Talk:Patrick M. McCarthy (lawyer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

disambiguation

User:Yachtsman1 replaced this article with an article about an artist also named Patrick McCarthy.

Sorry, this was inappropriate. The wikipedia has procedures for disambiguating between multiple people with the same name. Please use them. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

add image

Two contributors, User:Halfdzn48 in April, and User:Yachtsman1 in September, removed the public domain image of Patrick M McCarthy, without any explanation.

Yachtsman1 did leave the following note on my user page:

Geoswan is a contributor on Wikepedia whose main emphasis is to endanger members of the United States military and their families by plastering their names and images on the web when they work in highly volatile situations in the War on Terror.

And a Commons:User:Yachtsman1 started a nomination for deletion] of the image asserting:

I ask that this image be deleted. It has been used without permission.

Let me address the second concern first. All images taken by employees of US Federal Agencies, in performance of their duties, are in the public domain. Period. And American GIs count as Federal employees. Therefore this image is in the public domain.

The other concern Yachtsman1 has expressed, that the republication of this image makes McCarthy, and/or his family, less safe. Well, I don't want to seem to mock this contributor's concern, but I don't believe it is a realistic concern.

I have re-added the image. Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoswan displays a misunderstanding of the law.

First, any story about a private individual that uses his name and image requires that individual's permission ..... period. That includes pictures taken. While the photo may be used free of copyright concerns re. the federal government, one is still required to gain the permission of the individual pictured before it may be used.

Second, geoswan's version of "reality" is not "realistic." Geoswan states that she does not find using pictures of military attorneys endangers them or their families because of her version of "reality." The "reality," however, is that in GITMO, the names of military attorneys, interrogators, guards and other personnel are not used with detainess for the express reason that their identities be protected. The "reality" is that prisoners in GITMO are some of the most dangerous individuals on Earth. One would have to accept Geoswan's version of reality as being "real" while simultaneously accepting that the rest of the United States, its government, and its allies' version of reality is "not real." The fact of the matter is that use of images of attorneys and other members of the military who have acted in any capacity with detainees places these service members at risk when they get reassigned to places like Afghanistan and Iraq. For this reason, it should be a rather obvious policy that Wikepedia gain their permission before using their name and image in any story. Their jobs place them at elevated risk for harm from terrorists as opposed to others, including any and all attorneys who have defended the GITMO Detainees. For solid proof, simply read the Manchester Manual. Any government official who works against Al Qaida's interests should be assassinated, and their families identified for the same purpose.

For the above-stated reason, I have replaced the story about Mr. McCarthy with one of an artist of the same name from California who I am quite certain would love for someone to buy his work. In the meantime, I would ask that Wikepedia immediately delete this story, as well as any image of Mr. McCarthy, as being of little value, as being posted without his permission, and as a possible future tool for use by terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yachtsman1 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoswan's version of "reality," in any event, is shown below:

Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored my initial comments to the beginning of the talk page, where they belong. Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

questionable edits...

Yachtsman1, your persistence in changing the article about Patrick M. McCarthy to be about the LA artist is extremely inappropriate.

You have already been asked to use the wikipedia's established disambiguation techniques if you feel the LA artist merits coverage here. You can't claim you are unaware that the wikipedia has disambiguation techniques.

I suggest to you that most wikipedia contributors would regard edits like this one as clear and unambiguous instances of vandalism. I suggest to you that edits like this one are going to be perceived as attempts to subvert and disrupt the wikipedia.

I suggest it is in your long term interest, if you plan to continue contributing to the wikipedia, to refrain from replacing this article with content about other individuals named McCarthy.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I would appreciate, in terms of the long term interests of you as a contributor and wikepedia, that you research the copyrights of private individuals before making further comments.

Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but didn't you already acknowledge that this image is in the public domain? Didn't you already write:

...While the photo may be used free of copyright concerns re. the federal government, one is still required to gain the permission of the individual pictured before it may be used.

Your opinion that we must get permission from any individual, before we write about them, or show public domain images of them is an unusual one. I do not believe your interpretation is supported by either US law or the wikipedia's policies. I am certain we never sought the permission of any other individual prior to writing about them, or showing public domain images of them.

You have been warned by others, and myself, and others, to refrain from edits which could be considered vandalism. I reverted your last edit.

I added Pat McCarthy (artist) to the disambiguation page Patrick McCarthy. If you honestly feel that the artist merits an article please contribute to that article under that name.

If you are replacing the material about the officer Patrick M. McCarthy with material about the artist -- simply to serve as some kind of place-holder -- then I honestly believe you are in breach of the wikipedia's policies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you agin Geoswan for making my point. The fact a photo is in the "public domain" is irrelevant. In order to be used, you are required to gain the permission of the person in the PHOTO in order to use it. It is HIS image.

My "opinion" is a learned one. Yours, obviously, is not. Anyone with a basic education level should know this.

My change is not vandalism, it is merely reflective of the fact that you are required to gain the permission of the indnvidual that is the subject of the story before you can utilize his words and image. As you have failed to link me with such permission, I can only assume your present stance arises from a lingering confusion as to this issue.

'Ta.

Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion

A review of this page reveals the following:

1. Cites - The cites provided do not display original work. They include opinion pieces from the Huffington Post attacking the cutting of beards at Guantanemo Bay, stories cocnerning the suicide of three prisoners entitled "who's lying?", as well as newspaper articles discussing events for which the individual is not ascribed any indepedent action. The stories concerning an interview appear to be compilations from various sources paraphrasing what was said. The sources are not reliable, or are clouded with political bias. A final link states that the subject is an appraiser for the Navy. How this is newsworthy is a question, unless this is an attempt to harass the subject of the article.

2. Personal Attacks: The page, as amended, contains a personal attack against a living person in violation of Wikipedia's posting policy. This includes stories ascribing various actions to an individual who appears to have spoekn about events on several occassions. This appears to be the product of political bias.

3. Waste of Space: Many of the events described, including beard cutting and grooming, are better left under already existant pages on Wikipedia. There is an entire page already in existence on these allegations, and a more dispassionate discussion on news stories related thereto can be made in those spaces with the links on this page provided.

4. Not Notable: The subject of this particular page is simply not notable, though the issue of GITMO certainly is. The links provided demonstrate that he was a legal advisor at GITMO, but nothing more. His particular duties are not listed, there are no acts ascribed to him, no independent actions that could be considered notable enough for him to be a subject to himself.

For these reasons, this page should be deleted.

Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Testify Before the Supreme Court?

Geo Swan: No one testifies before the Supreme Court. They are a purely appelate court that listens to matters already on the "record." Your own source does not even make this claim. I assume this basic error was made in good faith. Please correct this.Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, all of my edits to this article, and every single edit I have made to the wikipedia over the last four years, has been made in good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is my assumption that you have created a subheading with a serious error of fact in good faith. I am now providing you with an opportunity to edit this section based on "testimony" before the Supreme Court because (a) people (much less attorneys) don't testify before the Supreme Court because it is not a "fact finding" court; and (b) the source you cite to does not make such a claim. Kindly edit your error. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. I once again reviewed your source, which appears to be an ABC news story. The quotes are attributed to the subject, but when they were stated is not in the article. There is nothing in the article to indicate that it was "testimony." I realize that you are trying to improve this article, but you require actual verifiable evidence prior to making such claims. Once again, please edit this section.Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the error in good faith. The statement appears to have been made in general terms, and it would take a knowledge of the law and the Rules of Evidence to understand its meaning. The statement regards a legal concept called "foundation" and runs hand in glove with hearsay and authenticity requirements. Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This just updated: It appears a user has identified my latest attempt to remedy the error as "vandalism." The prior edit has been made in good faith, and properly reflects the contents of the link. Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I certainly want to see this article kept, and believe that Yachtsman has a lot of work to do to regain some level of trust in his words; he is correct that the Supreme Court is an appelate court - and people don't "testify" in front of it, so far as my knowledge stands. His previous edit appears to have been in good faith, and improved the flow (and accuracy) of the article, so I am restoring it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

sources

Geo Swan: I saw your latest version. The link does not say they "failed" to gain evidence, instead the link casts doubts on whether the evidence collected could stand up under scrutiny in Federal Court. I don't think your edit is accurate. Sherucji, do you have a position on this?Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference does not say GIs failed to gain evidence, and neither did I. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

? This is your exact version from the article: "Mr. McCarthy offered a general defense for GIs not acquiring evidence when captives were captured". Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a clause about conviction. Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I made this change because the reference doesn't mention "evidentiary requirements", "foundation", "hearsay" or "Federal Rules of Evidence". -- Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The link does not mention that military personnel failed to collect evidence. The link merely references the quote, which talks directly about the evidence "collected." Perhaps we can have someone moderate this dispute? Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the Huffington Post a WP:RS?

Is the Huffington Post a WP:RS? It is an online news source, that is sometimes referred to as a blog. Periodically some wikipedia contributors have concerns that it should not be considered an WP:RS. In every single discussion as to whether it should be considered an WP:RS it is my recollection that the consenus arrived at is that it is, because the editors pick well-known, authoritive, reputable contributors.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com This archive contains the most recent discussion.

A contributor recently excised references to an article by Andy Worthington -- the author of a book about Guantanamo -- from the article, on the grounds that Huffington Post was an WP:RS, and that the material was libelous.

I invite discussion as to why that excision should not be reverted. Geo Swan (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - Thank you so much for this debate. The problem is two-fold: (1) The Huffington Post is a well known fringe publication WP:QS; (2) The link you originally cited stated quite clearly that the story's main theme was based on the writer's opinion, that he had no clue what had happened to the subjects of the story, and further insinuated that the subject of the present article was lying. The subject is an attorney. Any publication of a story that insinuates an attorney is lying is libel per se WP:LIBEL, see also http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394, and Wikipedia would be liable for suit damages (as well as the person who published it, i.e., the contributing author). For this reason, it was removed as a cite immediately and replaced by a story from the Washington Post WP:RS that was not libleous. As a matter of course, for living people WP:LIVE it is best to avoid "blogs", particularly well know, non-neutral blogs from either the far left or far right, as a source for stories for this reason.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the archived discussion over whether the Huffington Post is an WP:RS?

Yes, and it's not a WP:RSYachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to hold the personal opinion that the Huffington Post is a fringe publication. I had one correspondent who tried to argue we should consider the New York Times a questionable source.

Subjectiveness does not really matter. The definition of a "reliable source" includes pieces that are not "opinion" pieces. You can look on Wikipedia's polcies for yourself if you like.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If others wikipedians generally agreed with you I wouldn't use the Huffington Post. But, no offense, from the many times this question has come up, it seems to me people here don't agree with you.

And they are perfectly capable of having their own opinions, but WP:RS is not a subjective matter. The item you wish to link is libel per se. It violates Wikipedia's policies on living persons. Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your advice about libel -- your BBC article -- isn't it intended for a UK audience? Aren't the laws about libel and slander very different in the USA and the UK? Aren't the US laws those that would apply if Captain McCarthy wanted to sue the wikipedia, or to sue me?

My legal advice does not come cheap. Would you like the case cites? You see, libel comes from "common law," which originated in the UK then came to the US. Libel is a common law tort. The articles linked applies equally to the United States. If you would like to link me to something else that counters it, or makes a point that supports your attempt to differentiate the two standards, please let me know. Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be clear about what you are saying about Worthington's article. One interpretation of your statements is that Worthington's article contains statements so radioactive that merely referring to it, even without quoting or paraphrasing the radioactive passages, would expose the wikipedia to a charge of libel.

Linking to it, using it in support, etc. is "publishing" libel. So, this would expose Wikipoedia to legal liability. Sorry. Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you accept that your personal opinion that Worthington and Huffington Post are fringe sources is not shared, but you still have a concern over the material you wanted to suppress, because you thought it did not comply with a policy, like WP:NPOV, one of your choices is to be specific about why you are concerned, and to suggest alternative wording, or additional sources.

I accept the definition as stated in WP:RS. The Huffington Post, much like Town Hall, or Michelle Malkin, or Anne Coulter, does not fall under that category. They are opinion pieces. Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to call Worthington a blogger. He is an author. He spent a very considerable time researching his book on Guantanamo. Are you aware of any reputable book reviewers or authoritative commentators who have gone on record stating the opinion his work is fringe work?

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Worthington may be an author (whose academic credentials are unknown), but he states his opinions on a blog. Thus, when citing to Worthigton's opinion piece on a blog, you are citing to him as a blogger. If you cite his book, you are citing to him as an author. I hope that helps to clarify that point. Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughts. Worthington is an author who wrote a book, and who writes his opinions on a blog. No matter how you slice it, it is a blog, and will always be a blog. Your other statement does not merit serious reflection. The subjective opinion of a group means little when the subject is not accepted in the general community at large as a reliable source. This means people who exist off of Wikipedia. Finally, and I repeat, the article you have tried to cite is libel per se. if you post it, I will immediately delete the link.

Thank you so much for your response. I note that you have missed the fact that the story is libel per se. How disappointing. The story you are trying to link asserts that an attorney is not being truthful. It calls into direct questions his qualifications as an attorney. It is libel, speculative, and pure opinion. It opens Wikipedia up to civil liability, as well as the person who posts it. Wikipedia demands the removal of all libel on sight, and I will remove it immediately if I see it again as I am obligated to do under Wikipedia's policies. On your other points, The Huffington Post, while it may be accepted as mainstream by you and those you know, is acknowledged in the "general community" as a far left publication, and its stories are weighted in that direction. The fact that you may agree with the statement in these stories does not mean that it is "generally accepted." For instance, you may believe aliens built the pyramids, your friends may believe the same thing, a publication may even agree on this point, but it does not become a "generally accepted" fact because you, your friends, and a publication believe it. As stated, stay away from blogs for citation to support an article, left or right. Try the Washington Post or other mainstream media which are "generally accepted" as vetted and neutral through an editorial review process of distinguished editors. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is a member of the Bar Association?

Does the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association have any members other than officers of the military stationed there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a picture of eight or nine of the original civilian habeas attorneys to travel there, over the caption "Guantanamo Bay Bar Association". As Staff Judge Advocate for JTF-GTMO, I think McCarthy played a kind of gatekeeper role. I suspect they invited him to be the honorary head of this honorary organization, to try to keep him friendly. Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Or because he cleaned it up when he came in after the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, thereby making it a better environment for their clients, Geo Swan. You really need to start reading between the lines.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1