Talk:J. D. Gordon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jeffrey D. Gordon)

Notability Issue[edit]

This is not a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. There will undoubtedly be numerous references to Lt. Commander Gordon as his job is to speak to the media. This does not justify his inclusion in Wikipedia without his having done anything notable.

I invite discussion about this - otherwise I will recommend this for deletion. BWH76 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - this article does not fulfill the notability requirements as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) nor Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. BWH76 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not policy. he is of note. keep.71.142.106.117 (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a reverse DNS on the IP address who made this unexplained excision[edit]

I did a reverse DNS on the IP address who made this unexplained excision.

They are a customer of AT&T
AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SBIS-6BLK (NET-76-192-0-0-1)
76.192.0.0 - 76.255.255.255
Se2 RCSNTX ADSL SBC-76-255-64-0-20-0709140131 (NET-76-255-64-0-1)
76.255.64.0 - 76.255.79.255

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision. Is the allegation of Jeffrey Gordon's sexual orientation a reasonable topic. Given his allegations against the reported have now made his character a feature of his public personality is it not reasonable for men (or women) to come forward with details concerning their relationships with Gordon, comments he has made, and in general the quality of his character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Sofia (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!
Contributions that are neutrally written, and cite verifiable authoritative sources -- and which comply with the policy on biographies of living persons are suitable.
Of these, in my experience, the policy that triggers the most controversy is "BLP" -- the Biography of Living People policy. It says extra care has to be exercised when introducing material that shows someone in a negative light has to be rigorously sourced. My own understanding of this policy is that it does not say "negative" material isn't allowed, it just has to be well sourced, neutrally written.
Unfortunately I find some contributors interpretations of what is negative bizarre and mystifying. If, after taking a look at WP:BLP you think you can contribute material that fits, you can:
  1. Be bold, and go ahead and put it in the article;
  2. Offer the URLs of the reference you are thinking of using on the article's talk page, and ask for others' opinions;
  3. Contact more experienced contributors you trust on their talk page, or via email.
Welcome to the wikipedia! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Geo Swan! Since I am new to Wikipedia, your information was particularly helpful. It seems like you know alot about Guantanamo prison camp too and I appreciate having such good insight. I'm a teacher/college professor and this year I have begun encouraging my students to use WIkipedia properly as a resource in early stages of research. (I'm bucking the trend a litle bit). Your thoughtfulness and guidelines have encouragement me further. Regards, abusofia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Sofia (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jeffrey D. Gordon's sexual habits and orientation documented and if not, should it be?[edit]

Given his recent allegations, should not Commonder Gordon disclose? It's sad that should he be a gay man (not making any asumptions here) and that he is retiring after having been a Rumsfeld appointee, he might want to create a smokescreen to provide cover for some of his other activities, personal and professional, while in the military. Is this man in fact a victim himself of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? What a sad case and what an obvious source of shame for the American military that this Commander chooses to go out THIS way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Sofia (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I strongly doubt that there would be any evidence of his orientation that would rise to the level we would require to write about here, even if he were a gay man. I've read every article published about this controversy so far. I only found one that addressed the sexuality issue. And it didn't assume he was gay, it merely said that if he were this would be another instance where the "don't ask, don't tell" policy backfired.
I am going to assume he is a straight man who has the fairly common fear of being accused of being gay. I am also going to assume that the foreign objects up the butt comment, that was his most alarming claim, is based on a misunderstanding. I am going to assume Ms Rosenberg didn't say what Commander Gordon claims she said, but did say something more innocuous, which, with the vagaries of memory, got twisted to what he wrote. His account is, after all, of a conversation that occurred a year earlier.
There is something in Commander Gordon's letter that none of the stories in the MSM have noted, so it can't be included in our coverage. I am going to keep my eyes peeled for when an MSM source picks this up. His letter notes that this comment occurred as he and Ms Rosenberg watched Mustafa Al Hawsawi squirm in his seat, in spite of an extra cushion. It is a very significant part of the story. Mustafa Al Hawsawi, like all the high value detainees, has to submit to an anal exam every day they are transported to the courtroom. For cultural reasons Arab men find this even more unpleasant than American men. And, if the riot squad has dragged you from you cell, and is holding you spread-eagled on the floor while they perform this exam, I would be very surprised if it wasn't very, very painful. I find Commander Gordon's note that her comment occurred while they were watching a captive squirm in pain following his butt exam very significant.
We may never hear Ms Rosenberg's side. Personally, I am going to consider she may have said something innocuous like: "Commander Gordon, are you smirking at a man in pain after having a foreign object stuck up his butt? How would you like to have a foreign object stuck up your butt?"
But, as I said, that can't go into the article, unless an WP:RS makes that point.
I haven't personally worked on any articles that talked about individuals who have "come out of the closet", or been "outed". I followed the article on "Jeff Gannon". There is the Senator, who played footsie. There is the actor who played "Pee Wee Herman". I think there was sufficient documentation for all three of them to talk about the gay aspect -- I recall some contributors resisting addressing the gay aspect of Joe Gannon. I think there are contributors who are more expert at the nuances of our policy on outing, who could help when more references write about this.
I have also read the comments readers left to some of those articles. I found some of the comments from readers who were critical of Commander Gordon quite unfair. Some readers questioned Commander Gordon's manhood, for having his feelings hurt by a girl, for not "sucking it up". I think that is wrong. His July 22 letter said he thought his complaint would help protect more junior GIs who he said he thought were also being verbally abused by Ms Rosenberg. That is a valid reason to trigger his complaint.
My notion is that GIs play out setting an informal pecking order with their fellow GIs in informal ways that involve crude comments, practical jokes, and sometimes actual violence -- when no one is looking. But if the ways a pecking order is normally set out in the military are closed to Commander Gordon, (1) responding in kind to crude comments; (2) practical jokes; or (3) actual violence -- those are all closed to him. If he actually thought some kind of response was required to comments from a reporter he should use the kind of mechanisms a civilian would use -- like a letter to their boss.
Personally I am extremely skeptical of his perception of the threat from Rosenberg. Personally I think the Miami Herald should check out with other journalists familiar with her work at Guantanamo, to refute or confirm Commander Gordon's claims. In the event they confirmed Commander Gordon's account she should be reassigned. Maybe with a letter of censure. But I think that is extremely unlikely because I know from reading what other journalists who have worked with her at Guantanamo have written I know she is very highly respected -- respected in a way that would not be possible if Commander Gordon's claims were true.
Personally, I think Carol Rosenberg should have her own article, and I think some of the material here should go there.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update[edit]

Al Hawsawi -- the captive who squirmed in his seat after his mandatory anal exam, the man whose pain Gordon seemed to have mocked, turned out to be one of the individuals who the CIA used a technique they called "rectal feeding".

The technique was used in the 19th century, in emergencies, like shattered jaws. But it has long since been replaced by intravenous glucose or entereal feeding. Forced entereal feeding can be extremely unpleasant. But forced rectal feeding, as done by the CIA was brutal. They forced a tube the size of a dildo up the individual's rectum. They pushed all kinds of stuff up the individual's rectums, including their regular meals, pureed.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture clarified that Al Hawsawi suffered the most serious injuries from this technique. His lawyers assert this was essentially anal rape.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture said Al Hawsawi was left with "anal prolapse". Every time Al Hawsawi has a bowel movement the lowest portion of his large intesting unrolls, with the stool, and is left hanging out of his anus. Al Hawsawi then has to manually insert his intestine back into his body. It's painful. It's extremely painful. Undignified too, I imagine.

Was Gordon aware of Al Hawsawi's anal prolapse? Technically, it was classified. In practice secrets like this leaked like a seive, at Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A contributor voices a concern[edit]

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relating to this policy, please report it on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robclement (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2009 August 8

I reviewed all of the material posted by User:Geo_Swan and every statement and quote is verifiable by a reliable source. Therefore it does not violate WP:BLP. However, if you care to be more specific regarding your complaints about the article and discuss it on this talk page, it would make it easier to look into. Please discuss future major revisions to this article on this talk page before making drastic edits. Also, it is not necessary to quote Wikipedia policy on an article itself. INV:3   bsmithme  20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discussion...[edit]

I've asked several recent contributors to return here to discuss their concerns: [1], [2], [3], [4] Geo Swan (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I wasn't concerned with the PD status of the image. I tend to believe that WP articles shouldn't contain primary source documents, especially court documents regarding living people. Our concern as an encyclopedia is to present a broad, accurate summary of a subject. If we note something from a court document, it is sufficient to link to (or otherwise satisfy WP:V). It is not necessary to actually show the document in the article. Use of the document in the article should be governed by our policy on primary sources. Presentation of the document endangers the POV of the article and becomes difficult for editors and readers to interpret. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a big excision justified by calling on the authority of BLP. Some of that material belonged in an article on Carol Rosenberg. I didn't restore that material. But I think the BLP concerns were misplaced. And I restored other referenced, neutral material. Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

excise serious inaccuracy[edit]

I excised a serious inaccuracy introduced in this edit with the frankly misleading edit summary "Update to reflect current status".

The edit introduced the sentence "The Pentagon subsequently announced that Rosenberg would be banned from Guantanamo." This sentence strongly implies that Rosenberg was banned because senior officials within the DoD wanted to support Gordon. On the contrary those officials who did comment on his complaint made clear he was on his own.

Rosenberg and Michelle Shephard were briefly banned from Guantanamo, for publishing that Joshua Claus had testified during a prepatory hearing for Omar Khadr Military Commission. The Prosecution referred to Claus as "witness number 1". It was the position of the Prosecution that Claus's ID was a secret, and that by publishing it the two reporters had breached the rules they agreed to in order to attend the hearings. However Claus's role in torturing Bagram captives was very well known, and had been widely published. Claus was the last interrogator to strike Dilawar. It had been widely known, and widely published that Claus was the interrogator who subjected 15 year old Khadr to abusive interrogation techniques. The ban on these two reporters was soon dropped.

More particularly for this article this brief ban was totally unrelated to Gordon's complaint. Geo Swan (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Rosenberg

Please discuss contested issues on the talk page, not in edit summaries?[edit]

This edit, with the misleading edit summary "Correction to record", excised a large section of the article with no meaningful attempt to explain why. So I reverted it.

If you have a policy based concern, please share it here on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much space to campaign chatter[edit]

Four sources were given to campaign chatter after Gordon was appointed to Cain's campaign, with more space given to his sexual harassment complaint than to comments about how he might or might not (or did or did not) contribute a foreign policy/security perspective. No followup to what did happen, or comments on his performance (if any) as Cain's campaign ran down.Parkwells (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeffrey D. Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. D. Gordon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Involvement during 2016 election[edit]

I propose a separate section . Wikipietime (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship With Maria Buttina[edit]

I propose adding text relating to Gordon's relationship with Maria Buttina.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-associate-socialized-with-alleged-russian-agent-maria-butina-in-final-weeks-of-2016-campaign/2018/08/03/d87c1d84-96a6-11e8-80e1-00e80e1fdf43_story.html?utm_term=.36186ee6ca51&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1

Rnagel (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon's claims he was sexually harassed, and his defense of his boss, Herman Kain, against credible claims he was a sexual harasser[edit]

When Gordon claimed Carol Rosenberg had sexually harassed him he asserted he had endured worse punishment than Guantanamo's inmates. This is a matter of public record. It was widely reported. IMO these assertions were significant, and should be covered in the article.

Fast forward to when he was a key member of Herman Kain's Presidential campaign. About a dozen of Kain's former employees, and other female acquaintances, gave consistent accounts of Kain trying to use his position to force them to engage in sexual relations. Gordon took the lead role in defending Kain, and repeatedly tried to describe Kain's behavior as no big deal.

In my opinion, to whatever extent reliable sources commented on this 180 degree about face, coverage of the about face belongs in this article. Geo Swan (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a WP:BLP issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.253.76 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2018 August 10 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._D._Gordon&oldid=1207337567"