Talk:Jeffrey Groharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Notability

I'm not sure how notable one of the prosecutors for the Guantanamo Bay case(s) may be. What sets this man apart from all other prosecutors in the case? What has he done that sets him apart from all other prosecutors in general? Although he was the subject of a Wall Street Journal article, I don't think that is reason enough to be included here.

He MAY have done a great deal that would warrant a Wiki entry. If so, those accomplishments must be listed here. BWH76 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{prod}}?

Groharing's role in Khadr's military commission has made the news on a dozen or more occasions. And his "unlawful enemy combatant status" still hasn't been confirmed. Expect many more occasions. Geo Swan (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{prod}} response

I still do not see that Groharing is, as of yet, notable for being one of the prosecuting attorneys in the Gitmo case. How does his role set him apart from other attorneys? I do not see it in this article as is currently written. Yes, he has been mentioned "a dozen or so occasions" in various news articles. A mention in a dozen of articles qualifies him as notable? Also, you mention that he WILL be mentioned more in the future - Wikipedia is not generally used to predict one's future notability.

I would ask that someone, aside from the page creator, review the article and weigh in on the subject's notability. BWH76 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I suggest that this article, instead of being deleted, is merged with Omar Khadr's article. BWH76 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing respondents concerns, in order:
  1. Not yet prominent...
  2. What sets him apart from other Guantanamo attorneys...
  3. Third party review...
  4. Merge with Omar Khadr...
WRT prominence.
  • This is an extremely prominent and unusual case. His role in it is not mundane.
  • I'd like to ask nominator, how many other lawyers can he name who have acknowledged withholding exculpatory evidence?
  • I'd like to ask nominator, how many other lawyers can he name who have accused their boss's boss of ordering them to withhold exculpatory evidence?
  • Nominator doubts whether news coverag on a dozen of so occasions merits coverage here. If all dozen of those mentions concerned his unspectacular fininshing times in the long distance races he participated I'd agree Groharing would not merit mention. But Groharing merited INTERNATIONAL news coverage . Note particularly the last reference I added. Jess Bravin's article, in the Wall Street Journal focusses almost entirely on Groharing. I didn't include it earlier, even though this front page article stirred widespread controversy in other publications, because it was subscription only. This is a liscences mirror I was unaware of, and haven't read closely enough to make more use of yet.
WRT being set apart from other Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys -- nominator writes this as if choosing to volunteer to represent a Guantanamo captives wasn't, in and of itself significant enough to merit coverage here. FWIW I really don't think there can be any serious disagreement that Groharing would be among those with the most central role there.
WRT third party review. I'd welcome third party review if nominator still can not see how Groharing merits coverage here.
WRT to merging with Omar Khadr
I strongly suspect that this suggestion is symptomatic of my biggest concern for the future of the wikipedia.
  • There are multiple competing visions for how the wikipedia should look, in the future. I have no problem with that. I have my vision of how the wikipedia should look in the future too. But I want to discuss my vision with those who disagree with me, have them civilly point out some flaws in my vision, while I civily point out flaws in theirs.
  • Hardly anyone wants to expose their vision to any discussion, let alone a meaningful discussion. Hardly anyone is willing to even articulate' their vision. They have a vision of how the should look in the future, which they seem to think is obviouslythe only sensible one, and that anyone who hasn't signed up to it is some kind of moron -- and therefore it isn't even worth discussing. Note: I am not trying to imply nominator has called anyone a moron. But nominator really does seem to have based his or her nomination on some unexplained, and, I suspect, unexamined assumptions.
  • Why not go merge-happy? Because these articles interesect with multiple topics for multiple reasons. Groharing is not just Khadr's prosecutor. He is also the JAG officer who accused his boss, another lawyer, of an unethical act. That merits coverage goddamit. We are supposed to write from a neutral point of view. So I didn't run around, waving my arms in the air, shouting "Warning Will Robinson". But, those who decide to appoint themselves the quality-control patrol have a responsibility to honor the neutral point of view policy themselves, and respect that articles that comply with WP:NPOV aren't going to have flashing lights marking the potentially controversial portions.
Why is the wikipedia a much more powerful media than ordinary web-pages on the world-wide web? Well, the simple and easy to master mark-up language is a big help. But of greater importance, IMO, is the nature of the wikipedia's wikilinks.
Links on ordinary web-pages on the world-wide-web are unidirectional. They can link one page to another. But, if one finds a page that has tantalizing hints at the information they want, there is no satisfactory mechanism for a reader to find out "what links here".
Wikilinks are bidirectional. This feature is built-in to the wikipedia. If one page links to another the "what links here" button shows every article that links to this article, in real time. It is an extremely powerful feature, that is, unfortunately, frequently overlooked.
Checking "what links here" can be very helpful for the wikipedia contributors who are interested in maintaining the wikipedia. I would like to be able to rest assured that our nominator always gave the results of the "what links here" button a meaningful review, prior to initiating a nomination for deletion.
Checking "what links here" can also be very helpful in the portions of the wikipedia that are on the frontier, where the articles that do exist are in the stub stage, or just past the stub stage.
When a reader decides to follow a wikilink to an article, that article should be about what the context of the wikilink implied it was about. IMO it would be a disservice to readers who decide to follow a link to the article on Jeffrey Groharing -- because, for instance, they are interested in Prosecutors who conspire to hide evidence that could prove suspects are innocent from those suspects Defense counsels -- only to end up at an article about Omar Khadr.
So, if this joint article nominator thinks is such a good idea were to have the portion devoted to Groharing grow to overwhelm the portion devoted to Khadr, would re redirect Omar Khadr back to Groharing? Which categories would it be under?
This proposed redirection is, IMO, such a bad idea that I find it hard to hold back from writing an even longer essay.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to above

I appreciate the significant time and effort that the article author spent in addressing my concerns on this article. Nonetheless, I continue to disagree with the author's opinions. Specifically:

1) Notability. The Guantanamo trials, as a whole, are notable. Specific lawyers involved are notable only through their clients and specific case details. They are not notable in and of themselves (without other mitigating factors). There are countless individuals who have been the subject of one newspaper article and been quoted in several other media sources. This does not mean that each individual thus mentioned must be included in Wikipedia, as the article author would seem to suggest. In summation, it is the case that bears notability, not the individuals representing the charged detainees.

Inclusion in Wikipedia of Major Groharing, Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, and (perhaps most interestingly) a paralegal, Sgt. Heather Cerveny, is bewildering.

2. The article writer's claim that Maj. Groharing "accused [his] boss's boss of ordering [him] to withhold exculpatory evidence" is untrue. Groharing has made no such claim according to the sources listed in the article. Additionally, Maj. Groharing has not been accused of withholding exculpatory evidence.

3. Questions as to my knowledge of additional cases of withholding exculpatory evidence (and/or being ordered to do so by a superior) are immaterial. The article must stand on its own merit. Regardless, HERE is another example of the military withholding evidence. The case of Bilal Hussein is another example. Should there be Wikipedia pages for each lawyer and paralegal involved in these cases? No.

The article writer's obvious passion for this subject (and his or her creation of an entire body of articles on the Gitmo Trials) is impressive, but his or her passion has led to what appears to be a lack of objectivity in what should be included in Wikipedia and how the information may be best presented. BWH76 (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)