Talk:Sandra Hodgkinson

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

She's a warrior!

Sandy Hodgkinson is one of the hardest working persons that I have ever worked for. She and I served as senior advisors to the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights. Her drive to work the long grueling hours in an effort to meet formation milestones kept us working on sustatined 14-16 hour days for six continuous months. Ambassador Jerry Bremer regarded her as his "secret weapon". That's because of her thoroughness and unwillingness to accept 'staus quo'.

Major Reggie Johns USAF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.151.184.16 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Human rights you say?

In that case it would be interesting to know what role she played in allowing Iraqi captives, rounded up by US forces in random sweeps of all military age men in certain districts, to remain stalled in US custody for months after they had been determined to have been innocent civilian bystanders. The Fay-Jones inquiry made clear that the reason why the number of Iraqi captives kept ballooning is that the final decision to release them had to be endorsed by a committee of BG Barbara Fast, senior MI officer in Iraq; BG Janis Karpinski, senior MP officer in Iraq; and Colonel Marc Warren, senior JAG officer in Iraq. According to the inquiry the animosity of these three officers for one another lead to their committee meetings being continually cancelled or rescheduled, with the result that the USA continued to hold several thousand Iraqi captives who had been determined to have been innocent all along. As a hard-working human rights advisor I would think this should have been one of her highest priorities. If there are documents showing her efforts to break this log-jam, by all means, lets cite them. Geo Swan (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

While the story concerning an editor's view of Cully Stimpson is of some interest, it's a violation of POV and a content fork. I have edited this article so that it is neutral, and actually applies to its subject, not the person she replaced. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this relatively large excision was justified by wikipedia policy. The wikipedia is not supposed to be a hagiography. I did my best to write the paragraph about the controversy over Hodgkinson's role in transferring captives to countries where they were subsequently tortured as neutrally as possible. Removing this paragraph was, in my opinion, a very serious lapse from NPOV and a very serious disservice to readers. If my correspondent has specific objections ot the wording of that paragraph I urge them to state their concerns more specifically.

The signle sentence explaining why her predecessor resigned is not a "content fork". It is necessary context. To strip articles of context is also a very serious disservice to readers. A wikipedia without context would be incomprehensible to readers.

Hence I am reverting this excision. Geo Swan (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments that appear a full three months after the article was changed.

I disagree. It's a content fork. I'm changing it back. Thanks again. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request a meaningful, policy-based explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Someone does not gain notability because he or she succeeded someone else who is notable. Notability is not inherited. Yet that is what this article does, it links notability to the former status of Cully Stimson in the same position, than uses that to cast light on the former appointee. I hope that is clear enough. It will be changed accordingly.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rough work