Talk:Carla Martin

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Request for Comment: Resume-like format

Schmetterling has added content that strongly resembles a resume and has not commented on his/her edits. Does anyone have an opinion about whether the content is appropriate? 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While all the conduct is true, it does require cleanup. I've tagged it for cleanup - unless you want to wikify it yourself, to fit guidelines. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 07:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is definitely disturbing. Almost nothing in the resume-style article is sourced, and it leaves out the information which is best-sourced: the controversy over the Moussaoui trial. If single-purpose accounts persist in reverting this page without discussion, protection may be necessary. PubliusFL 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite the contrary-and that is precisely the point-the "content" in the original tab is largely inaccurate, hence the need to more accurately portray the work and history of this particular person's biography. As far as sourcing, the reference section of this tab shows that virtually all the information in the edit IS sourced, either through the articles themselves, or through links within the edit.Schmetterling 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what is inaccurate in the shorter version of the article rather than just reverting to a resume. Like it or not, Ms. Martin is primarily notable for her involvement in the Moussaoui trial, and it is very inappropriate to have an article on her on Wikipedia that avoids any mention of this incident. PubliusFL 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to flesh out this biography to add a little more context and a number of additional references. Hopefully everyone can agree that the current state of the article is reasonably balanced and NPOV. PubliusFL 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated 3RR violations by Schmetterling

Schmetterling, the Washington Post appears to be a reliable source. If you believe that sourced information in an article is incorrect, provide us with better sources. You can't just assert that they're false and delete them. One wonders how you know better than the Washington Post about this case, unless you have a conflict of interest. PubliusFL 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resumed 3RR violations after 8 hour block for previous violations.

First report. Second report. — Athænara ✉ 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth account was used for another revert after the second block (31 hours). — Æ. ✉ 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material

I've copied here (with links correction and paragraph breaks) two paragraphs repeatedly added by the (four so far known) Carla Martin accounts—

Carla J. Martin is an American lawyer specializing in aviation law, who has worked on a number of high-profile cases arising out of terrorist acts. She graduated cum laude from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in European History and German. After graduation, she was on a graduate fellowship in the University of Tennesse's Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages, where she taught first year and honors German. Later, she worked for World Airways, Inc. as a flight attendant before entering law school.

Ms. Martin received her law degree from American University's Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C. She began working at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) while still in law school, and subsequently worked for several years on a number of aviation cases, including the Pan Am Flight 103/Lockerbie case, both the 1992 civil litigation trial in the Eastern District of New York before Chief Judge Platt, and the criminal case against the two Lockerbie defendants that took place in Zeist, the Netherlands in 2000.

While working as a trial attorney for the FAA, Ms. Martin developed policies ensuring that sensitive aviation security information would be protected from public disclosure in civil and criminal litigation. Her case, Public Citizen, Aviation Consumer Action Project, and Families of Pan Am 103 v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186 (D.C.Cir. 1993) is one of the seminal federal cases cited for the protection and non-disclosure of sensitive security information (SSI).

Ms. Martin moved to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) when that agency was formed in 2002. While still at the FAA, Ms. Martin began working on the case of United States v. Zacharias Moussaoui. She continued her work on that case after transferring to the TSA. In June 2002, Ms. Martin assisted in drafting a motion and protective order to protect SSI from being disclosed to defendant Moussaoui. Judge Brinkema granted the motion the same day it was filed, with the news of that motion and protective order receiving favorable press reviews. See, Moussaoui Trial Docket #174, "Motion by USA as to Zacharias Moussaoui for Protective Order Prohibiting Disclosure of Sensitive Aviation Security Information to Defendant." (June 11, 2002).

—because they do contain some information which can be extracted and (with Wikipedia:Attribution) properly included in the article. — Athænara ✉ 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed per WP:BLP

I have reduced this article to a stub containing only information that can be verified from sources cited in the references. I have also removed so-called references that are not pertinent to the article. Please carefully review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before adding any information. -- Donald Albury 00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging this article into the Trial and sentencing section of Zacharias Moussaoui. Carla Martin has no notability apart from the events of that trial, and no purpose is served by maintaining a separate article about her. -- Donald Albury 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but it seems like she does have some notability in relation to her work on the Lockerbie trial. Some of the sources you removed dealt exclusively with her pre-Moussaoui work like Lockerbie. Paying some attention to that aspect of her career would seem to create a more balanced article, and therefore comport with the spirit of WP:BLP. PubliusFL 05:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources did not mention her, so how are they relevant? All of the mentions of her connection to Lockerbie that I can find are in reports and comments about the Moussaoui case. -- Donald Albury 11:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that at least the book Lockerbie: The Story and the Lessons discusses her involvement with the Pan Am Flight 103 case. I added that reference to cite material from it that I added to the article. PubliusFL 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind that. It would prevent this page from constantly being manipulated by none other than Ms. Carla Martin herself. Exeunt 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exeunt seems to have a personal issue with this site.  Could it be for political motivations that Exeunt wishes something other than the truth to be issued?  Since there is supporting documentation on every sentence in this Wikpedia biography, Exeunt's point is without foundation.  It should not be merged, because if it is, then it would not show that there is an accurate and balanced account of Carla Martin's career, and that there is a genuine issue of fact as to the controvery on this matter.  I think it should go back to the way it was.  If Exeunt is opposed to the addition of information, perhaps he could then helpfully point out where it is that the errors lie. LawClerk3Law

Exeunt-it is very serious when you start "rearranging" someone's biography to "twist" it into something inaccurate, and make it appear something it is not-that's what the media does so well. Wikipedia biographies, as far as I am able to discern, are supposed to be balanced accounts of that person's career, and other "objective" as opposed to "subjective" information, which becomes distorted for the media's purposes. Wikipedia is supposed to offer more than just media distortions. If you look at other Wikipedia biographies that are of political figures, then you largely see a balanced account of their career, rather than just the controversy-in other words, the reader has a much more accurate picture of the person in question, the contributions they have made, rather than just the one-sided media account that may appear that generated the controversy in the first instance. As long as the information is documented, and INFORMS the reader, then the balanced longer account should stay in place. "Sock puppetry" to you may mean one thing, however to those who want to see this person's career and accomplishments accurately presented, here on Wikipedia (which is supposed to be more than a political battlefield), then to present a balanced account is essential to providing credibility to this site. LawClerk3Law