Talk:Carolyn Wood

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV clean up needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  questioning the disputed facts notice 

message: (As of today: Rename - 2, As is 2) Joaquin Murietta 16:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename this article? 

message: Isn't that a little argumentative? How do rude comments further the discussion? Joaquin Murietta 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Phrases Like Nonsensical 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misuse of the {disputeabout} tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misuse of the {dispute} tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is renaming the solution? 

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

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

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Response by Murietta

message: 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)
replies: text: I would like to explore other options before you do that. Joaquin Murietta 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following a week of benefit of the doubt... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This issue can be resolved if... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calling for an explanation 

message: The statement "Captain Wood was awarded two Bronze Stars for the services she provided in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a CBC documentary on Abu Ghraib a Bronze Star awarded to Wood following the deaths in custody was awarded for valor" requires more clarification. A previous statement that it (they?) was awarded for "exceptionally meritorious service" suggests it was not for valor but for merit. The award for valor is normally earned while engaged in combat operations against an enemy force: during a live fire engagement, in danger of being killed, and for actions that helped protect American lives. Cpt Wood's time in Afghanistan and Iraq do not suggest she engaged in combat outside the wire, but I'd have to see the actual award citations to confirm. If true, then the good captain (a lieutenant while she was in Afghanistan) did far more than just supervise interrogators.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnam volunteer (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze Star for Valor? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carolyn Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050310exe.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001015147/http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/5/Umansky.asp to http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/5/Umansky.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Carolyn Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102105631/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf to http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102105631/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf to http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102105631/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf to http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102105631/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf to http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carolyn Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220111835/http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/statement.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/statement.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carolyn Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050912084110/http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/news/67450.php to http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/news/67450.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified