Talk:Gina Haspel/Archives/2020

call for discussion

In this edit Therequiembellishere changed to the order of items in the article's infobox. Did they also change the content of any of those entries? Not clear.

I urge this contributor to refrain from edits that merely shuffle how the article's metadata appears in the editor, following the well-known and respected task-management principle, "if it is not broke, don't fix it". The reasoning behind that long-standing principle is that fixing things that aren't broken introduces the risk that through a typo, or other human error, those "fixes" will introduce new errors that may go unrecognized.

There is a further excellent reason to avoid this kind of edit. No offense but substantive edits, edits that actually change an article's editorial content, change what the article actually says, are almost always far more important than edits to the article's metadata -- particularly edits like this, that, if this edit didn't change what the article says, don't change how the article appears to our readers, by one iota.

When contributors return to an article, because they have a google news alert on the topic, and are aware of a new development that merits an update, they want to look at a diff between the current version of the article and the last version they contributed, or thelast version they remember taking a good hard look at. This is important from a productivity point of view. An examination of that diff should show them whether they don't have to bother with that update, because someone beat them to it.

However, I routinely find, when I return to articles I haven't worked on in a long time, that those diffs are not helpful, because too many editors make completely pointless edits that merely change how the article appears inside the editor.

I can't tell you how many times a totally confusing big diff forces me to step through each individual revision, one at a time, finding it the only way to find the genuine updates to the article's intellectual content. Back in the golden age of the wikipedia, I would have been likely to find lots of other contributors who added genuine content. But, nowadays, I generally will find articles that have had dozens of edits to the article's metadata, with zero change to what the article said, or trivial changes to spelling or punctuation.

Some contributors, and poorly thought out automated tools, combine the logical lines in a long paragraph, into a single long paragraph. This doesn't change how that paragraph is rendered, for ordinary readers, but it completely obfuscates whether changes were made to the article's intellectual content.

• Please resist the temptation to unnecessarily add line-endings, when editing.
• Please resist the temptation to unnecessarily combine lines, by removing line-endings, when editing.

Please, I urge everyone, think twice, think hard, think three times, before you make a change for esthetic reasons. This goes double when you are using one of those automated editing assistance robots, like twinkle.

If no one can offer a convincing defense of this edit, I will revert it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed a ridiculous amount of unused parameters amounts to hundreds of bytes for much greater editing ease and regarding content, I added a whole office that was absent. I'm honestly not entirely sure of the end goal behind this rant. Can you not also see in the diffs themselves the difference in the infobox's appearance? Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The kind of edit you made is a disservice to other contributors. You want to both add something, and change the order of metadata? Then make one edit where all you do is add info, and make another edit for any genuinely necessary metadata changes.

Your comment above? I see it as an acknowledgement that you were violating the project management rule, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I am sorry that you don't understand that preserving the utility of the revision control system is far more important than someone aesthetic satisfaction with the internal appearance of the article, in the editor. Trust me, it is more important -- particularly since aesthetic satisfaction is highly subjective.

My end goal? To convince you to edit more carefully, and with a greater regard to the long term maintenance of the project. Please, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms -- don't edit in a way that makes it harder to maintain articles. Geo Swan (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede (NOT "lead")

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of lede. : the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story.

See fuller perspective on this oft-confused term at the Wiktionary page:

Mid-20th century neologism from a deliberate misspelling of lead, intended to avoid confusion with its homograph meaning a strip of type metal used for positioning type in the frame.[1] Compare hed (“headline”).--Artaxerxes 17:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Of far more relevance, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You got me there (but it will be hard to kill my own journalistic instincts).--Artaxerxes 20:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

But, while we're on the topic, perhaps references to torture allegations which have been officially retracted by the source should not be argued in the "lead"?--Artaxerxes 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Not all the torture allegations have been retracted. Read the restraction more carefully. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Biography

Anything on Haspel's education?--Artaxerxes 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Really hard to find. I hope we can find some RS soon.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems this woman was not born anywhere in particular or to any identifiable humans? Would be good to know. Actio (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

She's been able to succeed in life without parents, hometown, or education. Truly remarkable.--Artaxerxes 20:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This German source explicitly states "Gina Cheri Haspel, so ihr vollständiger Name, kam am 1. Oktober 1956 zur Welt. Ihre Herkunft, ihre Schul- und Universitätslaufbahn sowie ihr Privatleben werden aus Sicherheitsgründen geheim gehalten." = "Gina Cheri Haspel, her full name, was born on 1 October 1956. Her origin, school and university career, as well as her private life, are being kept secret for security reasons." Which makes sense: I assume any major newspaper would know these facts, but they don't yet see a journalistic interest in publishing them. Although the source uses the passive voice, it's reasonable to speculate "are being kept secret" involves a CIA press liaison.-Ich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We should put that in. Does anyone know it that's her real name? TFD (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume we will know at the latest when she is asked her name under oath during her confirmation hearing.-Ich (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if she did provide her name, since the CIA referred to her only as "G," according to the Daily Mail.[1] TFD (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The CIA finally released some info, published in this Wall Street Journal article. They may be lying as there are no public records of her name prior to last year and no way to double-check anything, so I added "according to the CIA" at the beginning of the "early life section." But frankly who cares, as long as she does her job and she keeps us safe? This is good enough for Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Image usage

Is the image that was uploaded actually the official portrait and public domain? The AP page for it says [2] "AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE CIA; MANDATORY CREDIT." Also says it was government produced handout, is this enough to say public domain? AP is saying mandatory credit, and other news agencies that are using it are attributing CIA via AP - Carolyn Kaster [3]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be from the AP article, but they still obtained it from the CIA... making it a government-issued photograph. It is a government official photo... the way I can tell is it matches File:Mike Pompeo official CIA portrait.jpg with the background (though a bit zoomed in). The AP cannot own the rights to the photograph. Either way, once she becomes the Director (if confirmed), I'm sure the official photograph will be placed on the CIA website. Corky 19:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: I just searched on CIA website, and my usual "go to websites" regarding intelligence communities. But I couldn't find any photo there. The photo is official/government made, I dont have any doubts there. But reverse image search is not providing any good results either. @Rockhead126: Would you please let me know your source here, so that I can get better results? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realized after posting, Guardian uses same photo, also mentioning the handout, but credits to Getty. Them attributing it to an AP photographer, Kaster, is what threw me off. Did AP take the photo for the CIA, or did CIA take photo and give it to AP? WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Pulled from AP earlier today on mobile, where they credited CIA. The image description here says, "This March 21, 2017, photo provided by the CIA, shows CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel. Haspel, who joined the CIA in 1985, has been chief of station at CIA outposts abroad. President Donald Trump tweeted March 13, 2018, that he would nominate CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be the new secretary of state and that he would nominate Haspel to replace him. She has extensive overseas experience, including several stints as chief of station at outposts abroad.(CIA via AP)." It was clearly taken in the CIA photo studio, same as the photos located at Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rockhead126 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"Enhanced interrogation"?

What is the legal term we should use?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Waterboarding" is an exact description. -- Callinus (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

When describing which specific torture techniques that were used, waterboarding is the correct description of one of them. Of course, the torture sites under her command used other torture techniques as well; one of the prisoners for example lost an eye after being subjected to other torture techniques than waterboarding. When summarizing this, it's quite sufficient to use the word torture, the description widely used by reliable sources, and which covers waterboarding as well as the other techniques that were used. [4] --Tataral (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think as "enhanced interrogation" should be in "scare quotes," since that is how it is normally presented. Since not all of these techniques were necessarily torture, I would add 'that included torture.' TFD (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

'Enhanced interrogation' is a euphemism for torture (analogy : 'collateral damsage' to mean unintended deaths of civilians in combat situations). Quote marks are appropriate, but it is surely more appropriate to refer to torture as torture. I should think (in support of Tataral), that The Four Deuces would need to back up the idea that techniques widely recognized as torture is not necessarily torture. I imagine also that a moment considering what "enhancement" might mean in plain language should indicate that the phrase should be avoided if possible. Interrogate mesns to ask, an act of verbal exchange, not including doing things to the physical body of the person being questioned. Actio (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM is the relevant policy. The first sentence of enhanced interrogation techniques makes it very clear that it is a euphemism for torture. It should not be used uncritically. Whenever possible, I'd prefer to refer to the specific technique in use, or when this is not possible, to provide context explaining the term "EITs". For example: During his tenure in OLC, Bradbury authored a number of significant classified opinions providing legal authorization for so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", which are frequently described as torture. -Ich (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Justice Department listed 13 "enhanced interrogation techniques."[5] While all of them are assault, I don't know that all of them are necessarily torture. There are many cases where police and prison officers have assaulted prisoners, but they are not always described as torture. TFD (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue coverage about so-called torture

To editor Tataral: Why remove this without any comment or discussion? Chris Troutman (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that she was involved in torture is vital to inclusion on this page, and obviously deserves its own section. Letupwasp (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. My issue with that section is that the sentences about Abu Zubaydah have nothing to do with her. I'm fine with sentences where she is the subject or discuss her directly. A lot of this looks like synthesis. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no undue coverage of any "so-called" torture, and the tag is clearly frivolous and POV. There is due coverage of what is verifiably torture. Reliable sources (incl those cited in the article) in fact agree that it's her main claim to fame, and more or less every RS article on her nomination uses the word "torture" in the heading, because it's what she's known for (and why she was already controversial/notable before this nomination). Her involvement in torture was the dominant story of her career for the past 16 years and now it's again becoming the dominant story in international coverage of her in RS and a major issue in the senate hearing following a possible nomination. If anything, the section on her involvement in torture is much too short. Claiming it has "nothing to do with her" seems to be a form of preposterous personal point of view that completely ignores sources and facts. --Tataral (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be more specific: I am fine describing that she was in charge of the CIA site in Thailand where this stuff took place, and what commentators have said about her and her work at that site. My issue is that there's a synthesis going on by adding referenced material about Abu Zubaydah with an attempt to pin all of that abuse on her. For example, this piece from ProPublica is citing cables about what happenned to Zubaydah but the cables don't describe Haspel, at all. ProPublica is a left-wing outlet, anyway, so I wouldn't use their mentions of her in this article. This looks like an WP:NPOV violation. The media is ginning this up to derail her nomination and that's their business. I think Wikipedia can do better than parrot their screed. Haspel had a longer career than the period of time in Thailand, which is why I'm citing WP:UNDUE. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't necessarily consider it vitally important to mention a specific victim, but his case seems well known and I find a ton of sources that discuss Abu Zubaydah in relation to her. The main reason for mentioning this material however is that we need to mention which torture techniques she was responsible for using (in addition to waterboarding, for example: was sleep deprived, kept in a "large box", had his head slammed against a wall, and he lost his left eye). If she had a longer career, it's overshadowed by torture, as sources have pointed out, and her career before her involvement in torture around 2002 probably wouldn't earn her a biography in an encyclopedia. --Tataral (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. You're saying that all the sources talk about torture, which is why you want to include them. I'm saying that the reporting is slanted and myopic; that we should strive to do better. It seems like the article isn't about her but just her involvement in Thailand and her nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: You cited a ProPublica piece which has since issued a significant correction: correction. wumbolo ^^^ 00:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that her connection with "enhanced interrogation techniques" is her main claim to notability. Christ Troutman writes, "The media is ginning this up to derail her nomination and that's their business. I think Wikipedia can do better than parrot their screed." However, "Balancing aspects" requires that the article provide the same weight to aspects of her biography that mainstream media do. And the fact that one considers mainstream media to be "left wing" is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A career civil servant isn't particularly noteworthy. Except in that she's been indicted, and may shortly have an arrest warrant issued by a major ally. That's hugely notable and can't be ignored, no matter how uncomfortable it may make anyone. Possums (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Indicted by who? WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe they are talking about Germany. I doubt Germany will indict her, but the key issue here is the extensive coverage of her role in torture. The fact that President Obama gave her and others a sort of collective amnesty doesn't change the fact that she verifiably engaged in activities considered as torture and as war crimes under international law, the fact that this has been widely discussed and pointed out by experts, and that it dominates coverage of her in reliable sources and is what she's actually known for. --Tataral (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen the articles about Germany wanted to do this and that, but I was replying to them saying she had been indicted(past tense) and may soon be arrested(future possibility). The information should be mentioned in article, but lets face it, she had been known to some from the torture accusations, but really got known when she became deputy, and now known to a significant audience as the nominee for director. If she wasn't up for the director position, or never was deputy she wouldn't be well known, so to attribute her claim to fame to torture would be inaccurate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry sloppy wording on my part. I was meaning that the European Commission on Human Rights had recommended indictment. Which is not an indictment itself. Possums (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

To be slightly more precise: under the German legal system, anybody has the right to register a de:Strafanzeige (criminal complaint) with the public prosecutor. The attorney general is obligated to investigate the claims, and after this investigation is completed has some discretion in bringing a case.-Ich (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"ProPublica retracts report that Gina Haspel, Trump's CIA pick, oversaw torture of al Qaeda suspect Zubaydah" (March 15, 2018)--Artaxerxes 16:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Gina Haspel's CIA nomination prompts major correction from national news outlets"--Artaxerxes 02:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Focusing on the fact that she wasn't involved in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah doesn't mean that the whole torture controversy is baseless. The retractions/corrections actually confirm that she was involved in the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and the 2005 CIA interrogation videotapes destruction. I've tried editing the article to make this clear. ^Falling_Gravity 08:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current version fairly presents the situation.[6] Media sources said that Haspel was in charge during the torture of Abu Zubaydah, but later retracted. However, she subsequently became in charge of the prison, continuing torture and destroying evidence. TFD (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the effort editors have gone to to try and realign the article around more accurate reporting. Shame that we had to go on that ride to begin with, but the coming out of it is comforting. But, given the nature of the controversy surrounding the form of interrogation used, wouldn't it be more objective, appropriate, and sensible to refer to it as the "interrogation controversy"?Artaxerxes 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If there were a serious dispute about whether prisoners were tortured, then we would have to qualify the description. Note too that the U.S. also denies they were prisoners, but detainees. Also, changes were made to the article because of new information in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

References

DOB citation?

I haven't seen a quality citation for the Oct 1, 1956 birth date. I wouldn't necessarily trust https://www.rt.com/usa/421168-haspel-cia-director-profile/ but https://web.de/magazine/politik/us-praesident-donald-trump/gina-haspel-cia-direktorin-dunkler-vergangenheit-32869526 potentially seems reliable enough. ABC.es gives her year of birth as 1956 and the NYT mentions she is 61, which would support a {{birth based on age as of date|61|2018|3|13}}. Out of BLP-related caution, I want to avoid causing any citogenesis that will propagate through subsequent coverage.-Ich (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So, after someone added Oct 1 1956 as DOB to the infobox, I re-reviewed the internet for available sources for this date:

• The ECCHR's complaint gives Oct 1 1956 as DOB, but this fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, even though it reinforces the claim that the date is correct.
• Russia Today lists her DOB, but I wouldn't use this source without putting it through WP:RSN, which has historically taken a dim view of RT; I interpret their usual consensus as "any info you can find on RT can generally be sourced through other sources, don't use it as a sole claim to support an assertion."
• Web.de / Gmx.at are both owned by United Internet, which is better known as an ISP and webmail provider. More reliable than RT but I don't want to rely solely on a foreign language source for her DOB, especially if I'm not sure about the provenance of the reporting (i.e. without a credit to AP/AFP/DPA/Reuters etc.).
• Same goes for the Spanish edition of Marie Claire and Detik.com, an Indonesian source - DetikCom exists as a page and seems at least superficially reliable, but I don't speak Spanish or Indonesian.

Based on all of these together, I think it's quite likely this is the correct birthday but I don't know how many of these sources were lifted directly from various foreign language Wikipedias (Citogenesis) or if they came from actual journalistic research. Viewed individually, all of these sources have something that gives me pause. With the ProPublica retraction in mind, I want to be absolutely sure we're right, especially when reporting on someone whose private life has been kept deliberately obscure.-Ich (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of unsourced content

@MrX: what's your explanation for keeping unsourced content? It infringes BLP on every level. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 07:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: reading the page history, it looks like you're trying to WP:OWN the article by reverting all attempts to remove unsourced content. Not to mention this is a BLP. Please do not make any more reverts unless you are willing to discuss it on the talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Please be specific, with diffs. The recent edits I made restored blanked material that was referenced to multiple sources. No, I'm not trying to own the article, but I will revert unconstructive edits, attempts to whitewash the article, and attempts to violate WP:BLP.- MrX 🖋 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: of course, here's the diff: diff. Didn't look through the other reverts you made, only their section. Thought it was more obvious, but people apparently black coal the article, or rather white wash. wumbolo ^^^ 13:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: That edit is yours, not mine. If you accusing me of doing something wrong, you need to show a diff to my edit and explain why it is wrong.- MrX 🖋 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I am sorry, I was reading a wrong revision of the article. I mostly approve with the article as it currently sits on the table. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 14:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"She has been described as a torturer by The New York Times editorial board" fails verification

I'm going to remove the part in the lede about Haspel being described as a "torturer by The New York Times editorial board" because it fails verification. The cited article,[7] does not use the word "torturer" anywhere in the body. Instead, that word is only used in the headline. Headlines aren't necessarily reliable. Newspaper headlines typically have three problems:

1. Headlines aren't necessarily written by the author of the article
2. Headlines are used to grab the reader's attention and may be sensationalistic
3. Headlines present a simplified overview of the article and lack context and meaning that only the body of the article explains.

I'm not saying that some version of this text cannot be in the article. But if it survives, it should reflect what the body of the article says, not the headline. I suppose it could be reworded to "described as a torturer by a headline of an article by The New York Times editorial board". I'll leave it to regular editors of this article how best to figure out how best to fix this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Africa

This source (https://www.ozy.com/need-to-know/the-tortured-path-of-trumps-cia-trailblazer/85715?utm_source=dd&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03252018&variable=473bbc1397d52a4a751cf40b010fd6ba_ ) refers to her work in Africa, including a commendation for one or more actions. I don't know if the source is reliable enough, but CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/22/politics/gina-haspel-cia-biography-congress/index.html) uses some of the same wording (maybe one got it from the other) in saying that her first posting as a case officer was in Africa.Kdammers (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I added Newsweek as a source which mentions a stint in Ethiopia.-Ich (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Acting Director ..." vs. "Director..... Acting"

Why should we put the "Acting" after the position? The term is "Acting Director". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC) @Therequiembellishere: in case you didn't see this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The boxes don't follow succession of "Acting/Elect/Designate/Nominee" they follow the office, and the information flows better and is just as easily understood without having to make a redirect or piped link. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere: I don't agree with that. I think "Acting Director" flows and this does not at all. Also, the infobox font is already smaller than the main font, including the titles, so making font in it even smaller is inappropriate per MOS:ACCESS. I don't want to edit war over MOS, so please change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere: Gina Haspel Assumes Role of Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be "Acting Director..." but I don't like the flow of how it looks in the infobox... I prefer "Director of the Central Intelligence Agency" to either be all on one line or like split up:

Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Acting Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency

Not:

Acting Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency

The red writing (which is how it is displayed when "Acting" is the first word) looks sloppy. Corky 20:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references in your favourite style... It is counterpolicy and it erodes the value of our revision control features...

Some contributors unnecessarily rewrite references in their favourite style... It is counter to the recommendations of the manual of style. It erodes the value of our revision control features, as when someone returns to an article after a long absence, and requests a diff between the last version they worked on, and the current version, it is best for that edit to clearly show how the article has changed.

However, the way our revision control system works, adding a newline character, or erasing a newline character, fools the revision control system into thinking a whole paragraph has been added, or taken away.

I can't tell you how many times I have returned to an article I once worked on, requested a diff, that seems to indicate that almost everything in the article has been changed. So I was required to step through every individual edit, only to find that ALL of those edits were to the article's metadata, and no one had altered the article's actual editorial content -- what it told our readers -- at all.

Please don't make this kind of edit to metadata!

When I edit an article, and there is something missing in a reference someone else contributed, or it is actually broken, I do my best to fix it in a way that won't erode the utility of the revision control system. If it is written with all the fields on one logical line, and I add more fields, I add them to the original logical line. That is an effort for me, but I make that effort to preserve the utility of the revision control system, and I request the same effort if someone who prefers the one logical line form works on references in the one field per line form. Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ich:Thank you for your continued attention to the details of this article. It's much appreciated! As to the formatting of references, my life got a lot easier when I just started going with the automated citations that result from clicking on the "cite" button in visual editing mode -- then letting the "system" generate the citation (editing as needed). Reusing a reference later then becomes a simple matter of clicking on "reuse" (and scrolling to the desired reference). When in edit mode, the repeated cites show a "0" for ref name, but the system recalculates all that when you close the window (no need for you to worry or do anything more). Keep up the good work!--Artaxerxes 20:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Swearing-in

I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but so far as I can tell, Ms. Haspel hasn't been sworn in as Director yet, has she? Until that point, which will probably occur tomorrow if it hasn't already, isn't she still technically the Acting Director? (It's been a long day, so I'm sorry if I'm wrong.) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Yes, you are technically correct. However, if there is one thing I have learned - it's to just go ahead and let the changes be made... otherwise you'll just end up in an edit war that isn't worth the time! Corky 21:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: That's very true. After all, come tomorrow, we could just change it. Ahem. Not that I would ever do such a thing! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 23:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference for information on the effects of torture/interrogation carried out under Haspel's supervision

This may be a useful reference:

• U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: “One of the Most Severely Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen”

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

née and born

That née and born mean the same thing is interesting, but the applicability of this great truth is limited. We English speakers have adopted the French née, but only for use with maiden names. When we see this particularly French word, it is only in that context — and only has that meaning to us. (How many of us even know what the word means in French?) Replacing "born" in other senses with née, as in (née Walker; October 1, 1956), doesn't quite work.--Artaxerxes 13:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: "née / born" or just "born". MOS:MULTINAMES suggests "born" instead of née or né, but this isn't consistently applied. I checked some female political figures: Angela Merkel, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Margaret Thatcher use "née, born" with a wikilink on née; Sarah Palin and Ursula von der Leyen do so but without the wikilink. Theresa May uses "born Brasier, 1 October 1956". (Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton's articles don't even specify their birth name because they kept it as a second middle name). I didn't see any "née-only" articles in my unscientific sample.-Ich (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Torture category

I haven't been part of the edit war on whether Haspel should be added to the torture categories, but I saw someone suggest in their edit summary that there be a discussion of the topic. I am in favor of her being added to those categories, for the obvious reason: she was involved in torture. Letupwasp (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if those categories are for individuals, doesn't really look like it. --Malerooster (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

True, the Torture category is not appropriate. But the American torturers category is for individuals. There's no reason to not add her to it. Letupwasp (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Letupwasp: you need to actually wait for there to be a discussion and consensus before adding it back, so I have reverted it again. And while I haven't gone through everything with that category attached to it, most of them appear to be serial killers who directly tortured people. Not government officials who were in charge of facilities where torture might have happened while they were in charge. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There might not be Wikipedia articles on any other government officials involved in the CIA's torture program because most CIA agents' names are not publicly known. But we do know that Haspel was involved. Just because the other people listed there weren't government officials doesn't mean government officials shouldn't be listed if they were involved in torture. Letupwasp (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCAT. IMO, it is pretty clear cut that a category saying or implying someone has committed a crime when they haven't been convicted of said crime is a BLP violation. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Zchrykng is correct. That category isn't great as it is, but as used, it's for people who literally participated in torture with their own hands. Haspel, whatever she may have approved or condoned, didn't physically participate in torturing anyone, so the category is inappropriate for use here. We should always err on the side of protecting BLP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: some torture category should be added. Maybe a new one should be created, but at least one category should be added, since there is new evidence for including the category: [8]. Unlike previous reports, this new evidence is not from ProPublica, which had been promoting an extremist hoax about Gina Haspel for a year. wumbolo ^^^ 09:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Including someone in a category with a name like "torturers": 1) accuses her without substantiation or sources (categories do not have references attached); 2) labels her before anyone has further information/context on her case; and, 3) makes her guilty by association. The very nature of the topic of torture tends to sensationalize an article, and so must be used carefully (especially with a high-level government official). It is prejudicial and irresponsible to include Gina Haspel in this category.--Artaxerxes 19:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

troublesome sockpuppets

The wikipedia is being disrupted by a sockpuppetmaster, who is so compelled to harass individuals who have disagreed with them that they make nonsensical disruptive edits using anonymous IP addresses.

They never got a good handle on our policies, but they mastered them sufficiently to draft edit summaries that give the surface appearance or regularity, but which fall apart when examined in detail.

This edit reverted me, with an edit summary that gave the surface appearance of reasonableness, but which was nonsensical. "Original word choice violates BLP. Unsubstantiated claims cannot be turned into certainity."

The original word choice was

On January 8, 2019, Carol Rosenberg, of the Miami Herald, reported that partially redacted transcripts from a pre-trial hearing of Guantanamo Military Commission of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, seemed to indicate that Haspel had been the "Chief of Base" of a clandestine CIA detention site on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, in the 2003-2004 period.[28][29]

Another contributor changed "indicate" to "claim". I changed it back, and my wikistalker restored "claim".

The original source, which Carol Rosenberg was reporting on, wasn't making a "claim". It was a redacted Government document, that wrote about the CIA's presence at Guantanamo. I thought Rosenberg's reporting seemed to imply that the redacted section probably covered Haspel's role in more detail. But she didn't say this explicitly, so I didn't try to put that in the article.

I think "seemed to indicate" is more appropriate than "seemed to claim", because it is farther from implying certainty. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

update

My wikistalker reverted me, a second time, using a second IP address. As with their first vandalism, they used a misleading edit summary, that gives the surface appearance of reasonableness. Of course the claim the passage was unreferenced is bullshit, the Miami Herald reference is there, for anyone to see. Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Wedding ring

I haven't been able to find a reliable third-party source (newspaper article) explaining why she is wearing a wedding ring if she is divorced. She kept flashing it yesterday, for example if you pause the video at 1:26:48. (Is this a trap to see who watched the video? I'm not a spy...just a complete nobody who watches and reads everything all the time.)Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, if reliable sources aren't talking about it, than neither should we. I'm not going to try to go all Zapruder film on that Youtube link. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we need an RS before we can add it. But her Wikipedia article says she is divorced and unmarried...so we need to correct the record if that's wrong.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Gina C. Haspel - CIA Career Timeline, 1 May 2018.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Tenure section - hiring women and no Trump ally

I think the last sentence of the Tenure section should be deleted -- the fact that she hired women in her department is not noteworthy and the inclusion of this sentence, along with the aside that she hired "not a single ally of President Trump's" gives the impression that she is an opponent of Trump, which would be a matter of opinion. It's hard to say whether or not this was written with a neutral point of view, but since the statement is not particularly noteworthy, it seems better to leave it omitted. I made this deletion, but it was reverted since it was verifiable and sourced, but I think that this falls under WP:ONUS: 'Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion'. Huednineowl (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Warren P. Strobel of The Wall Street Journal (not Wikipedia) wrote:

"The CIA's first female director since its 1947 founding, she has put in place her own leadership team—which also includes many women—and so far has avoided having President Trump's political allies embedded in the agency's senior ranks."

Hiring women in top positions is not trivial. There is a wealth of literature in organizational behavior journals about women on boards and women in executive positions...

Regarding no Trump allies, that's not trivial either. (What would be trivial would be the fact that she likes listening to Johnny Cash. That's in her official bio but not on Wikipedia.) Our readers want to know what worldview Haspel and her top advisors share. And it is not necessarily negative--President Trump may welcome this different perspective, as Strobel did not write that Haspel is into going rogue.

Remember Wikipedia is not saying any of this. Strobel of The Wall Street Journal did. Wikipedia is not necessarily the truth anyway; it is what reliable sources in the public domain tell us.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The referenced content about the lack of Trumpian staffers was removed once again. Perhaps it is not true, but it is referenced from The Wall Street Journal (see above). I am not going to add it again but the fact is we would need another reference that clearly states it is not true. Perhaps this is a failure of Wikipedia itself, where we summarize what's been published by "reliable third-party sources" in the public domain, and those sources may not be telling the truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please redact our sources

In response to this edit, could you please ask Newsmax to remove the info from their article? Otherwise it remains in the public domain...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just one Question

is she jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E1:1724:E44C:157B:B455:3B82:D3F3 (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but her religion seems irrelevant to her career/position.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ashburn Virginia

Removed category Category:People from Ashburn, Virginia. Apparently this was put here in response to a website that said Haspel lived there. As I've noted in other articles, it makes no sense to add people's current addresses to their biographies. It is 99 percent irrelevant to the biography, and guaranteed to quickly go out of date. Rgr09 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. It is not her address; it is a town. I thought this content was encyclopedic from a sociological perspective, because she presented herself to the world as "a typical middle-class American." The information comes from this newspaper article. It needs to be redacted if she does not want it to be in the public domain. Can she not ask the publisher to remove it?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Type of Degree

It says in her early life section that she received a Bachelors of Science, but the sidebar says she earned a Bachelors of Arts (BA). I don't know which is correct but it does not correlate correctly. -- Dimitri

Undid revision

Some chowderhead added a fake date of death; reverted. 97.70.111.66 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's fake, then why does Bing.com show that she is dead? I'll help you. Go to Bing.com and type in "Gina Haspel died" in the search bar. Report back to me with results. Is some chowderhead at Microsoft responsible for that, as well? Voxpiratica (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

On Bing.com if you type in "Gina Haspel died" it returns a result that states that she died 12/1/2020. Therefore, the article should correctly reflect her day of death. Voxpiratica (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

See our guide about what counts as a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Death hoax

I think we should mention the hoax that she died. She is not dead, but the hoax received so much coverage, I think it has become notable enough to warrant inclusion. What do you guys think? - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have links to such coverage? All I've seen is natterings on twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few articles: Snopes, PolitiFact, Reuters. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it, although I'm on the fence as to whether it should be included. I might be reverted; if so, I won't object. Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)