Jump to content

Talk:H. Candace Gorman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Heidijane 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lawyer and her client

[edit]

As most of the contributions by a related person have been removed, I have retracted the coi tag which I placed on this article. However, I don't think the extended section relating to just one client (which I removed) belongs here. It's really about the client and it makes no difference who his lawyer is, so it properly belongs in his own article, which is linked from this one. Plus, it was even longer than the section about the subject herself! I wouldn't object to expansion of the sentence stating that she represented him to include information that she has been a public advocate on his behalf, or that she visited him personally, or whatever she herself did that might be notable. Finally, while I am not challenging her notability, I suspect that others might as she seems to be a borderline case. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your excision

[edit]
Gorman is not just his lawyer. She is the author of widely published articles, that revealed something of great importance.
What was the thing she exposed? That the DoD violated its own rules, which stated that the Guantanamo captives had a right to attend their Tribunals, and challenge the unclassified allegations against them. She learned, when she traveled to the secure facility, in Virginia, the only place lawyers are allowed to review their client's classified dossiers, that she had been lied to. The DoD had told her that the original Tribunal had to be set aside, and a second Tribunal convened, because new evidence had emerged. What she found was that there was zero new evidence.
Readers look to the wikipedia as a neutral, reliable source of information, they can rely on for the information they need to reach their own conclusions. There is a discussion, out there, in the domain of public discourse, over how the Tribunals operated, whether they were fair, whether they complied with the USA's obligations under the Geneva Conventions, whether they complied with US law.
Can you and I agree that the discrepancy between the DoD's explanation for the second Tribunal they convened, and the actual evidence, or rather, the lack thereof, is very important information for the wikipedia to make available to our readers?
Now, as I see it, you and I can have a legitimate disagreement as to the balance of how much of this information belongs in the H. Candace Gorman article, and how much of it belongs in the Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi article. Personally, I don't see it as a problem if there is a considerable overlap.
Anyhow, I looked at the Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi article's history. I don't see that you made any effort whatsoever to incorporate the material you excised from this article, into that article. Is this something on your to-do list, that you haven't gotten around to yet?
Why does the bulk of this information belong here, in the H Candace Gorman article, rather than the Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi article?
  • Gorman is the author of the articles, not Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi.
  • Gorman has a European style name, so it is easier for potential readers to remember, if they decide to look for her articles, or information about her and her writings, when they got to a computer.
  • Arabic names are very vulnerable to confusion, because of transliteration problems. It would be very easy for readers to not find the Al Ghazzawi article due these transliteration problems...
Cheers! — Geo Swan 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly her reports, but the way the section was written, it was not about her, it was about her client. Should the life story of Thomas Edison be told within the article on one of his biographers, or on his own page? Along the same lines, I do not believe it is proper to include in an article about an attorney various facts that came to light in the course of the attorney's cases. These matters are appropriately addressed in an article about the case or the client. So whether there is a discrepancy between a Dod position and reality, that wouldn't be 'about' the attorney, it would be 'about' the client or the case. This isn't Thomas Edison discovering the light bulb; rather, it is a diligent, dedicated attorney doing a good job for her client.
There is no need for overlap due to Wikilinks. Similarly, there will be no problem with confusion of the Arabic name, as all a reader need do is click on the link. I took a quick look at Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi when I made the excision and thought everything I removed from here was already there. If not, I apologize. I certainly would have no objection to it being reposted at Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi. I'll reiterate what I wrote above: I wouldn't object to expansion of the sentence stating that she represented him to include information that she has been a public advocate on his behalf, or that she visited him personally, or (briefly) whatever she herself did that might be notable. I am neutral as far as the material is concerned, I just don't think it belongs in this article.
Hope my position is now clearer. Cheers! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of adding the colons necessary to indent your comments, so later readers can tell who is replying to which note.
Yes, Gorman is a hard-working, dedicated lawyer. And, she is also the author of very important articles that revealed something that had not otherwise been published about Guantanamo. As I see it, the H. Candace Gorman article is an appropriate place to talk about this notable accomplishment, of discovering the discrepancy, and making it known, is appropriate, just like Edison's article talks about his discoveries, and Captain Cook's article talks about his discoveries.
Are you saying that your objection is that you think the size of the section on her Guantanamo discovery overwhelms the material about the rest of her life? So, if the size of the sections on the rest of her life were larger, you would not object to its restoration? -- Geo Swan 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the 'discovery' isn't really a discovery. It was her job to figure that out. She was just doing her job. I think it's appropriate to mention her notable clients and cases, but the facts unique to the particular clients and cases belong elsewhere. I think it's also appropriate to mention articles and books she has authored, with a quick synopsis of the contents, but if the article is about a case or client, an in-depth discussion of the article belongs in an article about the case or client. As you wrote a couple of paragraphs above, the articles revealed something about Guantanamo, not about her.
We actually encountered a similar issue in the article about her father, Robert J. Gorman. A lot of interesting details on the Roy Eaton case came to light while that article was being actively revised, but they were deemed inappropriate for an article about Robert J. Gorman.
My comment on the size of the Gitmo section overshadowing her bio was just to highlight the scope problem. It's not the problem, just a symptom.
If you still feel strongly that the details of the Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi matter belong in this article, I have no objection to bringing in somebody else for a third opinion. Thanks for reading. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of sourced material by Butseriouslyfolks without was outrageous. Much of the notability of the subject derives from her travel and experience at Guantanamo, which is no longer mentioned in the article after the removal. The information that was removed was neither unnecessarily long nor irrelevant. Tim Shuba (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mucking with the intro

[edit]

I removed content regarding Gorman's "boutique" practice, since its source--Gorman's blogs--did not support the term. I (obviously) didn't do a good job rewriting the intro or incorporating her father's info, but I'm trying to stay within the existing copy and sources for now. Any editing help? Flowanda | Talk 02:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Motions

[edit]

They have been removed. Motions are not a good source. Attorneys write them all the time (I wrote seven of them last week alone, together with 4 sets of Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Requests for Production of Documents), and they are written to advocate the position of one's client(s). They are by definition and their very nature one-sided, lack neutrality, and as a source of information violate every principle for inclusion as a source. I have therefore removed them as they are extraneous to the subject, and their inclusion is highly suspect as a violation of wp:pov and other Wikipedia guidelines.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on H. Candace Gorman. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Date of birth is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.91.217 (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H._Candace_Gorman&oldid=1207544010"