comments that we are commenting on, at one further level of indentation. I didn't find your request about how you wish the rest of us to respond clear. I am going to stick to the standard style, unless you can offer a convincing fuller explanation of what you want. -- Geo Swan 22:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
On further consideration, I do not agree that we can compartmentalize "encyclopedic" from the other factors suggested (Biographies of Living Persons, NPOV, Sources,Original Research). The policy of "encyclopedic", as defined at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is quite broad. The requirement encompasses those other factors. For example, an article that uses original research is non-encyclopedic. The problem with this article is that since it is about a living person, the higher standards, as set forth in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, should apply. We should first begin with what Randy2063 said, "This article takes true incidents and tries to link them to a non-public figure in a misleading way. That's what's wrong with it. Having an article about Carolyn Wood would be like having one for the principal at Columbine High." Joaquin Murietta 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JM, we can't hit a moving target

  • Are you abandoning the concern you stated yesterday that the article is "unencyclopedic"?
  • Are you abandoning the concern you stated yesterday that the article contained "original research" because it cited "tabloid sources"?
  • Are you abandoning the concern you stated yesterday that the article contained "original research" because it used "culled quotations"?

You seem to be continuing to be concerned that the article is misleading. Well, I really think voicing this concern obliges you to explain, specifically, how it is misleading. You critized the article, a few months ago, because it didn't cite original official sources. I am sure you can understand how inconsistent your criticisms seem, since, once I went to the effort of citing those original sources, you criticized the article, comparing it to a prosecution case. Don't kill the messenger. If those official original sources reached unflattering conclusions about her actions it is not POV to put a fair summary of those conclusion on the article.

Please quit characterizing the article's quotation of the official, original sources as misleading, if you are not prepared to make the effort to read them for yourself, and be specific about how they are misleading.

I would be happy to see the article contain the citations associated with her Bronze Stars. I would congratulate you if you found them. I've looked for them for over a year, with no success. Please feel free to go ahead and look for those citations, or any other official, original sources that show her in a flattering light.

Sorry Randy, I don't buy the Columbine Principal analogy. If the Columbine Principal had helped the Columbine boys buy guns, or had trained them how to use guns, or had provided them with extremist literature, I think we would all agree the Columbine Principal would merit an article about their role. I think we would all agree that if the Columbine Principal had encouraged the Columbine boy's extremism, in a notable way, they would merit an article, even if we didn't know the Principal's birthdate, alma mater, etc. Wood had a duty to know what her troops were doing, knew what her troops were doing, and, following the homicide of the first captive, she had a duty to prevent a recurrence. While one could argue that a Principal had an obligation to take steps if he or she learned the student body contained dangerour extremists, we could only hold the Principal responsible if they ignored signs of that extremism. I don't believe anyone has suggested that the Columbine Principal could reasonably have anticipated the danger the Columbine boys posed. -- Geo Swan 23:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the "specific claims of abuse at Bagram and Abu Ghraib," and by that I meant the ones actually cited in the article. I've read plenty on this subject, including PDF files, but seen nothing to indicate that Wood authorized beatings of any kind, let alone the type that killed Dilawar. That paragraph is gratuitous.
You were correct when you said, "there is a big difference between a prison guard who uses force in a manner consistent with his or her training and written regulations, to subdue an unruly prisoner, or quell a disturbance, and a guard who administers blows to a helpless, bound captive, to get a sadistic thrill." That was exactly my point. Where does it say that Wood authorized beatings as a sadistic thrill?
Notably absent from this article is the list of techniques that she did authorize. The hapless reader is left to assume that she authorized the beatings.
"I think we would all agree that if the Columbine Principal had encouraged the Columbine boy's extremism, in a notable way, they would merit an article, even if we didn't know the Principal's birthdate, alma mater, etc."
Do you mean to imply that Capt. Wood encouraged the guards' extremism? If so, find a source and put it in the article. (Carefully, please -- this article may already be ripe for a lawsuit.) There is presently no link given to explain the connection between Wood and the guards' actual crimes.
"I don't believe anyone has suggested that the Columbine Principal could reasonably have anticipated the danger the Columbine boys posed."
Actually, yes. An environment of bullying was cited. If it could be blamed on U.S. policy then that might be 95% of that article, and we'd probably have individual articles on the principal and the bullies themselves.
-- Randy2063 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So, we see new material that's supposed to back up one of this article's claims. A "preponderance of evidence supports" that she didn't supervise her underlings properly and should be referred to her C.O. to explain herself. This, in a high-stress environment of seven 18 hour days a week, particularly after the riot in Abu Ghraib that precipitated this. Is that really all you have? Who calls that encyclopedic? How does that merit an article descending into libel against a non-public figure?
What about Dilawar? Do you really believe Capt. Wood authorized the "sadistic thrill" that ultimately killed him? Is that not what this article is trying to say?
Why do the jihadists' locked up in Gitmo with their theatrical "suicide attempts" in front of their lawyers get treated as legitimate on Wikipedia while decorated military officers are opened up to defamatory articles?
-- Randy2063 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Like you, I am a volunteer. I work on the wikipedia as my time permits. I urged you to read the documents for yourself. I am counting on you to do so, as your time permits. Meanwhile I am going to urge you to be more patient regarding the limits on my time, OK?
As to Wood's responsibility for the brutal conditions under which Habibulah, Dilawar, and others, were kept... I believe that when the medical pathologist examined Habibullah's corpse, and listed the cause of death as homicide that Wood and Beiring should have made sure further deaths were prevented. They failed to do so. Beiring testified that he didn't have the right training, and that he was relying on Wood, who did have the training. The New York Times article says that Wood defended holding prisoners with the hand bound above their heads as a security measure. The New York Times article says that military investigators concluded that she was lying.
The homicides of the captives she was responsible for occurred nine months before she was transferred to Abu Ghraib.
The pathologist ruled both those deaths homicides. Calling them homicides is not libel.
You say Wood worked 7x18? Well, Randy, if you have a verifiable source you can cite, to back up that assertion, by all means you should try to incorporate it into the article. -- Geo Swan 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand the limitations on time, and I don't expect you to dot any i or cross any t. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that somebody else can come along and do that. Now, months have gone by and nobody is coming along to do that for this article.
The trouble is that you're conflating the techniques Wood had authorized with the deaths of two prisoners. Beiring's statements were about the techniques. He said that, in retrospect, they crossed the line into illegality as it is strictly defined by regulations. He didn't say that those measures led (directly or indirectly) to the deaths of either Dilawar or that jihadist. Her expanded measures did not include "compliance blows" for the purpose of conditioning. Legal or not, nobody at Bagram or Abu Ghraib died of sleep deprivation or from fear induced by barking dogs.
I don't know what Wood's hours were but such an environment has been reported on for other officers serving in Iraq. Even if that wasn't her regular schedule, that was an especially tense time in Abu Ghraib. This doesn't excuse her personal failures but it doesn't make her noteworthy either.
-- Randy2063 18:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sanchez, and his chief legal advisor Warren, singled Wood out for a large share of blame. If, for the sake of argument, the blame they tried to lay on her is completely misplaced, she is still noteworthy because a 3-star general singled her out for blame, because a JAG colonel testified, before Congress, that she may have violated the Geneva Conventions, and because the Fay/Jones report has dozens of references to her.
So what if Beiring didn't explicitly acknowledge that the non-regulation treatment of the prisoners lead to two of them dying. The post-mortem reports make clear that the non-regulation treatment was the cause of the homicides. And we know that Wood was aware of the non-regulation day-long suspensions by their hands, because she tried to defend it as a security measure. -- Geo Swan 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't say Dilawar died from a day-long suspension by his hands. It says he was killed by "compliance blows" and it implies they were authorized by Wood to be used in such a fashion.
I don't agree that Wikipedia should become an index of all the allegations in the Fay/Jones report. Wood may still be worth an article but I think you'd have to find something more to say about her. So far this article looks like it would be small potatoes without Dilawar, and I think the connection to her requires one leap of the imagination too many.
-- Randy2063 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Murietta

My responses are in bold:

8.3.1 JM, we can't hit a moving target "I am not sure what you mean by that comment. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you abandoning the concern you stated yesterday that the article is "unencyclopedic"?

No. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you abandoning the concern you stated yesterday that the article contained "original research" because it cited "tabloid sources"?

No. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you abandoning the concern you stated yesterday that the article contained "original research" because it used "culled quotations"?

No. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be continuing to be concerned that the article is misleading.

True. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really think voicing this concern obliges you to explain, specifically, how it is misleading.

It is misleading because there are culled quotations from newspapers, you have googled every reference to her, they are all in articles about other people. This article has been tagged for cleanup for months, there has been no effort to expand the "reasearch" or rename the article to reflect what it really is, a "case against Carolyn Wood" Also, as a "case" it does not hold water. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You critized the article, a few months ago, because it didn't cite original official sources.

Again, I would ask you to address these comments today on the merits and not try to get personal. If that not possible, let's go to Arb Comm. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you can understand how inconsistent your criticisms seem, since, once I went to the effort of citing those original sources, you criticized the article, comparing it to a prosecution case. Don't kill the messenger.

No, but one remedy is Arb Comm.Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If those official original sources reached unflattering conclusions about her actions it is not POV to put a fair summary of those conclusion on the article.

This is an interesting point. Would you please cite me to the "unflattering conclusions", if you don't mind. I would like to review them and thoughtfully consider what you just said. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please quit characterizing the article's quotation of the official, original sources as misleading, if you are not prepared to make the effort to read them for yourself, and be specific about how they are misleading.

Again, I would ask you to address these comments today on the merits and not get personal. If that not possible, let's go to Arb Comm. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to see the article contain the citations associated with her Bronze Stars. I would congratulate you if you found them. I've looked for them for over a year, with no success.

What you describe sounds like original research. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead and look for those citations, or any other official, original sources that show her in a flattering light.

What you describe sounds like original research, and a place for my point of view, which is what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Joaquin Murietta 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward again - reply to Joaquin

Joaquin, as I stated above, your recent edits here and on the article page, have expressed a number of wide ranging concerns:

  • Is the article encyclopaedic?
  • Is it suitable as a Biography of a living person?
  • Is it written from a NPOV?
  • Are the cited sources credible?
  • Does it constitute original research?

You already have my answers to those questions. You have now added back in your assertion that Wood is not a "notable person". That then ressurects the very first question you ever had here - should the article be deleted? Now that you have come back to this position, you have an obligation to take this back to AfD for further community input and a decision on that question.

I maintain that the first question to be addressed here should be: "Is this an article that should be on Wikipedia?" That question has been answered once before and until it is answered again conclusively, no amount of discussion of the other issues will address what you consider to be problems with the article. If the article should be kept, then let's work at addressing the other issues in a structured manner.

You are arguing that encyclopaedic merit is an issue that spans several of the areas of your concern listed above. I can see some justification in that, but if it fails the encyclopaedic test on any of those individual factors, that in itself would not be grounds for deletion, but grounds for fixing the problems.

I am not sure why you seem so keen to take this to ArbCom, as that is totally inappropriate and premature at this stage. Please read the introduction on the ArbCom page. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and burdening the arbs with an unnecessary and premature "case" would be wasteful of their hard pressed time, your time, my time and everybody else's time who would be involved before the case was rejected as premature. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to "User:Cactus.man

Is the article encyclopaedic?

No, for the reasons stated above, by me and others. Further, encyclopedic includes NPOV, original research, and other factors. What is encyclopedic for a dead person may not be encyclopedic for a living person.Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it suitable as a Biography of a living person?

Due to POV concerns ,no, not in the current climate. Further the article is really "the case against CW", not a biography of her. Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it written from a NPOV?

No, it appears to be part of a series of articles which promote a clear point of view. Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are the cited sources credible?

The sources mostly are newspaper articles. There are possible mentions of Wood's name in reports. I am unclear what those references are. Are newspaper stories per se a credible source? Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it constitute original research?

Probably, yes. Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You already have my answers to those questions. You have now added back in your assertion that Wood is not a "notable person". That then ressurects the very first question you ever had here - should the article be deleted? Now that you have come back to this position, you have an obligation to take this back to AfD for further community input and a decision on that question.

I am not sure what you mean by "obligation". Would you please elaborate? Joaquin Murietta 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joaquin, as I have stated more than once before, what I mean is that this discussion is going nowhere at the moment. You and Randy clearly think the article is unencyclopaedic and should not be here on WP. Geo and myself disagree, therefore, until that determination is made, this discussion is deadlocked without wider input from the community. That is the the fundamental question that must be answered before progress can be made.
As the contributor who has frequently flagged up various shifting concerns that you have with the article, and placed a variety of dispute tags on the article (intermittently) over a long period of time, it is up to you to define precisely where the problems are or, if you believe the article is so utterly inappropriate, take it back to AfD.
It does not fall to me to do that because I believe that the article should be kept. Yes, it can be improved, but it is not worthy of deletion IMO. Your ultimate position, now, is that it is unencyclopaedic because of a combination of your stated concerns, and the subject is non notable. Well if that is so, continually repeating your generalised claims here will not resolve matters. Take it back to AfD, let's see what the wider community says. Whatever the outcome, then we can all move on. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


On March 20th JM wrote: "I put the Calm Tag up and reiterate it below. I suggest that this article be discussed on its merits, not on the unfortunate past disucssions between editors.. "
Yet, on March 22nd JM wrote:
No, it appears to be part of a series of articles which promote a clear point of view.
I regard this comment as a violation of the no personal attacks rule. I believe JM, Cactus Man and I are all well aware that this comment is basically a repetition of a {disputeabout} tag JM applied to this article [3] -- part of a series of {disputeabout} tags he applied at the same time [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -- singling out articles I had started, and to which I was the largest contributor. JM then ignored good faith inquiries requesting the specific details -- necessary for reaching a compromise.
I am going to repeat the conclusion I eventually came to then. The amount of effort the rest of us make to answer JM's concerns should be no greater than the amount of serious effort he makes to be civil or address the issues he raises.
  • JM stated on March 20th that this article contained original research, because it used "tabloid sources". Both Cactus Man and I double-checked the sources. Neither of us could find a single tabloid source. We both asked JM to be more specific. JM declined to defend his use of the term. I asked JM if he had withdrawn the assertion. He said he had not. But he continues to avoid naming a single tabloid source.
  • He stated on March 20th that this article contained original research because it used "culled quotations". Cactus Man patiently explained to JM that what he called "culled quotations" are the proper use of external, verifiable sources. JM has not honored Cactus Man with a serious reply.
Although JM put a calm tag on this talk page, and entreated everyone to discuss the issues, with his frequently re-iterated threats to skip the discussion, and refer the article to arbitration, and with his return to personal attacks, I have to doubt whether he has any intention of making a serious effort to either remain calm, or to engage in a civil dialogue.
-- Geo Swan 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does NPOV comment equal a personal attack -- a question for Cactus Man from JM

Cactus man, do you agree with this comment made by Geo Swan?

      • Yet, on March 22nd JM wrote: No, it appears to be part of a series of articles which promote a clear point of view. I regard this comment as a violation of the no personal attacks rule.

Does my comment about NPOV equal a personal attack, in your opinion? Joaquin Murietta 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not constitute a personal attack in my opinion. I think the interpretaion of "personal attack" here on WP is far too loosely interpreted.
However, your recent contributions on this article seems to be clearly related to the resurrection of a long standing campaign on your part to denigrate Geo's contributions. You know the history as well as I do. The motivation for your past actions is not clear, but they seemed to have died a natural and welcome death some time ago. That they are now back is extremely regrettable.
Your talk page spamming on this matter is also extremely unwelcome.
The main point here though is, again, you have raised several objections, but have not expanded on those objections or explained precisely where you think the problems with the article lie. You repeat the same "stock objections" time after time without explaining why your objections are valid. You pose questions only in general terms, but offer no possible solutions to move forward. If you think the article is unworthy, take it to AfD. If it is worthy but has problems {{sofixit}}.
Please try to contribute to the solution and not just the objection. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This article clearly has some problems. You seem reluctant to discuss the current problems. I have not done any "talk page spamming". (A few pointers to interested individuals is not spam, and you did not complain about the 27 requests by Geo Swan [9] The fact that you continue to refer to past discussions (where you were involved as an advocate for one position) as opposed to dealing with this current article is not helpful, in my opinion. Joaquin Murietta 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I revised the part I thought was most offensive. That doesn't mean I see much value in keeping this article. I left references to Dilawar and the jihadist as a courtesy but I still don't think it's worth leaving in. One major discrepency not discussed before was that Capt. Wood was never in command of the actual facility or the guards as was previously stated. That makes the references to Dilawar and that jihadist an even bigger stretch. I'll add sources later.
One note on validity of sources: Even though some of the sources listed here are as reputable as any in the media, many of the claims they make are attributed to others, many of whom do have something at stake. It's funny how statements by military personnel are more readily accepted if they are charged with crimes.
-- Randy2063 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Randy, I have confidence that your revision was well intentioned... but, I am afraid it looks like your have let speculation slip in, and there are other aspects of your revision I think might be based on a misunderstanding.
I was very surprised to read what you wrote about Wood's intentions:
"To address concerns that too many soldiers were being killed during the conflict, she expanded the interrogation measures with the use of stress positions, isolation for up to thirty days, removal of clothing, and exploitation of detainees' phobias, such as the use of barking dogs."
Wood exercised her right to keep silent to avoid incriminating herself. She kept her motives private. I strongly suspect that who writes as if they know her motives is merely speculating. If you found a source, where someone else speculated on her motives, then the article can say, "National Review speculated..." or "blog-site Captain's quarters speculated..." -- but if it is your speculation, then I am afraid that passage has to go.
You wrote that Wood commanded approximately twenty interrogators and analysts. Are you sure about that? Can I ask what your source is for that? My reading is that U.S. military intelligence units have personnel to focus on a number of roles -- not just interrogation, and that her command contained clerks, in addition to interrogators, and possibly photo interpreters, and other technical intelligence types with expertise in signals intelligence and related fields.
Randy, a couple of days ago you concluded that her use of unauthorized interrogation techniques was "reasonable" -- because it saved lives. Randy, that is only a conclusion. It is not "obvious". It is not a fact. You think the article is biased and unfair, and I have to wonder if you don't realize that the conclusion that the use of extreme interrogation techniques was "reasonable" was only a conclusion.
There is no proof that extreme interrogation techniques have saved a single life. Yes, I know that the results of most of those interrogations remain classified. But that haven't all remained classified. During Secretary of State Powell's address to the United Nations, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, he spoke of a high level al Qaeda who received advanced WMD training courtesy of Saddam Hussein. This seemed like an intelligence coup.
  • It seemed to prove, first, that Saddam was lying, that he did possess dangerous remaining stockpiles of WMDs.
  • Second, it seemed to prove that Saddam had high level ties with al Qaeda.
We now know that after combing Iraq the USA was able to find no sign of any WMDs. We now know that the high level al Qaeda cadre that was the source for Powell's bold assertions was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, and that he had recanted. [10], [11], [12]. Al-Libi has recanted. His false confession is frequently cited as illustrating the dangers of using extreme interrogation techniques. Captives will say anything, confess to anything, to get the pain to end. The captor who uses information extracted under torture puts their own troops at risk by relying on that possibly false information. At the time Powell addressed the UN war-hawks in the USA defended the use of extreme interrogation because it "saved lives". In this case they may have argued that it saved tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Continental USA from a WMD attack. That wasn't even remotely true. It could be concluded that torturing al Libi, and believe the confessions extracted from him, under torture, cost the lives of 2400 plus GIs, hundreds of lives of other coalition soldiers, hundreds of lives of foreign workers, and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. That, and $300,000,000,000 of debt.
That conclusion is just as reasonable as yours that her use of unathorized interrogation techniques saved lives. More reasonable in fact, because it is backed up by evidence, where your conclusion is not. That conclusion isn't in the al Libi article. It probably doesn't belong, because it is speculation. I mention it here, now, to illustrate that your conclusion is merely speculation. I suggest you shouldn't decide that this article is biased, or unfair, or that her rule-breaking was "reasonable" based on the conclusion that she "saved lives". -- Geo Swan 13:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Geo, I don't believe any of that to be speculation. I've misplaced the source for the "concerns that too many soldiers were being killed" but I believe that I'll find them. If not then I'll remove it until it turns up.
I didn't say it was reasonable to use unauthorized interrogation techniques. I said it would have been reasonable for her as a non-lawyer to believe that those techniques were legal for use on an illegal combatant. This was all prior to the Mora memorandum that limited the techniques. And considering the story of that memo, I'm starting to wonder how much of this could even be attributed to Wood.
On checking one of the sources, I see that you could be correct about the 20 interrogators and analysts not necessarily being the entire company. I'll see if I can find info on the strength of the unit. Regardless, if you look at the reports you'll see that the guards were in a different unit and not under her command. I don't think a captain would have that many more personnel. It's still quite likely that 20 is the correct number.
I don't know how many lives, if any, that she may have saved. That's why I didn't say she saved any. But somebody appreciated her efforts enough to award her a couple Bronze Stars.
As for how many lives the war cost, that's also debatable if you factor in the alternatives. Saddam killed plenty during his rule, and it's unlikely that that wouldn't have continued. Some say that we're below his average rate right now.
-- Randy2063 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who abused captives at Bagram, and what was Wood's responsibility for their behavior?

The article currently states that military police guards committed all the abuse at Bagram, The New York Times published a long article on the abuse, on May 20, 2005, based on its copy of a long classified report, that describes, in some detail, the roles of Wood's subordinates. Four of Wood's subordinates were charged, Joshua Claus, Glendale C. Walls, Selena M. Salcedo and Damien M. Corsetti. So I think the recent changes that attribute the abuse solely to the Military Police needs to be corrected. See the recent article by Tim Golden, Abuse case falters, long after 2 Afghans died, and his long, earlier one, which I must confess I didn't read as closely as I should have -- In US Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths.

Here is a quote from Golden's recent article:

"Nor is the army expected to prosecute the officer who led Loring's platoon, Captain Carolyn Wood, despite a formal recommendation by the Criminal Investigation Command that she be charged with dereliction of duty, Defense Department officials said...

Golden's article addresses JM's frequent objection that Wood doesn't merit an article because she hadn't even been charged.

"According to one of dozens of confidential army documents recently obtained by The New York Times, agents of the army's Criminal Investigation Command made it a high priority in the summer of 2003 to determine 'who authorized the forced-standing and no-sleep practices' at Bagram. In a later internal report, a special task force of agents from the division reported that 'the responsibility of supervisory personnel' in the Bagram officer corps remained 'under continued investigation.'
"Yet, for reasons that are unclear, it was not until April 2004 - 16 months after the two deaths - that investigators even began to question officers who had served on the command staff at Bagram, the documents show.

The tactic of overhead shackling was completely routine. It was so routine that the classified reports that Golden consulted record that the Red Cross inspectors had drawn attention to their concern over the practice. I don't believe it is really credible that Red Cross inspectors could learn of this abusive tactic, during their visit, while Wood remained unaware of it.

Randy, I think you were correct about the relative size of her command at Bagram. She was only a lieutenant there, a platoon commander. On this point I stand corrected. -- Geo Swan 14:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree about the other charges. That part of the article had been focused on the issue of those two deaths in custody, and that's why I did the same. But while those two were also given the forced-standing and sleep-deprivation, that really wasn't a factor in their deaths.
Keep in mind that some amount of discomfort was warranted. Sleep-deprivation and stress-positions are legal. If Wood had exceeded the limits then that would be reason for an investigation, and perhaps prosecution, but it doesn't make it an atrocity, and I think it's still relatively minor in the scheme of things. If I remember correctly, the difference may have been going from 24 hours of sleep deprivation to 36. The ICRC may not like it, but they wouldn't like 24.
BTW: That article on Habibullah is terribly one-sided. Did it comes straight off al Qaeda's fax machine? He comes across like some humble clergyman, as though he's another Dilawar in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's actually unfair to Dilawar in that way, as some people are going to read about Habibullah and wonder if there's more to Dilawar's story than meets the eye.
-- Randy2063 19:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you read about Claus, Salcedo, Walls and Corsetti? Do you agree that some of the 27 or 28 abusers were, after all, under her command?
You write that some amount of discomfort was warranted. This is a difficult article to write because, to some people, that seems obvious. And to others, the complete opposite seems obvious.
Damien M. Corsetti may have thought that poking his naked penis in a suspect's face was warranted. He may have thought forcing Iraqi women captives to remove their clothes was warranted.
What someone thinks is warranted is of less importance than what was authorized, and what was legal. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld put forward a broad policy that the protections of the Geneva Conventions would not apply to suspects captured in Afghanistan. But suspects captured in Iraq remained protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions protect a prisoner from more than torture. They protect them from humiliation as well. Wood imported techniques from Afghanistan, that had (possibly) been authorized for use against Afghani prisoners who President Bush had ruled were all guilty until proven innocent, and who were all assumed to be illegal combatants. The Fay Report says she imported them to Iraq, and played a key role in the drafting the Interrogation Rules of Engagement that Sanchez signed on September 14 2003. Well, they weren't authorized for use against Iraqi prisoners, who were all considered POWs under the Geneva Conventions.
The Bush administration's position is that the President has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to do anything, authorize anything, if, in his opinion, it is necessary to protect the USA's national security. President Bush has received legal advice, from Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, among others, that he has a responsibility to ignore any US national law, or any international treaty the USA has signed, if, in his opinion, doing so is necessary to protect the USA's national security. But those legal opinions are extremely controversial. Some legal experts agree a President has the legal authority Gonzales and Yoo would grant him, but only in a time of war. They argue that the Congressional authorization to use force is not a formal declaration of war, so President Bush doesn't have wartime powers. Other legal experts argue that a President doesn't have the sweeping, dictatorial powers Bush claims, even during wartime.
This article is about Carolyn Wood, not President Bush's constitutional powers. While I personally strongly suspect that powers as sweeping as President Bush claims are not consistent with a constitutional democracy, I should stop short of allowing that POV to influence what I write about Wood. Similarly, I think, if you think a President has the legal authority to predetermine that no captives in Afghanistan are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the policy of NPOV requires you to be careful about how you allow that view to influence what you write.
Writing about what we know occurred, writing about what we know credible sources said occurred, is okay. You wrote about what you thought was reasonable. Which differs from what I think is reasonable. I am sure we disagree about what we think is warranted. But this article doesn't have to talk about what you or I think is reasonable or warranted. And we can both do our best to keep from allowing what we write to be influenced by our ideas of what is reasonable or warranted. Perhaps, when it is documented, we can talk about what was authorized. Prisoners in Iraq were supposed to enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention -- that is, not just protection against torture, but protection against humiliation.
I read the September 14 2003 extended interrogation rules of engagement that Wood helped draft and which went out over Sanchez's signature. I am sorry I can't remember where I downloaded a copy, because they should be linked to here, together with the revision that came out several weeks later, that took some of those techniques back. It authorized uncomfortable things, like "dietary manipulation", and, IIRC, sleep schedule adjustment. IIRC, after the paragraph where it authorized an extended technique, like "dietary manipulation" it would have a paragraph where it talked about the requirement to be humane, where it explained that "dietary manipulation" did not mean putting a suspect on bread and water. The following paragraph explained that the captive's diet had to remain adequate in both calorie and nutritional value, but it could be served at non-standard times, containing food that was unfamiliar to the captive. Similarly, adjusting the sleep schedule, IIRC, did not mean that depriving the suspect of sleep was authorized, merely that changing the schedule of light and dark in the cell, so the suspect was able to get an adequate amount of sleep, just at unfamiliar times of day.
At least that is how I remember it.
And, I gather, when you read about how guidelines like this get implemented, once the policy is put into effect, dietary manipulation is likely to have become bread and water, sleep schedule manipulation is likely to have become sleep deprivation.
I remember being struck by how similar the September 2003 memo and the October 2003 memo that superceded it, and granted less initiative to Wood and her interrogators were. IIRC the first page was identical. Much of the remainder was identical. The only difference was half a dozen, or so, of the more extreme extended techniques were missing.
This kind of revision would never have been published in a properly run software house. There would be a large warning on it, saying this is version 1.1 of this document, and it withdraws six interrogation techniques which are no longer authorized. The Fay Report is critical of Wood, who prepared a chart to graphically explain to her troops which techniques were authorized for use without getting permission from any higher authority, which techniques reguired her prior approval, and which techniques required now required Sanchez's approval.
About the Habibullah article... Well, I wrote most of it, so I probably wrote the part you are concerned about. You referred to Habibullah as a jihadist, IIRC. The Habibullah article doesn't say he was a jihadist. There is no evidence he was a jihadist. Having a brother who is a Taliban leader doesn't necessarily make one a Taliban sympathizer. Having a brother who is any kind of extremist doesn't make one an extremist. Ted Kozynski, the Unabomber, was turned in by his own brother. I heard an interview with Zackario Moussiou's brother. He sounded like a reasonable, well-adjusted guy, who had long since grown disgusted with his brother, early in his journey to the extreme. He described trying to protect their mother from the guilt and pain of having an extremist, ne'er-do-well son. He seemed credible to me.
No, the accounts of Habibullah's interrogation don't make him sound like a humble preacher. But that doesn't mean that he was someone who advocated terrorism.
Something to bear in mind about Afghanistan is that after decades of war most Afghanis are illiterate. The three young teenage boys who were held in Camp Iguana, had been illiterate before they arrived at Guantanamo. Unlike the other dozen minors held in Guantanmo they got regular lessons in English, Pashtun and arithmetic. When they were returned to their families in late January 2004 their fathers, independently saw their capture as a blessing, because they had returned to their village as educated men. I think it is important to bear in mind how circumscribed the intellectual lives of Afghanis must be if a year and half of schooling make a boy an educated man.
It sounds like most of their captives were illiterate, or poorly educated Afghanis, but that Habibullah was an exception -- exceptional in that he may have had enough education to know of the legal rights America is supposed to stand for -- like protection from cruel and unusual procedures and protection against self-incrimination. This non-compliance he was being punished for may have been nothing more than an attempt to try to insist on being treated as if he was entitled to some basic human rights. I haven't read anything to suggest he was a jihadist, or an al Qaeda or Taliban sympathizer, other than that he had a brother who was a known or suspected Taliban leader. If you come across a verifiable, credible source that offers any other reasons to suspect he was anything more than a mullah I would welcome its inclusion.
-- Geo Swan 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding had been that only MPs were charged in the deaths of Dilawar and Habibullah, and that the MIs were involved in other crimes. If that's incorrect then I see no problem inserting that aspect to that paragraph. It would actually become a little bit relevant to the topic. What I was trying to say in my previous post is that those are two separate issues. If the MIs were only charged with other crimes then that should go into a separate paragraph. I just don't think they should be mixed together to imply something that may not be true. (That's a good rule you said we should use for Habibullah.)
I have to wonder how far you can go tying her to crimes committed by those below her. It's one thing to presume she should have known about the conditions, but Damien M. Corsetti's actions? Provable or not, I think it's unlikely that she would have known about that stunt. I also don't think those incidents are significant enough to write an article. At this rate, the number of crimes listed as committed by U.S. forces in this war may eventually exceed those of Saddam, the Nazis and al Qaeda put together. Is there an article for each of the guys who worked over American POWs? Probably not. This will be a great time saver if al Qaeda wins the war. They won't have to rewrite as much.
It's certainly true that I personally think the privileges of a lawful combatant should only be given to soldiers operating according to the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions were drafted in close consultation with the parties' national military leaders. I seriously doubt that either the U.S. or the nations of Europe would have signed them if they thought it could be applied to lawless terrorists. Even Protocols I&II (that we won't sign onto) has minimum standards.
When I said that some amount of discomfort was warranted, perhaps I should have said that some discomfort was authorized. As you said, "This article is about Carolyn Wood, not President Bush's constitutional powers." In that sense, it's not fair to say she set harsh conditions if some lesser amount was to be expected anyway. Her own transgressions were only a matter of degree.
-- Randy2063 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


  • I think your question is well put. The problem with this article is that it is not really about Carolyn Wood, it is about U.S. policy. The article is not a true biography of a living person. It is really "the case against Carolyn Wood". Joaquin Murietta 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Following a week of benefit of the doubt...

It has been a week since JM placed the {unencyclopedic} tag on this article. This time around JM followed up the application of the tag with an apparently serious invitation for everyone to be calm, and discuss his concerns about the article on their merits. JM placed some concerns. But when asked to be specific about how the cited sources constituted original research, he simply declined to reply.

I think we have given JM more than enough benefit of the doubt. I think the tag should be removed. -- Geo Swan 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to explore other options before you do that. Joaquin Murietta 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

{{RFMF}}

[edit] What next?

The mediation committee rejected the request for mediation on April 8th. Which leaves us back where we were on March 28th.

I had just said that I thought we had given JM plenty of time to make a serious attempt to explain his unencyclopedic tag. He hadn't honored us with a serious explanation.

  • He insists that the article was original research because it cited "tabloid sources" - but he declined to state which source(s) he considered "tabloid sources".
  • He insists that the article was original research because it cited "culled quotations". But he failed to explain how, or whether, his "culled quotations" differed from what the policy documents recommend -- the citation of verifiable, credible external sources.

I repeat my suggestion we remove the {unencyclopedic} tag.

What other steps should those of us who have a serious interest in improving this article consider? -- Geo Swan 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First step: limit discussion to this article

I have tried to address this article on the merits, but it is difficult to respond when you make provocative statements. Do you want to talk about me or talk about this article? (eg. "He insists" or "He hadn't honored us with a serious explanation.") Your comments are rude and do not enhance this discussion. It is also unfortunate that three of us agreed to mediation and one nixed it. Are you open to mediation without Cactus man? Are you willing to talk about the article as opposed to your feelings about me? Joaquin Murietta 23:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JM, it seems to me that all your concerns have been given civil, serious attention -- followup questions.
I disagree, but let's move on. Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that, if we were going to continue to discuss your concerns, on their merits, the rest of us really needed you to make a serious effort to answer those followup questions.
  1. What about those tabloid sources you said you were concerned about?
    I have asked the question maybe six times -- I think your question is well put. The problem with this article is that it is not really about Carolyn Wood, it is about U.S. policy. The article is not a true biography of a living person. It is really "the case against Carolyn Wood". Joaquin Murietta 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. What about specific quotations that you thought were misleading?
    Again, I think this article is the making of an argument against Wood, not a true biography. Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. What about specific passages that you thought showed signs of being original research -- as defined in WP:NOR?
    I am not familiar with the definition you refer to, do you have a pointer?Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here. No one is going to track you down if you start a process, and lack the time or interest to follow it through to completion.
That's not a polite comment, but let's move on. Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
But do you really think it makes sense to keep that process open forever, if you are too busy, or whatever, to give that follow-through?
Are you trying to provoke an argument? Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought a week was long enough for you to answer our follow-up questions. Wasn't it long enough? You didn't ask for more time. -- Geo Swan 06:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I ask for more time. Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It was not enough time. Joaquin Murietta 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We can't use the title The Case Against Carolyn Wood because there is no case to be made. This article started out with little more than the nebulous phrase "authorizing abusive interrogation techniques" and then descended into the libelous inferences that the beatings were under her orders. At this point, we're more likely to see the case Wood v. Wikipedia.
The only reason this article exists is because Amnesty International (a once-noble organization), in what I consider a weasel-worded fund-raising stunt, had decided to include Captain Wood in its list of those "who may be considered high-level torture architects" (emphasis mine). That document had asked that other countries commit an act of war by holding certain Americans regardless of their diplomatic passports.
I'll be doing some more editing this week. If you want to rename the title, I'd suggest The Jihad Against Carolyn Wood :) but I doubt we'd reach a consensus in that direction.
-- Randy2063 18:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This issue can be resolved if...

I would agree to remove the tag if you re=name this article The Case Against Carolyn Wood. Joaquin Murietta 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Amnesty International the source of the allegations against Wood?

Randy, you asserted here on the talk page, that only Amnesty International triggered the idea that Carolyn Wood was central to abuse.

  • I thought we had already established that she had played a key role in researching the interrogation techniques not in the US Army interrogation manual, that were used in Afghanistan? She found them by researching the techniques used by other organizations. Who does that include? The FBI? CIA? Mossad? The Savak? The KGB?
  • I thought we had already established that she had introduced interrogation techniques from Afghanistan, to Iraq, all prisoners were supposed to enjoy all the protections of Geneva Conventions?
  • I thought we had already established that she played a role in drafting the controversial extended interrogation rules that went out over Sanchez's signature.
  • I thought we had already established that after Sanchez withdrew some of those extended interrogation rules she was criticized for allowing her interrogators to continue to use unauthorized extended interrogation techniques.

If Amnesty International says all this they didn't make it up. They are repeating conclusions of official Army inquiries. I encourage you to read the documents for yourself, and test my interpretation of them.

JM repeated your assertion, in the article, without providing a source. Well, of course, I encourage him to source his assertions. He also said that the allegations against Wood were a matter of dispute. If he can find a credible, verifiable source to back up that assertion, of course that should be incorporated into the article.

Randy, concerning your concern that the article contained potentially slanderous statements, that exposed us to a law suit -- of course that should be a concern. But, if the article merely quotes external sources, like the Fay report, or WAPO or the NYT, then, if the statements are libelous or slanderous, it would be Fay, WAPO or NYT who would be sued, not us for repeating the statements. -- Geo Swan 16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Geo, Amnesty describes their list as "those who may be considered high-level torture architects." Wood's contribution in that area was that she "oversaw interrogation operations at Bagram Air Base and who permitted the use of dogs, stress positions and sensory deprivation." Whether or not they're technically legal, to characterize these things as "torture" is insane, particularly in comparison to other countries' real examples of torture that AI moved to the small print in the back pages. But I don't know how an organization that asks nations to commit acts of war over something like this can be taken seriously anyway. When other countries commit real acts of torture, AI is giving them a rationale to keep doing so by claiming that the U.S. is on the same plane. It's almost as though the KGB's new entity was sending them big checks.
Nevertheless, if we were to separate AI's propaganda from what Wood was actually accused of then that's something we can work with. I don't know what sources she used for the "other techniques." While that would be interesting, the real questions are about the techniques that she did use and whether she believed them to be legal at the time.
Yes, dogs are scary. Yes, stress positions are uncomfortable. Yes, sensory deprivation is disorienting.
And yes, I'm sure she pushed them all into becoming very scary, very uncomfortable, and very disorienting. I know stress positions can be hard but there's still no comparison to actual torture. (If they used torture then they wouldn't need stress positions.) Who equates that to what Nazis did? As you may recall, somebody did that right here on Wikipedia by adding a Nazi cartoon to this article. That was back when the article suggested that compliance blows were one of her techniques.
I don't agree with JM's wording either. I don't think he went far enough.
The intro paragraph as it stands muddles Wood's ties to Abu Ghraib. She was criticized in the Fay report, but she was not central to the scandal that most people think of when they read Abu Ghraib. Most people associate that scandal with the photos, and what went on there, and she had nothing to do with that. Some people reading this article might think that the naked pyramid and the wiring of Satar Jabar are two techniques she brought back from Basra.
-- Randy2063 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Career Secion

In this section, there is a mention of CPT Wood's receipt of a Bronze Star given for valor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Star_Medal). I removed the quotation marks since it shows a POV. CPT Wood earned this award and the V device that comes with it shows it is more than just an meritorious award. Bronce Star Medals can be given for merit and/or heroic deeds.

user:jerry.mills

I believe she earned two Bronze Stars. One during her time in Bagram, and one during her time at Abu Ghraib. I believe both were for valor. Various people have told me they would like to have the article quote or cite the actual citations. I'd like to have it quote or cite the actual citations too. I would have thought that information would be public. But I have no idea where to look. Do you know where to look? -- Geo Swan 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, actually. I do. Joaquin Murietta 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me check. If she is still at Huachuca, I can find the data. user:jerry.mills
After contacting appropiate sources, they will not confirm her duty status. They site OPSEC, and now that I think about it, they are correct. Sorry :( user:jerry.mills

[edit] Calling for an explanation

I am calling for an explanation as to how the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy justifies the reapplication of the {unencyclopedic} tag.

Previous explanations for the application of that tag appeared, IMO, circular and unconvincing. -- Geo Swan 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is That Header a Joke?

Wow. The header on this article is really, really weird. I think it actually constitutes vandalism. First, Schultz's allegations against Wood were that she was a "torture architect" because she "oversaw interrogation operations at Bagram Air Base and who permitted the use of dogs, stress positions and sensory deprivation." That actually happened, as the article itself states: "She expanded the interrogation procedures with the use of stress positions, isolation for up to thirty days, removal of clothing, and exploitation of detainees' phobias, such as the use of barking dogs." Nor did Schultz "concede" he had no evidence.

I normally wouldn't touch a header without consensus, but this is vandalism. MarkB2 02:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no joke. Dogs, stress positions and sensory deprivation aren't torture. I haven't looked it up in a while, but I think they're not even illegal by themselves. The dogs should have been muzzled, and the rest should have been limited, but it's not torture.
You removed the reference, but I can see now that Schulz was only talking about Rumsfeld. It doesn't matter, though. The phrase "torture architect" is hyperbole for Amnesty's perpetual fund-raising campaigns.
Keep in mind that the U.S. has a more strict definition of torture. IIRC, the U.S. ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture only with a signing statement to limit its scope to actual torture. We've never signed OPCAT at all, nor should we.
Looking at this now, I think political opinions like his shouldn't be in the header without some kind of explanation. It should be kept in the article, however, as we should always remember where these people stood. I may find another spot for it.
-- Randy2063 22:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what constitutes "torture" is debatable. Being tied to a rack on a wall until you black out might be construed as torture by some people beyond America's beautiful shores, you know what I mean?MarkB2 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Beyond America's beautiful shores, people claim to care about human rights when prisoners have to wear womens' underwear on their heads, and yet they'll turn their heads when children are used as human shields. What such people construe as torture varies with the winds. It isn't material.
U.S. interrogators wouldn't need barking dogs, loud music, and stress positions if they used torture.
-- Randy2063 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] add reference

Major Myndia G. Ohman, USAF wrote in the Air Force Law Review

"Captain Carolyn Wood, one of 28 soldiers investigated in connection with detainee deaths at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, may yet face disciplinary action. An initial investigation found that Captain Wood, who oversaw interrogators at detention facilities in Abu Ghraib and Bagram, failed to implement appropriate safeguards to prevent detainee abuse and failed properly review interrogation plans that allowed for the improper use of isolation and nudity. Army investigators have recommended that Captain Wood be charged with conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, and making a false official statement related to death of detainees at the facility she supervised."

As an employee of the US Federal government, writing in a publication of the US Federal governmnet, I believe this passage is the public domain, and can be quoted, in full, without it being a copyright violation.

But should it?

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's universally true about everything found on government websites but this one looks safe to copy. It should say if it's not. That's not to say I think it adds anything new. It's almost two years old.
-- Randy2063 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. I found it when I was looking for refernces to supplement the Akron Beacon Journal article that had a paragraph about the charges and final disposition of the 15 guys who charged -- it has expired, and someone thought this meant the charges were no longer documented. Pasting this paragraph, and the references was just a few minutes more work.
Cheers! Geo Swan 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)