| Revision as of 20:49, 22 August 2007 editGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 editsm minor← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:49, 22 August 2007 edit undoGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 editsm signingNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ******Three of the officers wrote letters of complaint, and a bunch of their colleagues didn't. Were the colleagues who didn't write letters of complaint '''just "doing their job"?''' | ******Three of the officers wrote letters of complaint, and a bunch of their colleagues didn't. Were the colleagues who didn't write letters of complaint '''just "doing their job"?''' | ||
| *****I think you are totally incorrect and that what the three whistleblowers did was exceptional. | *****I think you are totally incorrect and that what the three whistleblowers did was exceptional. | ||
| *****The ]s run have undergone massive revisions twice, not once. The change in the military commissions pre-] and post-Military Commissions Act is less extreme than the revisions that occurred shortly following the drafting of the letters of complaint. Did the letters trigger most of those changes? I don't know. You don't know. And even if we thought we did know ] and ] would prevent us adding our conclusion to the article. But, IMO, the wikipedia's readers deserve coverage of material that would be helpful to them in their own speculations. | *****The ]s run have undergone massive revisions twice, not once. The change in the military commissions pre-] and post-Military Commissions Act is less extreme than the revisions that occurred shortly following the drafting of the letters of complaint. Did the letters trigger most of those changes? I don't know. You don't know. And even if we thought we did know ] and ] would prevent us adding our conclusion to the article. But, IMO, the wikipedia's readers deserve coverage of material that would be helpful to them in their own speculations. ] 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Merge''' to ] and '''delete''' - there really doesn't seem to be any more to him than the leaked email - a footnote in the proceedings and not, in my opinion, worthy of an article of his own. ] 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' to ] and '''delete''' - there really doesn't seem to be any more to him than the leaked email - a footnote in the proceedings and not, in my opinion, worthy of an article of his own. ] 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 22 August 2007
Robert Preston (military lawyer)
- Robert Preston (military lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable Air Force officer. Corvus cornix 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems fairly notable within the context of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Needs citations, but plenty are available. -Hit bull, win steak 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, military lawyer involved in some of the most significant (for good or ill) military proceedings in a generation, and externally notable for refusal to participate. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as notable lawyer: there seem to be plenty of reliable sources available. Jakew 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- If notability means anything, then this guy is, IMO, a highly notable whistleblower. Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- any chance the nominator could return here and offer a fuller explanation for the nomination? Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. He's non-notable. Corvus cornix 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you, a second time, to give a fuller, more meaningful, explanation. Geo Swan 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the article which says what makes him notable. He's an Air Force JAG, doing his job. Lots of people do their jobs. Corvus cornix 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The C-i-C also does his job, or at least what he and his advisors think is his job. Personally, I'd like a rule to let a bot eliminate any afd comment that contains the phrase "just another" or "just does" :) DGG (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I too have a couple of problems with the "just doing his job" interpretation.
- Was his boss, the guy who promised that the commission members would be handpicked so they would be sure to convict, and who promised that all the exculpatory evidence would be classified so the defense team couldn't learn of it, just "doing his job?"
- Three of the officers wrote letters of complaint, and a bunch of their colleagues didn't. Were the colleagues who didn't write letters of complaint just "doing their job"?
- I think you are totally incorrect and that what the three whistleblowers did was exceptional.
- The Guantanamo military commissions run have undergone massive revisions twice, not once. The change in the military commissions pre-Military Commissions Act and post-Military Commissions Act is less extreme than the revisions that occurred shortly following the drafting of the letters of complaint. Did the letters trigger most of those changes? I don't know. You don't know. And even if we thought we did know WP:NPOV and WP:NOR would prevent us adding our conclusion to the article. But, IMO, the wikipedia's readers deserve coverage of material that would be helpful to them in their own speculations. Geo Swan 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the article which says what makes him notable. He's an Air Force JAG, doing his job. Lots of people do their jobs. Corvus cornix 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you, a second time, to give a fuller, more meaningful, explanation. Geo Swan 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. He's non-notable. Corvus cornix 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and delete - there really doesn't seem to be any more to him than the leaked email - a footnote in the proceedings and not, in my opinion, worthy of an article of his own. Bigdaddy1981 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Have you looked at Guantanamo Bay detention camp recently? That article is already too long, unfocussed, and attempting to cover too many sub-topics. I don't think introducing another sub-topic s good idea.
- FWIW I don't think merging with Guantanamo military commissions is a good idea either. That article too is in need of being spun off into smaller articles.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He is notable. 70.21.254.188 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)