![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
While some parts of the article have improved in recent days, I feel that other parts are still a defamation risk. I think this is an article where writers should take extreme care, and probably attribute the facts to where they came from. Eg, "The US government claimed..." or "David Hicks' lawyers claimed..."
Many of the references used have been very weak. For example, the use of a quote from his father to verify some other fact about Hicks. Does his father really know? Ask yourselves, did the news organisation actually say the fact about Hicks, or did the news report use quotes from other people saying it?
We really need to be very careful what we say. I notice a new statement in the article that says Hicks undertook al Qaeda-sponsored military training. The word "sponsored" makes it sound like there was money or financial funding involved, but I can't find any suggestion from the reference used.
Controversial facts probably should have more than one recent reference to back them up.-- Lester2 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about some of the details of the legal process which are beginning to surface: Richard Ackland, If it looks and smells like a corrupted legal process …, Sydney Morning Herald, 2007-10-26. I'm not suggesting that it is time to add this material to the article, as I think the official postmortem is only just beginning, one reference is not sufficient and the article is written during an election campaign. I'm putting this on the talk page so others can start building a body of evidence over the coming months, as more emerges. John Dalton 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good call, John. The facts need to be reliably established, re: political interference, and that may not quite have happened yet as far as exactly who did/said what. The source piece reporting political interference in the Hicks case, on which most other recent reportage appears to be based, was an October 2007 article At Gitmo, No Room for Justice in Harper's Magazine by Scott Horton, who wrote also an article The Plea Bargain of David Hicks in April 2007 when the plea bargain was made public. Both articles link Judge Susan Crawford to Cheney (verifiable fact) and assert that John Howard sought Cheney's assistance in expediting the Hicks case (not verifiable so far as I can tell). This most recent article quotes an unnamed US Military officer as confirming political interference, which Chief Prosecutor Moe Davis also cited as reasons for his own recent resignation. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting issue to deal with, as far as POV goes. I've made a few changes that point out mass media reproduced articles that cite his legal team stating that he accepted a plea bargain to get out of 'this hell' of Guantanamo bay which have been reverted, even though they haven't been POV in any way. However, I've come to a bit of a moral dilemma as to how to proceed with what POV is with this issue.
I do not believe that any educated person can, prima facie, induce any evidence that Hicks is guilty of any crime. Not one member of the judiciary anywhere, apart from his prosecutors, have ever even joked that a conviction could be attained given the circumstances, and the invention of the crime post facto would have been a major point of contention and further the ability of the court to even have jurisdiction was farcically driven and would come undone under minor scrutiny.
There is significant reasonable doubt on all facts involved, so we can deduce from this that of the crimes he is innocent. Whether he is innocent or not is irrelivant, but as far as the law goes he would have been found innocent had he not pled guilty.
I've had much experience with prosecutors in the past and plea bargaining is a way of life. Prosecutors, as well as all law enforcement, work on conviction basis. To attain a budget, one must show X amount of convictions to prove the 'system is working', which is unfortunate because it's not about justice but about production line convictions. Plea bargains are a way of life, and getting someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that didn't exist until you invented it well afterwards to explain away their imprisonment without trial or charge, only to then get them to plead to 'time served' in an attempt to justify what has gone on is a massive success for the prosecution. It brings legitimacy to their actions for many of the uneducated public, whilst simultaniously preventing potential reparations and damages suits.
However, this article reads as though matter-of-factly David Hicks is a terrorist and was convicted fairly of such a crime, which is not supported by the evidence presented in any way, shape or form.
So we have the fact that he could not be convicted by any reasonable court and the fact under duress, as stated by him and his defence, he accepted a plea to get back to Australia and out of a cage to deal with. That being said, I do not believe that this article currently reflects the truth of the matter but represents what the prosecution were intending the world to percieve which is not in any way substantiated by evidence or fact.
I don't wish to flag this article NPOV or start such drama, as I'm sure we have people very passionate from both sides of the fence here who believe that presenting him in X or Y fashion is important to their political existance, however to us people who don't really give a toss about agenda and just kind of have more interest in the facts and neutrality it poses quite a paradox.
Any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Jachin ( talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are mixed. He was captured unarmed so no evidence there and also all they had were some blurred pictures of him. He either pleaded guilty or they falsely accused him. Those pictures were extremely blurred so I dont know. I would like to hear your opinions. Smallkid620 ( talk) 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A 'criminal' infobox has been placed in this article and removed as "POV" by another editor. Does a criminal info box improve this article? Is Hicks' criminality in need of more weight in this article? Convictiion of a criminal offense doesnt automatically mean that a criminal info box is or should be used. Rudolph Hess, Nelson Mandela, Ned Kelly, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi were all convicted criminals whose articles do not have criminal info boxes - presumably because their articles are better without them. I lean towards no info box as the amount and quality of sources casting doubt on the method of Hicks conviction is substantial and not reflected in the summary provided by an info box.
Others thoughts? SmithBlue ( talk) 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html "The US charges David Hicks" SMH. repeatedly makes clear that these are "allegations". To state these allegations as fact solely from this source does not seem comply with WP:BLP. Please discuss here why you might think WP:BLP does not apply to this material. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple references that cite Hick's as training at these camps, the SMH is not the be all and end all of wikipedia writing style, common sense at some point has to prevail. Hicks wrote many letters to family members detailing his training in these camps, multiple witnesses place Hicks at the camps, Hick's father claims he was at the camps. The only absence here is the claim from anyone that Hicks did not attend these camps. SmithBlue indicated that we needed a reference that placed him in the camps, I provided it with reference number 6 (among many) that states
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.
He reverted back under his policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(Clarifying that discusion above is about ABC Four Corners http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm "The Case of David Hicks) SmithBlue ( talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I included the ABC source as it better reflects reality. Let's call a spade a spade. I challenge you to find ONE single person who denies that Hick's trained at these camps. And go. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So in essence you deny that the ABC is a reliable source. Here it is again
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.
Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
PresterJohn has again edited to misrepresent the SMH source US charges David Hicks. ANI report. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are other sources listed, and easily findable through a search. Just because the SMH uses the word "allegedly" etc. doesn't mean that we (meaning you) must shadow their exact wording. We need to be as honest as possible on this sensitive subject. What primary sources do we have on the nature of his activities with Al Qaeda? I've got one source stating that Hicks undertook weapons training, but that source is Peter Costello being intervied by Alan Jones. Let's try to get as close as wecan to what is true, rather than what is reported or alleged. -- Pete ( talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that a court in Adelaide has reviewed evidence and found that "He received training in weapons, commando tactics, explosives, guerrilla warfare strategies, advanced marksmanship, topography, ambush attacks, reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper training and house entries." [1] This was using material supplied by the Commonwealth and used as a basis for seeking a control order, which was granted. The word "alleged" is not found in this report. -- Pete ( talk) 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I edited not misrepresent the SMH source but to reflect the ABC source for the third time here:
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda
. To try and cast doubt that Hicks trained with Al-Qaeda is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, as there is not a single person anywhere who disputes that he did in fact train with al-Qadea. Hicks admits he trains with al-Qaeda in his numerous letters home. His father admits he trained with al-Qadea. No one anywhere even casts doubt on the fact. Prester John When you asked for a reference asking me to support my position I responded with this edit. You disregarded this and continued to hold onto your solitary SMH source. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 03:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Logic seems to be in suspended animation here, I faithfully represented the vast majority of sources that discuss the subject per WP:WEIGHT, and even included an ABC source which you deleted. Your clinging on to a single word in this solitary SMH source defies reality and as it seems reason. You must know that given the date of publication of the SMH piece using the qualifier "allegation" is standard journalistic practice. In the meantime numerous publications have come out describing Hicks's training with al-Qaeda, inluding admissions from Hicks himself and his father. You have yet to produce a single person in the entire media or otherwise who casts any sort of doubt on the fact that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda, and to continue to try and insert language into this encyclopedia that would cast doubt on this fact is a violation of WP:DISRUPT. I might add the I.P. that a made the similar edit was not I, and seems to indicate that consensus leans towards my side. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
SmithBlue's tenacious reliance on a single word in one source, when that word cannot be found in other sources of equal weight, is pushing things a bit too far, especially when that precious word is used as a basis of an ANI report. PresterJohn has noted that other sources are available, as have I. SmithBlue, can we get a response from you on this point, please? -- Pete ( talk) 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You act like this SMH article is only reference that describes Hicks training with al-Qaeda. It is not, there is 114 references cited for this article and 99% do not cast any doubt over the fact that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda. We are not misrepresenting the SMH, we are representing the 114 other sources, and applying our judgement with regards to weight. Why do insist that this single SMH article is the be all and end all of finding a source for Hicks's training? Why do you not acknowledge the other sources we have provided that conclude most definitively that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda? Do you understand what we mean when we talk about WP:WEIGHT? Have you read this policy? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No I understand it as this edit proves. I changed the source to greater reflect the undisputed reality, and I might add per your previous request in the edit summary. It is not my fault you decided to disrupt the project with some serious ownership issues on a particular word of your precious SMH article, which you reinserted and then had the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting it. It should seem obvious to anyone following this that User:SmithBlue has tried desperately to inject an element of doubt into the article, where none exists, and to push a severely minority view, (i.e. his alone), that Hicks did not train with al-Qaeda. His ANI report, complete with accusations of sockpuppetry, and of illegal editing are nothing more than cheap strawman/ad-hominem attacks, that do not even deserve a response. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Like Pete points out see this edit as evidence of User:SmithBlue's continual disruptive behaviour. Note the removal of a reference, that he himself asks for, and that reflects the overwhelmingly weighted opinion and observe the reinsertion of the "precious" SMH reference. Note the outright false edit summary of "the reference you supply does not contain the "facts" you claim.", and then draw your attention yet again (fourth time now....) to the passage of the reference;
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.
And that's just this particular ABC reference, remember, just hit any reference in this article at random and see if anyone is in doubt about Hicks and his training admission. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 08:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like SmithBlue has disengaged with his "discussion" without ever actually addressing a single point, while having all of his questions answered. I'll ask SmithBlue one more time. Are you aware that there are multiple sources that deal with accusation we are talking about? Have you read WP:WEIGHT? Do you understand what we mean when applying WP:WEIGHT? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Skyring and Prester John, lets be clear what you are arguing about.
My view
Prester John edited to present the following material;
The source supplied (smh: US charges David Hicks) presents allegations and accusations against Hicks. It does not present them as proved facts or as being admitted to by Hicks.
Prester John's edit above violates WP:NOR, which states "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.", as the source given does not verify the information in his edit.
Prester John's edit above also breaches WP:BLP which states "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Presenting allegations and accusatons as fact or as admitted is neither neutral nor factual.
Prester John's edit above also breaches WP:NOR "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." The material in Prester John's edits was not verifiable in the sources cited.
Prester John had made very similar edits prior which had the same flaws:
Prester John continued to insert these misrepresenting edits after another editor (me, SmithBlue) had challenged them: (diffs showing challenges)
In addition I had entered into discusion on both Prester John's talk page (archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations), and here on this page, challenging these edits of Prester John. Prester John continuing to insert these edits breached WP:VER which states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Prester John did not provide a reliable source for material that had been challenged.
In addition Prester John continued with these edits knowing that they were disputed and did not have consensus support.
SmithBlue ( talk) 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I also point out that the source Pete cited [2] (Control order placed on David Hicks), trying to excuse your series of misrepresenting edits, leaves unverified still, information contained in your edits. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I watched the video to see this, and I can't find it anywhere in the video. Any thoughts?-- Lopakhin ( talk) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims ..." - can someone who has watched the video re-word this so that we're describing, rather than promoting, Hicks' POV? Andjam ( talk) 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've watched the video again and it's not there, so I've commented it out. If someone's got the right citation, please provide it.-- Lopakhin ( talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Pls discuss here what is better included in the article lead about circumstances of detention. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Great to see that this issue is so easily resolved. 2006 "the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." cite [ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Syllabus, pg. 4., point 4.] SmithBlue ( talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) That makes no sense. If the charges were invalid then they would not have proceeded to the stage where Hicks entered a guilty plea. -- Pete ( talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How about "after five years detention without valid charge[1] by the United States government as an illegal enemy combatant," —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think you quite see the problem. Having a confusing lead isn't a good thing. I'll restore it to the last consensual version and we can discuss the wording here and find a good way of saying it. I think that the length of detention and the fact that the process was thrown out by the court are both very important here, but misleading or confusing our readers is not what we should be doing. -- Pete ( talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources we have show that the length of Hicks' detention without trail were as great an issue as his conviction. If you can find a better way to include it I am happy to work with you. SmithBlue ( talk) 10:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I've restored the lead to the last version where we had consensus. Please do not edit war over this - gain consensus before changing it back to a contentious wording. I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history. If you are in the dark, may I earnestly suggest that you review the past months of discussion, and you will be illuminated with the various points made by your fellow editors. It is a waste of everyone's time to have someone new come in, ignore a careful consensus, and have to go through the same arguments over and over again. -- Pete ( talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just been through the archives. I can find nothing that bears directly on this matter. Please show your fellow editors the diffs to support your statement above; "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history." By producing these diffs now we can save other editors time. SmithBlue ( talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would improve the lead if it explicitly stated the charge that he was convicted of. Other ideas? SmithBlue ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Also "suspicion of terrorism" does not describe the US govs mind/stated purpose/beliefs. (As in the US government did not? hold him on "suspision of terrorism") Memory says that he was being held as an "illegal enemy combatant". What would be better from the sources available? SmithBlue ( talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually think "suspicion" is appropriate. In legal terms, was he not a suspect of a terrorism-related offence until such time as he was charged (or even right up until a conviction and sentence were handed down)? Also, the article already mentions elsewhere in the lead that Hicks was "designated an illegal enemy combatant". -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask everyone to cool it with the edit warring, please? We seem to be flipping between two versions of the lead - one which has remained stable for a while, and a fresh one which includes the "without valid charge" wording. My feeling is that we need, in the lead, to make some mention of the long time Hicks spent in GB, because that's what brought him to such prominence, and we should also note that the military process was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court (which naturally added to the delay). However, I feel that the fresh version leans too far towards the "innocent victim of U.S. torture" view.
It is true that he was detained for five years, and that the original charges were found to be part of a flawed process, but that isn't telling the whole story, and it can give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges.
I'm keen to find some wording which will satisfy all parties as to accuracy and fairness. -- Pete ( talk) 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that DEM would rather edit war without discussion (whilst asking others to talk it over!), so I'd like to invite my fellow editors to participate in finding an acceptable wording.
Sources and wikilinks aside (and thanks for that, SmithBlue), the only difference is the inclusion of the phrase "without valid charge" and the deletion of "for involvement with terrorism". I think that the five years needs to be explained, but realistically, he was detained for involvement with terrorism, not because the U.S. decided to just hold him without valid reason or charge.
Comments? Proposals? -- Pete ( talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"...give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges."
Looking at the lead, the third paragraph goes into some detail on the first set of charges and the process. Perhaps we can insert the references supplied by SmithBlue in here and leave the first paragraph as it stands? -- Pete ( talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete, this article is about DH not ObL. DH was not classified by US as POW. His captors classified him as "illegal enemy combatant". The US definition of "illegal enemy combatant", terrorist and terrorism is NOT widely accepted. Hicks was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism. Yes? What actions of Hicks were found to be "material support for terrorism"? This should be in the article and the lead. When Hicks trained with AlQ was it know to be a terrorist organisation? When did the US name it as a terrorist organisation? SmithBlue ( talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I think you and Lester are soapboxing, not writing an encyclopaedia. Do you have anything that is actually useful and productive? -- Pete ( talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hicks is notable primarily because of the controversy of his detention and the unorthodoxy of the subsequent legal process. He is not actually noted for any particular act of terrorism.
Some of the main controversies of his detention include:
For this article to be at all reasonable in reflecting all significant points of view the lead paragraph must give adequate weight to the very widely held and supported view that Hicks detention was first and foremost controversial. Recent edits by User:Skyring tend to de-emphasise the controvesy of Hicks detention and give weight to the view that his detention was justified which is by no means a universally held view.
Wm ( talk) 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This assessment made by WM is not correct. Hicks is notable primarily because he is white and he is a Westerner. There are still many terrorists still in detention today who were captured at the exact same time as Hicks, and are yet still in Gitmo where Hicks used to be. Nobody cares about them, There are no petitions for them, No one demands their release, No one is concerned about their "justice", No one even knows the name of a single one them, (Geo Swan excepted of course), yet they have the exact same circumstances and have been held even longer without trial. To clarify another falsehood stated above by WM the charges that were initially placed upon Hicks in 2004 were ruled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme court, this decision was however overturned by the appeals court. In the meantime, the Bush administration cottoned on to the fact that war had moved into the courts. They had already changed tact by this time and codified laws ( Military Commissions Act of 2006) which ultimately nailed Hicks. He was lucky to squirm out when the judge preformed a back room deal with Hicks' defense without telling the prosecutor.
To bleat excessively about how "highly controversial" this all was is adding to much weight, because in essence the only thing that is controversial is that Hicks received a trial when many others did not, simply because he is white. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Hicks "material support of terrorism" can be gauged by the absence of information on what acts he was found to have commited constituting "material support of terrorism". Nada-zero. Notability of details of detention/trails is clear from content and volume of sources on such. Pete seems to be promoting an uncommon view of DH. SmithBlue ( talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I don't think I've commented on that phrase at all, actually. Perhaps you are confused. If you have specific wording on anything controversial, please raise it here for general discussion and agreement. -- Pete ( talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a whole glut of references for the plea bargain entered into by Dawood in this section of the article here Let's start with reference number 98 here and I quote from the reference;
"Hicks...pleaded guilty for attending Al-Qaeda training camps and volunteering to fight in support of the Taliban regime."
"Hicks agreed to withdraw allegations he had been abused at the hands US personnel"
I think it is time to implore people to thoroughly read the David Hicks article before making any more comments, claims of "I don't see this in the article" are ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time! Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Material contained only in references is not usually considered to be "in an article". Your criticisms are misplaced. See above for time being wasted. SmithBlue ( talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In his pre-trial agreement DH acknowledges and agrees "that I am an alien unlawful enemy combatant, as defined by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Title 10, United States Code, Section 948 (c)." [5]. However Unlawful combatant reads "Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[34] which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely. The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants"."
and confusingly
"In the first military commissions to be held since that faced by Hicks, the judges dismissed the charges against Omar Khadr and Salim Ahmed Hamdan because of a technicality. They had been classified as "enemy combatants" instead of "illegal enemy combatants". Under the Military Commissions Act, passed by the US Congress last year, only prisoners deemed as "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the commissions." [6]
Anyone got US gov sources describing Hicks' classification? SmithBlue ( talk) 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Could any editor who objects to the proposed wording please indicate the precise reason for the objection below? It is my belief that this wording states all the key essential facts about Hicks' notability. Could those who support the wording please indicate their support. Thanks.
David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who was detained for five years in highly controversial circumstances by the United States government at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. After initially being held without charge, he was ultimately prosecuted for "providing material support for terrorism" under a specially constituted U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006 to which he entered a plea bargain and became the first and only Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted by the commission or by any other legal process.
Wm ( talk) 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I approached Skyring on his talk page to continue this negotiation but he has refused. I would like to invite Skyring again to continue this negotiation and propose a way forward so that the several editors here can have their concerns about this article recognized. If desired, we could seek mediation from a third party. Editors will be aware that I have also raised a Request for Comment. Thanks. Wm ( talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a broad agreement from three editors in this discussion that the proposed wording will be an improvement. One editor has noted an opinion against this majority view, but he has not offered any alternative way forward. As there is no compromise proposal put forward, I will apply the proposed wording to the article.
Please note the Reverting page of the Editor Handbook. It includes the following guidelines :
WP:EW states: Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits.
I would request that any user who is not happy with this edit does not revert it, but instead adopts the constructive path of editing the page further or discussing any problems here. Wm ( talk) 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"In essence, US authorities have now conceded that David Hicks’ alleged activities in Afghanistan in 2001 were not illegal at that time." concludes the President of the Australian Law Council in an open letter to Australian Senators. [7] The present DH lead accepts the US govs definition of terrorism which includes training with Al Qaeda even when such activities were legal at the time or anyone fighting with the Taliban. This definition of terrrorism is not widely accepted and is POV and should be noted as such in this article. SmithBlue ( talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ex post facto law#Australia says that the Australian constitution does not prohibit retrospective legislation, and that Malcolm Fraser's government enacted retrospective legislation. Also, do you have a citation from a reliable source that the French resistance would be considered terrorists (not merely illegal enemy combatants), or is that your own original research? Andjam ( talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention?
There is a disagreement between some editors regarding the article lead paragraphs. Some editors believe that the current wording of the article lead does not give adequate weight to the controversy and legal details of the Hicks case. It is desired by this group to add some details of the extent and reason for the controversy; considered by some to be a major part of Hicks notability. Others oppose adding any detail about the extent and nature of the controversy, saying it is irrelevant to the biography of Hicks.
Please refer to discussions above Hicks' notability and Opening par proposed wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention? The fact that the very first sentence makes a clumsy point to tell us how "highly controversial" the circumstances were, then a reader's initial response to that question would be "no". We should show, not tell, the reader. But, moving on from that that plunker of prose in the first sentence, the this rough order and layout was actually OK in my mind.
The only other question I have is whether there is a reason the controversy over the Howard Govt's handling of the case is not in the lead - ie, the accusations of apparent disinterest/abandonment (for want of better words)? Indeed, is there mention in the article body? -- Merbabu ( talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
All, I have a few ideas on how to maybe get some resolution on this thing – I’ve written a few tricky leads in my time of which I’m quite, at the risk of sounding corny, proud (2 FA’s, and 2 GA’s with quite a bit of contentious material in each). Later tonight I hope. All I suggest in the meantime is that we don’t do any more mass roll backs or radical updates, and we quit commenting on editors or the manner of contribution, etc. Leave our own POV’s at the door, and accept that we will not have the article that we’d write on our own website – yes, basic stuff, but so often forgotten. -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of POV as to whether Al Qaeda is a terrorist group as of 2001. The Washington Post describes AQ as a terrorist group in this article, and this article was presumably written before the legislation referred to above. If I do more research, I would almost certainly find an article predating 2001.
Maybe it was legal for David Hicks to train with AQ, but that doesn't mean that AQ isn't a terrorist organisation. Andjam ( talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware Hicks did nothing that could be called a terrorist act. Spying on the U.S. embassy would probably be if he had entered the grounds to do it but he never did that. Training in terrorist related skills does not make you a terrorist either as i'm sure most special forces train in the exact same skills. Being ignorant, naive and an idiot is about all we can claim with any certainty. Hicks control order is believed by most Australians to be a knee jerk reaction and totally unnneccesary. BTW, you can get a control order without being involved with terrorism to a serious degree. There was a documentary on ABC last night about Australian women who married Arabs. Two had control orders so severe they both eventually immigrated from Australia to Africa (because of the order no other country would take them). One recieved the order because her husband was "suspected" of supporting terrorism (he raised money for an Islamic charity, was arrested but found not guilty), the other recieved the order because her husband was in al Qaida before 911 (although she moved back to Australia and they had not seen each other in 7 years it was feared she might contact him). The government goes over the top with everything. Wayne ( talk) 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether a or not a person is a "terrorist", can be to a large extent POV. This is noted in the Wikitionary entry for terrorist. That is why the current DH lead paragraph is POV. Whatever Hicks has or has not done, there is a debate in the community about the extent to which he is a terrorist, as well as a debate about how he was detained outside normal legal process. The word describes the people who committed the Bali atrocity completely and unambiguously. No-one will argue it. I don't think the case of Hicks is nearly as straightforward. Wm ( talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the above, it is clear that calling DH a terrorist is controversial. Any statements in the article for or against must be labelled as opinion and the source identified, "George Bush stated that Hicks is a fangerous Terrorist. Terry Hicks alleged that his son was a merry little chap who would never ever be a terrorist. Truly ruly."
However, there seems to be only a couple of editors who oppose stating that he was involved with terrorism. That is why the current DH lead paragraph is POV, says one, whom I suspect of being Terry Hicks, due to coincidence of expressed opinions. -- Pete ( talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No one has claimed Hicks was a tourist so to use that term as reason to revert is bad faith. Please try to be NPOV and avoid OR. Found some interesting stuff. All members of al Qaeda actually have to sign an employment contract and Hicks never did. An admission by the DoD intelligence service that Hicks refused to be a terrorist when al Qaeda asked him. An admission by DoD that while Hicks may have trained with al Qaeda, he fought for the Taliban. And there is the case of Jack Thomas. Thomas also trained alongside Hicks in Afghanistan. Unlike Hicks Thomas was paid by al Qaeda. Unlike hicks Thomas admitted he was willing to fight the US after the invasion. Unlike Hicks he remained with al Qaeda after the fall of the Taliban and was in an al Qaeda safe house when he was caught in 2003. Unlike Hicks, Pakistan returned him to Australia where he was charged, tried, convicted of two charges of receiving money from a terrorist organization and acquitted of two charges of working for al Qaeda. He appealed and both convictions were overturned and he was released. This tells us Australian law does not consider Hicks a terrorist. Wayne ( talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a minority of editors who are using the stand-over tactic of reverting (the edit war) to push a particular point of view in this article. Reverting should only be used for absolute and obvious vandalism. I call upon the community to watch out for those who stand over the article with finger poised on the revert button, attempting to obliterate other editors contributions seconds after they are made. Reverting is being used as a way to bypass discussion, by deleting content before the community has a chance to see it or comment on it. Reverting is a cancer that is seriously undermining this article. Lester 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about this guy, right? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Skyring has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on David Hicks. Wm ( talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Some editors here seem unable to understand what I mean when I talk about the "Hicks as innocent tourist" view. I think they know very well, but let me spell it out. There is a view that Hicks was a dangerous terrorist and he was locked up for the good of humanity and he derserved everything he got and now that he's free he could strike again. This is the dangerous terrorist view, and as I have repeatedly noted, it is not one to which I subscribe. But some here do.
Then there is the view that Hicks was just being a tourist or a Muslim pilgrim and the evil USA locked him up and tortured him for five years for no good reason. I do not subscribe to this view either, but it seems that some do, judging by their attempts to keep on watering down the facts. Regarding my edit to the lead para, I have removed the words "accused of", because while that is true and factual, it is not the whole truth. He admitted to involvement with terrorism, and he pled guilty to that specific charge. This does not make him a terrorist, as some here seem to think, but it certainly moves his involvement with terrorism beyond the "accused of" stage. -- Pete ( talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hicks was not captured for involvement in terrorism. He was captured more or less as a POW, or as the US put it, an enemy combant, whatever that is. The introduction had left the impression that Hicks was detained for terrorism, but that conflates the Government rhetoric about "war on terrorism" and the plea bargain to the initial capture in athe war against Afghanistan. Trishm ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Would "combat training" be better than "military training"? Andjam ( talk) 12:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I made the change to the first sentence. [11] There seemed to be enough editors from different opinions who thought it was an improvement. It now reads:
I swapped "military training" for "combat training" as suggested above - I think that is fine. Also, i removed the word "ruling" from in front of of "Taliban", but I'm not sure about it. It might be important to show somehow that the taliban was in power at the time. or maybe not? -- Merbabu ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
After reading the above discussion, I made this change. The Taliban were referred to as "the ruling Taliban" often enough in media coverage (Google it), and this phrasing neatly alludes to their control of the country without making unneeded (for this article) commentary either way about their legitimacy. Also, the Taliban article describes their former Afhgan presence as a "regime", which is also common terminology in media coverage (again, Google it). I also swapped "combat military training" for "military combat training" (makes more sense, yes?). -- Brendan [ contribs ] 00:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In politics, a regime is the form of government: the set of rules, both formal (for example, a constitution) and informal (common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789. The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term. Informal use of the word usually carries a negative connotation, usually referring to a government considered oppressive or dictatorial, whether it is in power through a consistent application of its constitution or not.
Some users including Prester John ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for example have disputed the use of a couple of paragraphs in the article. I have stated in my edit summaries that it isn't a particularly good idea simply to blank such paragraphs; rather to improve their quality. Would user:Prester John and others like to make their suggestions below and see if we can establish a clear consensus to proceed -- Capitana ( talk) 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection of recent article history, - would both Capitana and Prester John quit edit warring, otherwise admin assistance can be requested to force you to quit. Everyone else here with different opinions can manage civil (if a little tense) conversation here without edit warring, except for you two - don't spoil it for the rest. From where I sit, you're both looking like hypocrites so cut it out or go away. thanks. Sorry to be so direct, but it's spoiling it for the rest of us. -- Merbabu ( talk) 12:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please show what paragraphs you think are missing? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
RFC/USER discussion concerning Skyring
Please note that I have raised a request for comment concerning Skyring's conduct on Wikipedia particularly in regard to his behaviour on the John Howard article and also on the this article.
The RFC entry is at listed here. At the moment it is listed under Canidate pages as it will be need to be certified by at least one other user before it becomes a valid Rfc. I ask any user who has been involved in the recent disputes here or at John Howard and shares my concern that Skyring's behaviour is disruptive of a proper consensual process, and would like to certify the Rfc, please do so by signing at the appropriate spot. If no other user signs within 48 hours the Rfc will not be accepted. Once certified, other users are encouraged to endorse the case put forward or endorse Skrying's statement once he has a chance to make one or make their own statement regarding the dispute.
The actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Skyring. Also see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users and Wikipedia:RFC/How_to_present_a_case Wm ( talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts as to how to appropriately include this? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The section deleted 4 times was;
A document produced within Guantánamo Bay and signed by Feroz Abbasi, but later repudiated by him in a second signed statement, alleged that Hicks had said that he wanted to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews," "crash a plane into a building," and "go out with that last big adrenaline rush," that "if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' etc. [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out". Abbasi repudiated all the claims and described the allegations against Hicks as "ludicrous in their content". [4]
The information now missing his Dawoods quotes about "going back to Australia to rob and kill Jews" and "going into a building to kill Jews" etc..... All referenced and relevant to Dawood. Prester John ( talk) 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
These are the opening paragraphs of the source...
Interesting. What do people think? -- Merbabu ( talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Leigh Sales' book Detainee 002, which I believe is a reasonably highly regarded account of the David Hicks story (Scrupulously fair - Ray Martin) says that:
Critics of Bush's war tactics, including human rights activist, civil libertarians and left-wing opponents, claim that Guantanamo Bay is the Gulag of our time, established by an evil cabal of ultra-conservatives within the Bush administration who made a calculated decision to use September 11 to expand presidential power.
— page 5
She then says:
Hardliners in the Bush administration and the Howard government, along with conservative commentators, promote an alternate view. They hold that David Hicks was a serious threat who had to be held at Guantanamo indefinately because there was no alternative.
— page 6
These are the two sides of the spectrum of positions on David Hicks, but she says:
The reality is far more complicated and nuanced than either of these conventional positions, which tend to reduce issues to political point scoring. The line between good and bad is blurred, and who is right and who is wrong remains unclear.
— page 6]
She quotes a senior Australian government official:
Both sides seek to present the other as caricature. Those who support the administration are fond of characterising the other side as soft on terror, unpatriotic, lacking understanding of the the new threat. Those on the other side portrays the Bush administration as trammeling all over the law, not caring about human rights. Hicks and Guantanamo are issues around which decent people can disagree. But neither side will accept that the other opinion is decent or rational
— pages 6-7
This is just the beginning of unraveling this difficult and highly contentious issue. I believe that the article as it stands has not resolved these tensions in a dispassionate and neutral way. A POV flag is justified while either side have misgiving about the way the case has been presented here and I don't believe that we can fix this easily or quickly. We know that there have been disputes on the article and I for one, do not feel that they have been adequately resolved. I will therefore restore the POV tag and ask editors to indicate below whether they support that the article is deficient in this regard. Thanks. Wm ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the first time that Colonel Morris Davis has alleged political interference, but in today's The Australian he goes further, with explosive allegations that the case was rushed through prematurely to suit the whims of the Howard government. The reference is currently used in the intro in a format that can be reused later in the article (without adding the entire reference again). It's startling that both the prosecution and the defense allege similar interference. Lester 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"But as The Australian reported from Guantanamo Bay at the time of the deal, Colonel Davis had no knowledge of it - it was struck behind his back between Major Mori and convening authority Susan Crawford, who deputised Brigadier General Tom Hemingway to strike the deal."
I came across the "Todo" template and added it to the top of the article. I have seeded it with a few items that in my view may benefit from attention. I believe that the article is currently extremely sub-standard and convoluted and needs major work. Because the article is highly contentious, small changes often seem to require an inordinate amount of work. The todo list may be a useful tool in building an understanding between different views and gaining a sense of perspective of the extent of any perceived deficiencies. Wm ( talk) 04:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, people. I noticed you were looking for some help to come to a consensus on this article. I wouldn't mind helping you out. If everyone involved is ok with me mediating the problem, we could get going. What you should know about me, is that I am currently involved in formal mediation myself. The parties listed for mediation are
SmithBlue (
talk ·
contribs),
Prester John (
talk ·
contribs) and
Skyring (
talk ·
contribs). Could you three, and anyone else who wants to participate in mediation indicate here if they accept or decline my role as cabalist mediator?
Martijn Hoekstra (
talk)
21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure Why not. Prester John ( talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in. SmithBlue ( talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A number of quotations have been added to the article – their number and size are in my opinion excessive. I am not questioning the validity of the new content; but from a stylistic point of view, large volumes of quotes break up an article, making it awkward. This and this explain it better than I do.
My suggestion is to chose the single most important quote and use it in block mode. The others, should be paraphrased and worked into the prose. It’s not a matter of removing content, rather one of presenting it in a manner more appropriate to an encyclopaedia.
I am tempted to slap on a {{quotefarm}} tag in the relevant section, but would like to get the opinion of a few more editors first. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed last year and no consensus for inclusion resulted. Prester John has sought to to reinsert this poorly attributed ("some former high school mates", who?), tabloid-style claim (article describe it as Satanism but is that verifiable or simply a second-hand extrapolation?) which I have reverted for those reasons. Further discussion, taking into account past discussions and views of other editors, is most welcome. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 06:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss what goes into the article. My view, at present, is that "describe him as "dabbling in drugs and Satan" as a teenager" falls below "notable" for this topic. So far it looks like a report of ex-schoolmates describing a low socio-economic level teenage rebel/failing student with a bit of self-mutilation - nothing remarkable to my eyes. Applying "experimenting with satanism", which better describes Faustus and Crowley, to DH seems POV. A possible originating source for this stuff is 9MSN magazine style program "Sunday" - "His old school mates from Salisbury High say he was a heavy drinker and cannabis smoker who would use a compass to scratch satanic symbols into his arm."[ [12]]
If anyone can show that this description by "old school mates" is, in this case, notable and verifiable to BLP standards, then I will support inclusion. SmithBlue ( talk) 06:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way forward would be to get a few more people to look at this, either via RfC or the Aussie noticeboard. Andjam ( talk) 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The David Hicks#Repatriation and release section of the article currently details Hicks's movements since his release, identifying the suburb he has moved to and where he is required to regularly report to police. Does this accord with WP:BLP? Are those inclusions encyclopedic? 04:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think publicising the whereabouts/location of a controversial figure, seen as violent and dangerous by many and who arouses anger in many, significantly increases the risk of harm. BLP says "Do no harm". I think DH's location is better not included in WP. SmithBlue ( talk) 07:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
smh
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Time
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
While some parts of the article have improved in recent days, I feel that other parts are still a defamation risk. I think this is an article where writers should take extreme care, and probably attribute the facts to where they came from. Eg, "The US government claimed..." or "David Hicks' lawyers claimed..."
Many of the references used have been very weak. For example, the use of a quote from his father to verify some other fact about Hicks. Does his father really know? Ask yourselves, did the news organisation actually say the fact about Hicks, or did the news report use quotes from other people saying it?
We really need to be very careful what we say. I notice a new statement in the article that says Hicks undertook al Qaeda-sponsored military training. The word "sponsored" makes it sound like there was money or financial funding involved, but I can't find any suggestion from the reference used.
Controversial facts probably should have more than one recent reference to back them up.-- Lester2 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about some of the details of the legal process which are beginning to surface: Richard Ackland, If it looks and smells like a corrupted legal process …, Sydney Morning Herald, 2007-10-26. I'm not suggesting that it is time to add this material to the article, as I think the official postmortem is only just beginning, one reference is not sufficient and the article is written during an election campaign. I'm putting this on the talk page so others can start building a body of evidence over the coming months, as more emerges. John Dalton 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good call, John. The facts need to be reliably established, re: political interference, and that may not quite have happened yet as far as exactly who did/said what. The source piece reporting political interference in the Hicks case, on which most other recent reportage appears to be based, was an October 2007 article At Gitmo, No Room for Justice in Harper's Magazine by Scott Horton, who wrote also an article The Plea Bargain of David Hicks in April 2007 when the plea bargain was made public. Both articles link Judge Susan Crawford to Cheney (verifiable fact) and assert that John Howard sought Cheney's assistance in expediting the Hicks case (not verifiable so far as I can tell). This most recent article quotes an unnamed US Military officer as confirming political interference, which Chief Prosecutor Moe Davis also cited as reasons for his own recent resignation. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting issue to deal with, as far as POV goes. I've made a few changes that point out mass media reproduced articles that cite his legal team stating that he accepted a plea bargain to get out of 'this hell' of Guantanamo bay which have been reverted, even though they haven't been POV in any way. However, I've come to a bit of a moral dilemma as to how to proceed with what POV is with this issue.
I do not believe that any educated person can, prima facie, induce any evidence that Hicks is guilty of any crime. Not one member of the judiciary anywhere, apart from his prosecutors, have ever even joked that a conviction could be attained given the circumstances, and the invention of the crime post facto would have been a major point of contention and further the ability of the court to even have jurisdiction was farcically driven and would come undone under minor scrutiny.
There is significant reasonable doubt on all facts involved, so we can deduce from this that of the crimes he is innocent. Whether he is innocent or not is irrelivant, but as far as the law goes he would have been found innocent had he not pled guilty.
I've had much experience with prosecutors in the past and plea bargaining is a way of life. Prosecutors, as well as all law enforcement, work on conviction basis. To attain a budget, one must show X amount of convictions to prove the 'system is working', which is unfortunate because it's not about justice but about production line convictions. Plea bargains are a way of life, and getting someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that didn't exist until you invented it well afterwards to explain away their imprisonment without trial or charge, only to then get them to plead to 'time served' in an attempt to justify what has gone on is a massive success for the prosecution. It brings legitimacy to their actions for many of the uneducated public, whilst simultaniously preventing potential reparations and damages suits.
However, this article reads as though matter-of-factly David Hicks is a terrorist and was convicted fairly of such a crime, which is not supported by the evidence presented in any way, shape or form.
So we have the fact that he could not be convicted by any reasonable court and the fact under duress, as stated by him and his defence, he accepted a plea to get back to Australia and out of a cage to deal with. That being said, I do not believe that this article currently reflects the truth of the matter but represents what the prosecution were intending the world to percieve which is not in any way substantiated by evidence or fact.
I don't wish to flag this article NPOV or start such drama, as I'm sure we have people very passionate from both sides of the fence here who believe that presenting him in X or Y fashion is important to their political existance, however to us people who don't really give a toss about agenda and just kind of have more interest in the facts and neutrality it poses quite a paradox.
Any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Jachin ( talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are mixed. He was captured unarmed so no evidence there and also all they had were some blurred pictures of him. He either pleaded guilty or they falsely accused him. Those pictures were extremely blurred so I dont know. I would like to hear your opinions. Smallkid620 ( talk) 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A 'criminal' infobox has been placed in this article and removed as "POV" by another editor. Does a criminal info box improve this article? Is Hicks' criminality in need of more weight in this article? Convictiion of a criminal offense doesnt automatically mean that a criminal info box is or should be used. Rudolph Hess, Nelson Mandela, Ned Kelly, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi were all convicted criminals whose articles do not have criminal info boxes - presumably because their articles are better without them. I lean towards no info box as the amount and quality of sources casting doubt on the method of Hicks conviction is substantial and not reflected in the summary provided by an info box.
Others thoughts? SmithBlue ( talk) 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html "The US charges David Hicks" SMH. repeatedly makes clear that these are "allegations". To state these allegations as fact solely from this source does not seem comply with WP:BLP. Please discuss here why you might think WP:BLP does not apply to this material. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple references that cite Hick's as training at these camps, the SMH is not the be all and end all of wikipedia writing style, common sense at some point has to prevail. Hicks wrote many letters to family members detailing his training in these camps, multiple witnesses place Hicks at the camps, Hick's father claims he was at the camps. The only absence here is the claim from anyone that Hicks did not attend these camps. SmithBlue indicated that we needed a reference that placed him in the camps, I provided it with reference number 6 (among many) that states
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.
He reverted back under his policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(Clarifying that discusion above is about ABC Four Corners http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm "The Case of David Hicks) SmithBlue ( talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I included the ABC source as it better reflects reality. Let's call a spade a spade. I challenge you to find ONE single person who denies that Hick's trained at these camps. And go. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So in essence you deny that the ABC is a reliable source. Here it is again
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.
Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
PresterJohn has again edited to misrepresent the SMH source US charges David Hicks. ANI report. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are other sources listed, and easily findable through a search. Just because the SMH uses the word "allegedly" etc. doesn't mean that we (meaning you) must shadow their exact wording. We need to be as honest as possible on this sensitive subject. What primary sources do we have on the nature of his activities with Al Qaeda? I've got one source stating that Hicks undertook weapons training, but that source is Peter Costello being intervied by Alan Jones. Let's try to get as close as wecan to what is true, rather than what is reported or alleged. -- Pete ( talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that a court in Adelaide has reviewed evidence and found that "He received training in weapons, commando tactics, explosives, guerrilla warfare strategies, advanced marksmanship, topography, ambush attacks, reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper training and house entries." [1] This was using material supplied by the Commonwealth and used as a basis for seeking a control order, which was granted. The word "alleged" is not found in this report. -- Pete ( talk) 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I edited not misrepresent the SMH source but to reflect the ABC source for the third time here:
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda
. To try and cast doubt that Hicks trained with Al-Qaeda is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, as there is not a single person anywhere who disputes that he did in fact train with al-Qadea. Hicks admits he trains with al-Qaeda in his numerous letters home. His father admits he trained with al-Qadea. No one anywhere even casts doubt on the fact. Prester John When you asked for a reference asking me to support my position I responded with this edit. You disregarded this and continued to hold onto your solitary SMH source. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 03:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Logic seems to be in suspended animation here, I faithfully represented the vast majority of sources that discuss the subject per WP:WEIGHT, and even included an ABC source which you deleted. Your clinging on to a single word in this solitary SMH source defies reality and as it seems reason. You must know that given the date of publication of the SMH piece using the qualifier "allegation" is standard journalistic practice. In the meantime numerous publications have come out describing Hicks's training with al-Qaeda, inluding admissions from Hicks himself and his father. You have yet to produce a single person in the entire media or otherwise who casts any sort of doubt on the fact that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda, and to continue to try and insert language into this encyclopedia that would cast doubt on this fact is a violation of WP:DISRUPT. I might add the I.P. that a made the similar edit was not I, and seems to indicate that consensus leans towards my side. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
SmithBlue's tenacious reliance on a single word in one source, when that word cannot be found in other sources of equal weight, is pushing things a bit too far, especially when that precious word is used as a basis of an ANI report. PresterJohn has noted that other sources are available, as have I. SmithBlue, can we get a response from you on this point, please? -- Pete ( talk) 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You act like this SMH article is only reference that describes Hicks training with al-Qaeda. It is not, there is 114 references cited for this article and 99% do not cast any doubt over the fact that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda. We are not misrepresenting the SMH, we are representing the 114 other sources, and applying our judgement with regards to weight. Why do insist that this single SMH article is the be all and end all of finding a source for Hicks's training? Why do you not acknowledge the other sources we have provided that conclude most definitively that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda? Do you understand what we mean when we talk about WP:WEIGHT? Have you read this policy? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No I understand it as this edit proves. I changed the source to greater reflect the undisputed reality, and I might add per your previous request in the edit summary. It is not my fault you decided to disrupt the project with some serious ownership issues on a particular word of your precious SMH article, which you reinserted and then had the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting it. It should seem obvious to anyone following this that User:SmithBlue has tried desperately to inject an element of doubt into the article, where none exists, and to push a severely minority view, (i.e. his alone), that Hicks did not train with al-Qaeda. His ANI report, complete with accusations of sockpuppetry, and of illegal editing are nothing more than cheap strawman/ad-hominem attacks, that do not even deserve a response. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Like Pete points out see this edit as evidence of User:SmithBlue's continual disruptive behaviour. Note the removal of a reference, that he himself asks for, and that reflects the overwhelmingly weighted opinion and observe the reinsertion of the "precious" SMH reference. Note the outright false edit summary of "the reference you supply does not contain the "facts" you claim.", and then draw your attention yet again (fourth time now....) to the passage of the reference;
DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.
And that's just this particular ABC reference, remember, just hit any reference in this article at random and see if anyone is in doubt about Hicks and his training admission. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 08:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like SmithBlue has disengaged with his "discussion" without ever actually addressing a single point, while having all of his questions answered. I'll ask SmithBlue one more time. Are you aware that there are multiple sources that deal with accusation we are talking about? Have you read WP:WEIGHT? Do you understand what we mean when applying WP:WEIGHT? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Skyring and Prester John, lets be clear what you are arguing about.
My view
Prester John edited to present the following material;
The source supplied (smh: US charges David Hicks) presents allegations and accusations against Hicks. It does not present them as proved facts or as being admitted to by Hicks.
Prester John's edit above violates WP:NOR, which states "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.", as the source given does not verify the information in his edit.
Prester John's edit above also breaches WP:BLP which states "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Presenting allegations and accusatons as fact or as admitted is neither neutral nor factual.
Prester John's edit above also breaches WP:NOR "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." The material in Prester John's edits was not verifiable in the sources cited.
Prester John had made very similar edits prior which had the same flaws:
Prester John continued to insert these misrepresenting edits after another editor (me, SmithBlue) had challenged them: (diffs showing challenges)
In addition I had entered into discusion on both Prester John's talk page (archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations), and here on this page, challenging these edits of Prester John. Prester John continuing to insert these edits breached WP:VER which states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Prester John did not provide a reliable source for material that had been challenged.
In addition Prester John continued with these edits knowing that they were disputed and did not have consensus support.
SmithBlue ( talk) 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I also point out that the source Pete cited [2] (Control order placed on David Hicks), trying to excuse your series of misrepresenting edits, leaves unverified still, information contained in your edits. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I watched the video to see this, and I can't find it anywhere in the video. Any thoughts?-- Lopakhin ( talk) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims ..." - can someone who has watched the video re-word this so that we're describing, rather than promoting, Hicks' POV? Andjam ( talk) 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've watched the video again and it's not there, so I've commented it out. If someone's got the right citation, please provide it.-- Lopakhin ( talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Pls discuss here what is better included in the article lead about circumstances of detention. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Great to see that this issue is so easily resolved. 2006 "the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." cite [ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Syllabus, pg. 4., point 4.] SmithBlue ( talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) That makes no sense. If the charges were invalid then they would not have proceeded to the stage where Hicks entered a guilty plea. -- Pete ( talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How about "after five years detention without valid charge[1] by the United States government as an illegal enemy combatant," —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think you quite see the problem. Having a confusing lead isn't a good thing. I'll restore it to the last consensual version and we can discuss the wording here and find a good way of saying it. I think that the length of detention and the fact that the process was thrown out by the court are both very important here, but misleading or confusing our readers is not what we should be doing. -- Pete ( talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources we have show that the length of Hicks' detention without trail were as great an issue as his conviction. If you can find a better way to include it I am happy to work with you. SmithBlue ( talk) 10:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I've restored the lead to the last version where we had consensus. Please do not edit war over this - gain consensus before changing it back to a contentious wording. I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history. If you are in the dark, may I earnestly suggest that you review the past months of discussion, and you will be illuminated with the various points made by your fellow editors. It is a waste of everyone's time to have someone new come in, ignore a careful consensus, and have to go through the same arguments over and over again. -- Pete ( talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just been through the archives. I can find nothing that bears directly on this matter. Please show your fellow editors the diffs to support your statement above; "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history." By producing these diffs now we can save other editors time. SmithBlue ( talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would improve the lead if it explicitly stated the charge that he was convicted of. Other ideas? SmithBlue ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Also "suspicion of terrorism" does not describe the US govs mind/stated purpose/beliefs. (As in the US government did not? hold him on "suspision of terrorism") Memory says that he was being held as an "illegal enemy combatant". What would be better from the sources available? SmithBlue ( talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually think "suspicion" is appropriate. In legal terms, was he not a suspect of a terrorism-related offence until such time as he was charged (or even right up until a conviction and sentence were handed down)? Also, the article already mentions elsewhere in the lead that Hicks was "designated an illegal enemy combatant". -- Brendan [ contribs ] 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask everyone to cool it with the edit warring, please? We seem to be flipping between two versions of the lead - one which has remained stable for a while, and a fresh one which includes the "without valid charge" wording. My feeling is that we need, in the lead, to make some mention of the long time Hicks spent in GB, because that's what brought him to such prominence, and we should also note that the military process was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court (which naturally added to the delay). However, I feel that the fresh version leans too far towards the "innocent victim of U.S. torture" view.
It is true that he was detained for five years, and that the original charges were found to be part of a flawed process, but that isn't telling the whole story, and it can give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges.
I'm keen to find some wording which will satisfy all parties as to accuracy and fairness. -- Pete ( talk) 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that DEM would rather edit war without discussion (whilst asking others to talk it over!), so I'd like to invite my fellow editors to participate in finding an acceptable wording.
Sources and wikilinks aside (and thanks for that, SmithBlue), the only difference is the inclusion of the phrase "without valid charge" and the deletion of "for involvement with terrorism". I think that the five years needs to be explained, but realistically, he was detained for involvement with terrorism, not because the U.S. decided to just hold him without valid reason or charge.
Comments? Proposals? -- Pete ( talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"...give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges."
Looking at the lead, the third paragraph goes into some detail on the first set of charges and the process. Perhaps we can insert the references supplied by SmithBlue in here and leave the first paragraph as it stands? -- Pete ( talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete, this article is about DH not ObL. DH was not classified by US as POW. His captors classified him as "illegal enemy combatant". The US definition of "illegal enemy combatant", terrorist and terrorism is NOT widely accepted. Hicks was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism. Yes? What actions of Hicks were found to be "material support for terrorism"? This should be in the article and the lead. When Hicks trained with AlQ was it know to be a terrorist organisation? When did the US name it as a terrorist organisation? SmithBlue ( talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I think you and Lester are soapboxing, not writing an encyclopaedia. Do you have anything that is actually useful and productive? -- Pete ( talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hicks is notable primarily because of the controversy of his detention and the unorthodoxy of the subsequent legal process. He is not actually noted for any particular act of terrorism.
Some of the main controversies of his detention include:
For this article to be at all reasonable in reflecting all significant points of view the lead paragraph must give adequate weight to the very widely held and supported view that Hicks detention was first and foremost controversial. Recent edits by User:Skyring tend to de-emphasise the controvesy of Hicks detention and give weight to the view that his detention was justified which is by no means a universally held view.
Wm ( talk) 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This assessment made by WM is not correct. Hicks is notable primarily because he is white and he is a Westerner. There are still many terrorists still in detention today who were captured at the exact same time as Hicks, and are yet still in Gitmo where Hicks used to be. Nobody cares about them, There are no petitions for them, No one demands their release, No one is concerned about their "justice", No one even knows the name of a single one them, (Geo Swan excepted of course), yet they have the exact same circumstances and have been held even longer without trial. To clarify another falsehood stated above by WM the charges that were initially placed upon Hicks in 2004 were ruled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme court, this decision was however overturned by the appeals court. In the meantime, the Bush administration cottoned on to the fact that war had moved into the courts. They had already changed tact by this time and codified laws ( Military Commissions Act of 2006) which ultimately nailed Hicks. He was lucky to squirm out when the judge preformed a back room deal with Hicks' defense without telling the prosecutor.
To bleat excessively about how "highly controversial" this all was is adding to much weight, because in essence the only thing that is controversial is that Hicks received a trial when many others did not, simply because he is white. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Hicks "material support of terrorism" can be gauged by the absence of information on what acts he was found to have commited constituting "material support of terrorism". Nada-zero. Notability of details of detention/trails is clear from content and volume of sources on such. Pete seems to be promoting an uncommon view of DH. SmithBlue ( talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I don't think I've commented on that phrase at all, actually. Perhaps you are confused. If you have specific wording on anything controversial, please raise it here for general discussion and agreement. -- Pete ( talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a whole glut of references for the plea bargain entered into by Dawood in this section of the article here Let's start with reference number 98 here and I quote from the reference;
"Hicks...pleaded guilty for attending Al-Qaeda training camps and volunteering to fight in support of the Taliban regime."
"Hicks agreed to withdraw allegations he had been abused at the hands US personnel"
I think it is time to implore people to thoroughly read the David Hicks article before making any more comments, claims of "I don't see this in the article" are ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time! Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Material contained only in references is not usually considered to be "in an article". Your criticisms are misplaced. See above for time being wasted. SmithBlue ( talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In his pre-trial agreement DH acknowledges and agrees "that I am an alien unlawful enemy combatant, as defined by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Title 10, United States Code, Section 948 (c)." [5]. However Unlawful combatant reads "Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[34] which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely. The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants"."
and confusingly
"In the first military commissions to be held since that faced by Hicks, the judges dismissed the charges against Omar Khadr and Salim Ahmed Hamdan because of a technicality. They had been classified as "enemy combatants" instead of "illegal enemy combatants". Under the Military Commissions Act, passed by the US Congress last year, only prisoners deemed as "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the commissions." [6]
Anyone got US gov sources describing Hicks' classification? SmithBlue ( talk) 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Could any editor who objects to the proposed wording please indicate the precise reason for the objection below? It is my belief that this wording states all the key essential facts about Hicks' notability. Could those who support the wording please indicate their support. Thanks.
David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who was detained for five years in highly controversial circumstances by the United States government at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. After initially being held without charge, he was ultimately prosecuted for "providing material support for terrorism" under a specially constituted U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006 to which he entered a plea bargain and became the first and only Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted by the commission or by any other legal process.
Wm ( talk) 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I approached Skyring on his talk page to continue this negotiation but he has refused. I would like to invite Skyring again to continue this negotiation and propose a way forward so that the several editors here can have their concerns about this article recognized. If desired, we could seek mediation from a third party. Editors will be aware that I have also raised a Request for Comment. Thanks. Wm ( talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a broad agreement from three editors in this discussion that the proposed wording will be an improvement. One editor has noted an opinion against this majority view, but he has not offered any alternative way forward. As there is no compromise proposal put forward, I will apply the proposed wording to the article.
Please note the Reverting page of the Editor Handbook. It includes the following guidelines :
WP:EW states: Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits.
I would request that any user who is not happy with this edit does not revert it, but instead adopts the constructive path of editing the page further or discussing any problems here. Wm ( talk) 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"In essence, US authorities have now conceded that David Hicks’ alleged activities in Afghanistan in 2001 were not illegal at that time." concludes the President of the Australian Law Council in an open letter to Australian Senators. [7] The present DH lead accepts the US govs definition of terrorism which includes training with Al Qaeda even when such activities were legal at the time or anyone fighting with the Taliban. This definition of terrrorism is not widely accepted and is POV and should be noted as such in this article. SmithBlue ( talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ex post facto law#Australia says that the Australian constitution does not prohibit retrospective legislation, and that Malcolm Fraser's government enacted retrospective legislation. Also, do you have a citation from a reliable source that the French resistance would be considered terrorists (not merely illegal enemy combatants), or is that your own original research? Andjam ( talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention?
There is a disagreement between some editors regarding the article lead paragraphs. Some editors believe that the current wording of the article lead does not give adequate weight to the controversy and legal details of the Hicks case. It is desired by this group to add some details of the extent and reason for the controversy; considered by some to be a major part of Hicks notability. Others oppose adding any detail about the extent and nature of the controversy, saying it is irrelevant to the biography of Hicks.
Please refer to discussions above Hicks' notability and Opening par proposed wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention? The fact that the very first sentence makes a clumsy point to tell us how "highly controversial" the circumstances were, then a reader's initial response to that question would be "no". We should show, not tell, the reader. But, moving on from that that plunker of prose in the first sentence, the this rough order and layout was actually OK in my mind.
The only other question I have is whether there is a reason the controversy over the Howard Govt's handling of the case is not in the lead - ie, the accusations of apparent disinterest/abandonment (for want of better words)? Indeed, is there mention in the article body? -- Merbabu ( talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
All, I have a few ideas on how to maybe get some resolution on this thing – I’ve written a few tricky leads in my time of which I’m quite, at the risk of sounding corny, proud (2 FA’s, and 2 GA’s with quite a bit of contentious material in each). Later tonight I hope. All I suggest in the meantime is that we don’t do any more mass roll backs or radical updates, and we quit commenting on editors or the manner of contribution, etc. Leave our own POV’s at the door, and accept that we will not have the article that we’d write on our own website – yes, basic stuff, but so often forgotten. -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of POV as to whether Al Qaeda is a terrorist group as of 2001. The Washington Post describes AQ as a terrorist group in this article, and this article was presumably written before the legislation referred to above. If I do more research, I would almost certainly find an article predating 2001.
Maybe it was legal for David Hicks to train with AQ, but that doesn't mean that AQ isn't a terrorist organisation. Andjam ( talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware Hicks did nothing that could be called a terrorist act. Spying on the U.S. embassy would probably be if he had entered the grounds to do it but he never did that. Training in terrorist related skills does not make you a terrorist either as i'm sure most special forces train in the exact same skills. Being ignorant, naive and an idiot is about all we can claim with any certainty. Hicks control order is believed by most Australians to be a knee jerk reaction and totally unnneccesary. BTW, you can get a control order without being involved with terrorism to a serious degree. There was a documentary on ABC last night about Australian women who married Arabs. Two had control orders so severe they both eventually immigrated from Australia to Africa (because of the order no other country would take them). One recieved the order because her husband was "suspected" of supporting terrorism (he raised money for an Islamic charity, was arrested but found not guilty), the other recieved the order because her husband was in al Qaida before 911 (although she moved back to Australia and they had not seen each other in 7 years it was feared she might contact him). The government goes over the top with everything. Wayne ( talk) 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether a or not a person is a "terrorist", can be to a large extent POV. This is noted in the Wikitionary entry for terrorist. That is why the current DH lead paragraph is POV. Whatever Hicks has or has not done, there is a debate in the community about the extent to which he is a terrorist, as well as a debate about how he was detained outside normal legal process. The word describes the people who committed the Bali atrocity completely and unambiguously. No-one will argue it. I don't think the case of Hicks is nearly as straightforward. Wm ( talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the above, it is clear that calling DH a terrorist is controversial. Any statements in the article for or against must be labelled as opinion and the source identified, "George Bush stated that Hicks is a fangerous Terrorist. Terry Hicks alleged that his son was a merry little chap who would never ever be a terrorist. Truly ruly."
However, there seems to be only a couple of editors who oppose stating that he was involved with terrorism. That is why the current DH lead paragraph is POV, says one, whom I suspect of being Terry Hicks, due to coincidence of expressed opinions. -- Pete ( talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No one has claimed Hicks was a tourist so to use that term as reason to revert is bad faith. Please try to be NPOV and avoid OR. Found some interesting stuff. All members of al Qaeda actually have to sign an employment contract and Hicks never did. An admission by the DoD intelligence service that Hicks refused to be a terrorist when al Qaeda asked him. An admission by DoD that while Hicks may have trained with al Qaeda, he fought for the Taliban. And there is the case of Jack Thomas. Thomas also trained alongside Hicks in Afghanistan. Unlike Hicks Thomas was paid by al Qaeda. Unlike hicks Thomas admitted he was willing to fight the US after the invasion. Unlike Hicks he remained with al Qaeda after the fall of the Taliban and was in an al Qaeda safe house when he was caught in 2003. Unlike Hicks, Pakistan returned him to Australia where he was charged, tried, convicted of two charges of receiving money from a terrorist organization and acquitted of two charges of working for al Qaeda. He appealed and both convictions were overturned and he was released. This tells us Australian law does not consider Hicks a terrorist. Wayne ( talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a minority of editors who are using the stand-over tactic of reverting (the edit war) to push a particular point of view in this article. Reverting should only be used for absolute and obvious vandalism. I call upon the community to watch out for those who stand over the article with finger poised on the revert button, attempting to obliterate other editors contributions seconds after they are made. Reverting is being used as a way to bypass discussion, by deleting content before the community has a chance to see it or comment on it. Reverting is a cancer that is seriously undermining this article. Lester 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about this guy, right? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Skyring has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on David Hicks. Wm ( talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Some editors here seem unable to understand what I mean when I talk about the "Hicks as innocent tourist" view. I think they know very well, but let me spell it out. There is a view that Hicks was a dangerous terrorist and he was locked up for the good of humanity and he derserved everything he got and now that he's free he could strike again. This is the dangerous terrorist view, and as I have repeatedly noted, it is not one to which I subscribe. But some here do.
Then there is the view that Hicks was just being a tourist or a Muslim pilgrim and the evil USA locked him up and tortured him for five years for no good reason. I do not subscribe to this view either, but it seems that some do, judging by their attempts to keep on watering down the facts. Regarding my edit to the lead para, I have removed the words "accused of", because while that is true and factual, it is not the whole truth. He admitted to involvement with terrorism, and he pled guilty to that specific charge. This does not make him a terrorist, as some here seem to think, but it certainly moves his involvement with terrorism beyond the "accused of" stage. -- Pete ( talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hicks was not captured for involvement in terrorism. He was captured more or less as a POW, or as the US put it, an enemy combant, whatever that is. The introduction had left the impression that Hicks was detained for terrorism, but that conflates the Government rhetoric about "war on terrorism" and the plea bargain to the initial capture in athe war against Afghanistan. Trishm ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Would "combat training" be better than "military training"? Andjam ( talk) 12:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I made the change to the first sentence. [11] There seemed to be enough editors from different opinions who thought it was an improvement. It now reads:
I swapped "military training" for "combat training" as suggested above - I think that is fine. Also, i removed the word "ruling" from in front of of "Taliban", but I'm not sure about it. It might be important to show somehow that the taliban was in power at the time. or maybe not? -- Merbabu ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
After reading the above discussion, I made this change. The Taliban were referred to as "the ruling Taliban" often enough in media coverage (Google it), and this phrasing neatly alludes to their control of the country without making unneeded (for this article) commentary either way about their legitimacy. Also, the Taliban article describes their former Afhgan presence as a "regime", which is also common terminology in media coverage (again, Google it). I also swapped "combat military training" for "military combat training" (makes more sense, yes?). -- Brendan [ contribs ] 00:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In politics, a regime is the form of government: the set of rules, both formal (for example, a constitution) and informal (common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789. The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term. Informal use of the word usually carries a negative connotation, usually referring to a government considered oppressive or dictatorial, whether it is in power through a consistent application of its constitution or not.
Some users including Prester John ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for example have disputed the use of a couple of paragraphs in the article. I have stated in my edit summaries that it isn't a particularly good idea simply to blank such paragraphs; rather to improve their quality. Would user:Prester John and others like to make their suggestions below and see if we can establish a clear consensus to proceed -- Capitana ( talk) 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection of recent article history, - would both Capitana and Prester John quit edit warring, otherwise admin assistance can be requested to force you to quit. Everyone else here with different opinions can manage civil (if a little tense) conversation here without edit warring, except for you two - don't spoil it for the rest. From where I sit, you're both looking like hypocrites so cut it out or go away. thanks. Sorry to be so direct, but it's spoiling it for the rest of us. -- Merbabu ( talk) 12:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please show what paragraphs you think are missing? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
RFC/USER discussion concerning Skyring
Please note that I have raised a request for comment concerning Skyring's conduct on Wikipedia particularly in regard to his behaviour on the John Howard article and also on the this article.
The RFC entry is at listed here. At the moment it is listed under Canidate pages as it will be need to be certified by at least one other user before it becomes a valid Rfc. I ask any user who has been involved in the recent disputes here or at John Howard and shares my concern that Skyring's behaviour is disruptive of a proper consensual process, and would like to certify the Rfc, please do so by signing at the appropriate spot. If no other user signs within 48 hours the Rfc will not be accepted. Once certified, other users are encouraged to endorse the case put forward or endorse Skrying's statement once he has a chance to make one or make their own statement regarding the dispute.
The actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Skyring. Also see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users and Wikipedia:RFC/How_to_present_a_case Wm ( talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts as to how to appropriately include this? -- Brendan [ contribs ] 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The section deleted 4 times was;
A document produced within Guantánamo Bay and signed by Feroz Abbasi, but later repudiated by him in a second signed statement, alleged that Hicks had said that he wanted to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews," "crash a plane into a building," and "go out with that last big adrenaline rush," that "if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' etc. [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out". Abbasi repudiated all the claims and described the allegations against Hicks as "ludicrous in their content". [4]
The information now missing his Dawoods quotes about "going back to Australia to rob and kill Jews" and "going into a building to kill Jews" etc..... All referenced and relevant to Dawood. Prester John ( talk) 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
These are the opening paragraphs of the source...
Interesting. What do people think? -- Merbabu ( talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Leigh Sales' book Detainee 002, which I believe is a reasonably highly regarded account of the David Hicks story (Scrupulously fair - Ray Martin) says that:
Critics of Bush's war tactics, including human rights activist, civil libertarians and left-wing opponents, claim that Guantanamo Bay is the Gulag of our time, established by an evil cabal of ultra-conservatives within the Bush administration who made a calculated decision to use September 11 to expand presidential power.
— page 5
She then says:
Hardliners in the Bush administration and the Howard government, along with conservative commentators, promote an alternate view. They hold that David Hicks was a serious threat who had to be held at Guantanamo indefinately because there was no alternative.
— page 6
These are the two sides of the spectrum of positions on David Hicks, but she says:
The reality is far more complicated and nuanced than either of these conventional positions, which tend to reduce issues to political point scoring. The line between good and bad is blurred, and who is right and who is wrong remains unclear.
— page 6]
She quotes a senior Australian government official:
Both sides seek to present the other as caricature. Those who support the administration are fond of characterising the other side as soft on terror, unpatriotic, lacking understanding of the the new threat. Those on the other side portrays the Bush administration as trammeling all over the law, not caring about human rights. Hicks and Guantanamo are issues around which decent people can disagree. But neither side will accept that the other opinion is decent or rational
— pages 6-7
This is just the beginning of unraveling this difficult and highly contentious issue. I believe that the article as it stands has not resolved these tensions in a dispassionate and neutral way. A POV flag is justified while either side have misgiving about the way the case has been presented here and I don't believe that we can fix this easily or quickly. We know that there have been disputes on the article and I for one, do not feel that they have been adequately resolved. I will therefore restore the POV tag and ask editors to indicate below whether they support that the article is deficient in this regard. Thanks. Wm ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the first time that Colonel Morris Davis has alleged political interference, but in today's The Australian he goes further, with explosive allegations that the case was rushed through prematurely to suit the whims of the Howard government. The reference is currently used in the intro in a format that can be reused later in the article (without adding the entire reference again). It's startling that both the prosecution and the defense allege similar interference. Lester 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"But as The Australian reported from Guantanamo Bay at the time of the deal, Colonel Davis had no knowledge of it - it was struck behind his back between Major Mori and convening authority Susan Crawford, who deputised Brigadier General Tom Hemingway to strike the deal."
I came across the "Todo" template and added it to the top of the article. I have seeded it with a few items that in my view may benefit from attention. I believe that the article is currently extremely sub-standard and convoluted and needs major work. Because the article is highly contentious, small changes often seem to require an inordinate amount of work. The todo list may be a useful tool in building an understanding between different views and gaining a sense of perspective of the extent of any perceived deficiencies. Wm ( talk) 04:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, people. I noticed you were looking for some help to come to a consensus on this article. I wouldn't mind helping you out. If everyone involved is ok with me mediating the problem, we could get going. What you should know about me, is that I am currently involved in formal mediation myself. The parties listed for mediation are
SmithBlue (
talk ·
contribs),
Prester John (
talk ·
contribs) and
Skyring (
talk ·
contribs). Could you three, and anyone else who wants to participate in mediation indicate here if they accept or decline my role as cabalist mediator?
Martijn Hoekstra (
talk)
21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure Why not. Prester John ( talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in. SmithBlue ( talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A number of quotations have been added to the article – their number and size are in my opinion excessive. I am not questioning the validity of the new content; but from a stylistic point of view, large volumes of quotes break up an article, making it awkward. This and this explain it better than I do.
My suggestion is to chose the single most important quote and use it in block mode. The others, should be paraphrased and worked into the prose. It’s not a matter of removing content, rather one of presenting it in a manner more appropriate to an encyclopaedia.
I am tempted to slap on a {{quotefarm}} tag in the relevant section, but would like to get the opinion of a few more editors first. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed last year and no consensus for inclusion resulted. Prester John has sought to to reinsert this poorly attributed ("some former high school mates", who?), tabloid-style claim (article describe it as Satanism but is that verifiable or simply a second-hand extrapolation?) which I have reverted for those reasons. Further discussion, taking into account past discussions and views of other editors, is most welcome. -- Brendan [ contribs ] 06:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss what goes into the article. My view, at present, is that "describe him as "dabbling in drugs and Satan" as a teenager" falls below "notable" for this topic. So far it looks like a report of ex-schoolmates describing a low socio-economic level teenage rebel/failing student with a bit of self-mutilation - nothing remarkable to my eyes. Applying "experimenting with satanism", which better describes Faustus and Crowley, to DH seems POV. A possible originating source for this stuff is 9MSN magazine style program "Sunday" - "His old school mates from Salisbury High say he was a heavy drinker and cannabis smoker who would use a compass to scratch satanic symbols into his arm."[ [12]]
If anyone can show that this description by "old school mates" is, in this case, notable and verifiable to BLP standards, then I will support inclusion. SmithBlue ( talk) 06:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way forward would be to get a few more people to look at this, either via RfC or the Aussie noticeboard. Andjam ( talk) 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The David Hicks#Repatriation and release section of the article currently details Hicks's movements since his release, identifying the suburb he has moved to and where he is required to regularly report to police. Does this accord with WP:BLP? Are those inclusions encyclopedic? 04:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think publicising the whereabouts/location of a controversial figure, seen as violent and dangerous by many and who arouses anger in many, significantly increases the risk of harm. BLP says "Do no harm". I think DH's location is better not included in WP. SmithBlue ( talk) 07:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
smh
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Time
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).