Talk:David Hicks/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Article still a defamation risk

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)

I've refined the wording in the lead about "al Qaeda-sponsored" to "undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps", on the basis that the sources do support that wording (from the US allegations to David Hicks' comments about meeting Osama bin Laden at the camps). --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Case That Never Dies

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)

Richard Ackland is not the first one to write that the Hicks case was a miscarriage of justice fraught with political interference. There is already a considerable body of opinion along these lines. That's why it's always good to state both sides of the issue, including what the US and Australian governments claimed (attributed to them) as well as what the opponents claim (attributed to them). --Lester 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are lots of opinions floating around, which is why I am suggesting that editors should wait for the opinions to dissipate, and facts to come to the fore, before going too mad with including things in the article. I don't think it is sufficient to add two conflicting opinions to an article and call it balanced. Better to remove the layer of opinion and lay the facts bare. Here I am guessing that the facts will take some time to appear in the face of obstruction from those who would rather they not be known. John Dalton 02:21, 26 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)

Prester John deleted the abovementioned information from the article lead in November 2007 citing style grounds. I have reinstated a minimal version of it in the lead and shifted the bulk of the original referenced content into the article body, positioned appropriately with the resignation of Moe Davis under an appropriately renamed subsection title "Allegations of political manipulation". --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of View

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)

Thoughts

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)

Criminal Info box

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)

My thought is a "Criminal Infobox" has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed from every article. "Criminal" is a subjective judgement. Wikipedia articles should state the facts and let the reader make their own judgement about criminality. John Dalton (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As the removing editor, I agree SmithBlue & John Dalton. No Criminal infobox. It's little more than a POV sticker. Let the article tell the full story. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SMH Afganistan allegations

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)

Poorly evidenced "theory of mind" there. I reverted back because the source does not support the "facts" you use it to support (ie - "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.") It is very important that your edits are based on what is actually in the source. SmithBlue (talk) 02:54, 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)

The challenge here is to provide accurate sources for material we present in Wikipedia. I would be surprised if you can't find a reputable source. And you can legitimately include what you find with a reputable source.SmithBlue (talk) 05:42, 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)

This discusion is about accurately reflecting the content of sources. I have replied further on your talk page. SmithBlue (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, SmithBlue. Prester, handwaving won't change the fact that your ABC quote above says nothing of "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods." These were allegations by U.S. military prosecutors. The sources that mention those activities all attribute them thusly. Please refrain from rewriting history. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:26, 15 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)

As stated before, the issue here is accurately representing the content of the source cited. You have continued to misrepresent the source. And seem continue to think that a general arguement about AlQ training has some bearing on you continuing misrepresenting this source. I am surprised and disturbed that Pete appears to be supporting your apparent view that accurately representing sources is unnecessary. I also point out that you knew that these edits were disputed and yet continued to edit for its inclusion without entering into discusion. And that you did offer another source for your edits but misrepresented the content of it too. SmithBlue (talk) 03:32, 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)

If my experienced, fellow editors Pete and PrestorJohn cannot see the importance of accurately representing a source listing serious allegations in a BLP I feel at loss. How to communicate to them that accuracy is primary? How can Pete's and PrestorJohn's fellow editors have any confidence in their edits if continually misrepresenting a source is seen by them to be adequatley defended agianst by saying that the material is contained in other sources? SmithBlue (talk) 04:59, 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)

Ummm.... I have not disputed that many reliable sources show Hicks training with AlQ.

The convention, that the source cited includes the content represented, is not a optional whim. I am amazed that you apparently do not understand this. WP:VER depends on editors accurately reflecting content of the sources cited. SmithBlue (talk) 06:31, 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)

You say you understand it but then show a diff in which you again misrepresented the content of a source. I suggest you seek advice from an editor who you trust. My communication to you here seems to have been ineffective. SmithBlue (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue's problem is not with the sources, per se. It is with the source cited. But, as PJ notes, SB has deleted other sources. He keeps the source that says "allegedly" and then insist that we follow this one source, ignoring all others. Is this a roundabout way of saying that if we load the article up with good sources stating that DH trained in various skills with al-Qaeda, he'll remove all those sources, and keep the one that he can whine about? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy and relevance Pete? - please show diffs, relevant to this matter, in which I delete sources. Also please show diffs in which I "keep" SMH source and then "insist that we follow this one source, ignoring all others". This diff shows something different happening. SmithBlue (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you address the point I raise, please? You seem to have constructed a controversy where none should exist, based on the fact that one source uses the word "allegedly" where others of equal value do not. You use this as an excuse to edit war:

• 12:20, 3 February 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 18:48, 1 February 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 13:08, 13 January 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 12:16, 13 January 2008 insert "allegedly"

There may be others before this, but I think we can see a pattern here. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 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)

I feel comfortable relying on the intelligence of an administrator to address all the relevant issues raised in this discussion. Apologies to non-involved editors for taking up so much space. I'm new at challenging editing in this manner and initially thought discusion could be fruitful. SmithBlue (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for intervention by an admin, who are presumably as intelligent as anybody else here. This looks like a content dispute and I feel comfortable removing any "allegedly" words you might put in about Hicks training with al-Qaeda. We have enough references for him training to gain various combat skills. Your behaviour has been disruptive, engaging in needless edit-warring. When asked to explain yourself, you fall back on nitpicking and evasion. Please try to work as part of an editing team. We have editors of all political views here but with a bit of honest discussion we can usually work something out if there is a genuine problem with the article. --Pete (talk) 12:03, 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)

The answers to your questions are no, yes and yes. I have not read any source that details Hicks admitting to specifically "guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods, and an advanced course on surveillance." I am aware that Skyring/Pete states he has found a source with the same or similar staements within the past few days, however I have not yet read it.

Now a question for you. Did the source that you had cited at the end of "Hicks admitted he "attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan, learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods." say admitted or alleged? (diff of latests SMH edit) SmithBlue (talk) 00:12, 6 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;

"Hicks admitted he "attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan, learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.ref name= smh" [diff 00:43, 3 February 2008]

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:

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

Prester John continued to insert these misrepresenting edits after another editor (me, SmithBlue) had challenged them: (diffs showing challenges)

• 12:20, 3 February 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 18:48, 1 February 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 13:08, 13 January 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 12:16, 13 January 2008 insert "allegedly"

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.

How do you see this issue? I also seek the views of my fellow editors on this matter.

SmithBlue (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Prester John (and Pete for that matter) being up to his usual tricks, good to see he's been blocked for disruptive editing tactics. I know I, for one, have been extremely discouraged from contributing to wikipedia to any significant extent these days because of behaviour such as this. It is ideological and adversarial, which is not what wikipedia is about, is it?

And on a similar topic, I would question if it is appropriate for PJ to link from his user page to his extremist political blog (and in my opinion racist when you see his entry on Sorry day, he has even proclaimed "the new communist Government of Australia", lol). Is this extremist opinion piece appropriate to be linked from wikipedia, even on a userpage... Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input on Prester Johns misrepresenting edits. I can understand your discouragement all to well, feeling similar myself.

I do ask that only issues directly related to Prester John's misrepresenting edits be discussed in this section. SmithBlue (talk) 07:58, 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)

Terry Hicks reads poetry in video

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)

It looks like a hefty download and a one-hour plus running time. I feel disinclined to load it on my iPod. Do we have a reliable summary of what is actually on the video? From what I've seen of Terry Hicks, it's unlikely that he'd publish anything that showed his son to be anything other than pure and innocent, though of course he'd jump at the chance for media exposure. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The plots of the Jews

"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)

detention: "without valid charge by the US gov under suspicion of involvement" or "by the US gov for involvement"

Pls discuss here what is better included in the article lead about circumstances of detention. SmithBlue (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we can show a competent court dismissing the charges, then we cannot say that they were invalid. Legal opinion, untested in court, is not fact, and we should not mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that quoting legal opinion is valid. Yes, the United States convicted him for terrorism. However, I think it is reasonable to quote the myriad of legal heavyweights that say the Military Commission system is flawed, unjust and invalid. It's such a controversial case that both sides must be given space in the article, especially in the intro. Sentence #3 should briefly outline the gist of that criticism, relating to the considerable legal opinion that the charges and conviction were unjust.Lester 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion must be clearly labelled as such. It's just like a legal opinion that someone is innocent - it carries no legal weight, and the fact of innocence or guilt lies on judge and jury. Or the defendant, if he pleads guilty to the charges. You do understand this, don't you? --Pete (talk) 04:26, 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)

As it explains in the article, after the first charges were found unlawful (see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) a new law was passed and new charges were brought in Feb 2007 under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Hicks pleaded guilty and was convicted under this new law. So from his time of imprisonment in 17 December 2001 till February 3, 2007 makes 5 years without valid charge. I suggest that continuing to edit the article is disruptive if you have not yet read the it. The lead especially summarises the content of the article. Please read then article discuss your concerns here and then edit if you see fit from a place of knowledge. SmithBlue (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see from your latest edit summ that you consider something to be "opinion". Please detail here exactly what that is. The Hamdan source you removed shows that no valid charges were made against Hicks before July 2006 because the set-up was unlawful. Hicks as the article shows was not charged again until Feb 2007. Where is the opinion in this? SmithBlue (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The line which was added by user:SmithBlue (and quickly deleted) about Hicks being held for years without a valid charge was useful information. Maybe the sentence structure could have been reworded, but the information was factual, referenced and important, and should be included somewhere in the intro. Lester 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that. But giving our readers the impression that he was just an innocent swept up by the military and tortured into confessing is giving an incorrect impression, and SmithBlue's wording leans towards that. A reader might think that he was held for five years without any charge at all. It's important to note that the original system was thrown out by the court, but how to summarise this in the lead? --Pete (talk) 00:53, 24 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)

Please spell out exactly what you see as confusing. As in: show me the possible mistaken readings you see in the text. Without this info you leave all other editors in the dark waiting on you - which aint gonna work. SmithBlue (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I dont see how a reader could get "the impression that he was just an innocent swept up by the military and tortured into confessing" or "might think that he was held for five years without any charge at all" from the current wording of the lead. "Under the alias Muhammed Dawood (the latter being the Arabic form of "David"), Hicks undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.", is part of the lead and is unmistakable in terms of "innocent". The newly added "The intial charges of 2004 were dropped when the military commissions were rulled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006.", addresses the timing of the initial charge.

Strawman. I said that your changes "lean toward" a certain view. I didn't say that you went all the way there, now did I? --Pete (talk) 16:26, 25 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)

The points you make re: "much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history." is best applied to the version you and PresterJohn seek to remove. Suggest we go RfC on this. Unless you have a better wording? SmithBlue (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Further you claim this material on "without valid charge" is not new and imply it has been discussed before. And yet your original objection to it was that it was opinion and you asked rhetorically if the US Supreme Court had ruled against the validity. Now you are claiming all this was previously weighted. You keep changing your story. SmithBlue (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Please go back and review the points made over many months of often heated discussion before diving back in with a match. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 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)

Quite right, SmithBlue. I too would like to see Skyring/Pete justify his assertions about consensus and past discussions also. Those claims are, to my recollection and knowledge, incorrect. Some weeks ago, I styled the wording "without valid charge" because Skyring objected to "without charge". I considered the former an accurate description because the Supreme Court decision did render the original charges invalid (in fact, unconstitutional), as SmithBlue here observes. That is not opinion. It is fact. Whereas, regardless of personal opinions editors may have of Hicks, that pertinent fact about the consierable length of time he was detained without valid/constitutional charge warrants inclusion in the lead. As I recall, various tweaks of that version long held consensus prior to Skyring & PresterJohn's relatively recent tag team to remove it. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

lead: explicitly state the charge on which he was convicted?

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)

Edit warring on lead

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.

1. (Existing) ...after five years detention by the United States government for involvement with terrorism, entered into a plea bargain...
2. (SmithBlue's version) ...after five years detention without valid charge by the United States government as an illegal enemy combatant, entered into a plea bargain...

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)

See 2 sections above for request for diffs showing the consensus you claim exists for this material. Further you are repeatedly inserting "for involvement with terrorism". Please show a official US source that says this was why the US was holding Hicks. (They were doing the holding so its their reason/languaging that counts).

If you can present accurate and well reasoned arguements on this topic your fellow editors will take notice. But to date you edit with much ignorance of basic facts "Only if the charges are or were dismissed by a competent court can we call them invalid. You've got the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid? No? Well, don't presume to force your opinion on our readers,...." (Pete/Skyring)[3], claim "Strawman" when I address the exact 2 scenarios you raised.[4] Without you showing the diffs requested above I will take your claims of consensus to be an instance of WP:Disruptive editing. SmithBlue (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can reasonably accept that the charges laid, both the first set that did not proceed and the second, to which he admitted guilt, are as valid a source as any. Both specified involvement with terrorism. I wouldn't have thought this overly contentious. The charges don't have to be successful for them to be a reason for holding Hicks - an example of such a situation would be a person arrested on charges of murder, held until trial, and then found to be innocent. Innocent or guilty, the reason for holding the accused remains the same. Are you saying that Hicks wasn't held for involvement with terrorism? He was detained for five years for some other reason, maybe? --Pete (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also note that you have returned to edit warring. The version to which you object has the advantage of concensus, even if it is concensus by default because no editors objected enough to change it. I'm happy to find a different wording that we can all live with, and I ask what is so urgent that you must change it immediately? Your preferred version is misleading, as I've noted above, but I think we can find another form of words that addresses your concerns, and I'd like to explore possibilities through discussion and compromise rather than conflict. --Pete (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, am hoping that you come up with the diffs shortly. Working together is based on editors providing accurate information to each other. I hope you see the necessity of this. Your suggestions above on what we can reasonably accept are very far out of line with WP:POLICY, including [[[WP:VER]], WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Still you may be able to appeal to WP:Ignore all rules and WP:What "Ignore all rules" means. Good luck. SmithBlue (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Either you don't understand the points made or you are just being difficult. What, precisely, is your objection to "involvement with terrorism"? You want to ditch these words, please explain why. --Pete (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There seem 2 main aspects to this case 1. Hicks was in Afganistan got captured and convicted of "material support of terrorism", the other aspect 2. the way the US has acted in this case in terms of international law and US law. "Illegal enemy combatant" was the official US category in which Hicks was placed thereby making detention lawful in the eyes of the US government. "for involvement with terrorism" accepts the US definition of terrorism/terrorist and is therefore POV. (one persons terrrorist is someones elses bad egg is someone elses defender of whatever) Unless we source/cite "for involvement with terrorism" as the POV of the US government. SmithBlue (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So "by the US government for involvement with terrorism" is open to a misinterpretation that WP agrees that Hicks was involved in terrrorism. The hoped for outcome is that WP is saying that the US thought he was involved in terrorism and so detained him. SmithBlue (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's drawing a very long bow indeed to say that Hicks wasn't involved with terrorism. Your argument seems very precious to me. --Pete (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The US government and others obviously thought Hicks was "involved in terrorism", the issue here is whether WP is better speaking for the US government etc or just reporting the facts. Using "illegal enemy combatant" is more accurate and avoids the possible misunderstanding of "for involvement in terrorism." SmithBlue (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about a guy who trained with AlQ, and met ObL face to face several times, offering to perform terrorism-related tasks. There's your involvement with terrorism right there. We don't need the U.S. perspective to justify our stance, and I suggest that any viewpoint that considers ObL not to be a terrorist is a minor one and we need not give it too much space. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph, in this thread expresses a concern that the article:

"...give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges."

For the record Hicks was held, for years, without any charges. He was captured in 2001, and he wasn't charged until 2004. That is years, by any counting.

I've added the allegations in the Summary of Evidence prepared for his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, in September 2004. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, though there may be a certain amount of editorialising in it. Nobody is disputing that Hicks was held for a long time without any charge, though I point out that Prisoners of War typically are not charged with anything at all and, lacking any exchange mechanism, are held for the duration of hostilities. And yes, the initial charges were later found to be part of a flawed process. But to say that he was held for five years without valid charge is to mislead our readers, who might infer from the opening words of the article that he was not charged at all. The third paragraph of the lead gives a more complete picture, and of course, the body of the article goes into considerable detail. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a captor that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention is entitled to keep POWs until hostilities end. There is (1) no obligation to lay charges against them; (2) laying charges against POWs, for actions taken in combat, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Please don't forget that it is official US policy that none of the captives apprehended in Afghanistan is entitled to POW status. Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a normal POW, but not a normal criminal neither. So what? New conflicts make new rules. WW2 wasn't WW1, Korea wasn't WW2, Vietnam wasn't Korea, Gulf War 1 wasn't Vietnam and GW2 wasn't GW1. The fact that Hicks was held for so long was a result of different modes and means of combat, and as we saw, the U.S. was also exploring new legal territory. --Pete (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What has that opinion to do with the matter of writing a factually-verifiable article? Now that we have come full circle, and can see that your commentary about PoWs does not apply to the Hicks case, will you finally acknowledge the plain and simple relevant fact that "Hicks was held, for years, without any charges. He was captured in 2001, and he wasn't charged until 2004"? --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be pretty much what I wrote. I didn't think anyone would have a problem with that, but if you like we can tweak the wording. What I have a problem with is attempts to move the relatively long third paragraph into the first. How many times do we need to say the same thing in what is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

For a start, editors have claimed in the edit summaries (during an edit) that they have consensus. No consensus can be claimed as a result of edit warring. As I write this, the intro is still very one-sided. It gives the US government position. It doesn't provide any details of the criticism from legal authorities around the world which said the process is unfair, the intro doesn't yet state that he was held without charge, and it doesn't mention the public protest movement. Neither side of the debate can't just take over the article for themselves. Both sides must be included, and summed up on the intro. Yes, leave the US government position in place, but also include the opposing viewpoint. That opposing viewpoint is currently not in the intro. Lester 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The intro is muddy and seems to be running away from describing key points about the case; particularly is not clear that the subject was held without charge for several years. There are other deficiencies as noted by Lester. Wm (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, at the end of the first paragraph, the word "criticisms" should be "criticism" (singular) for grammatical reasons. I don't want to edit the article myself while it is in the midst of a war.Lester 09:57, 29 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)

Actually, the only Guantanamo who has been determined to be an "illegal enemy combatant" is Salim Ahmed Hamdan. 772 captives were determined to be "enemy combatants". That is why Peter Brownback and Keith Allred threw out the cases against Hamdan and Omar Khadr last June. Brownback and Allred threw out the cases because Hamdan and Khadr and the other captivese were merely "enemy combatants" and the Military Commissions Act only authorized them to try captives who had been determined to be "illegal enemy combatants"

The DoD rushed to cobble together an appeal procedure. And appealed their rulings. The Appeal Court, surprise, ruled Brownback and Allred had the authority to make the determination themselves as to whether the captives were illegal combatants. Allred determined that Hamdan was an illegal enemy combatant. I repeat none of the other captives have been determined to have been enemy combatants.

Please, everybody, this is a very important distinction. Please don't conflate these two terms. Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hicks' notability

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:

• He was held for a significant period without any charges at all
• It is alleged that he was tortured in detention
• He was charged under a legal system that was ruled unlawful

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)

Yes, I have had similar concerns which I have expressed in earlier discussions. I think there are 2 points of view with David Hicks: 1. The government line that Hicks provided "material support for terrorism", quoting from the charge. 2. The other point of view is that such charges were derived from a flawed legal system. It concerns me if any editor who adheres to one point of view tries to minimise or delete information from the other position. Both can live in this article. Both should live in the intro. We can run the government line verbatim, but the intro must also include the dissenting opinion, and state why there was dissent. Our aim should be to present both the government and the dissenting views. Our aim should not be to make David Hicks look as bad as possible.Lester 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor should our aim be to make him look as good as possible. We should present the facts, and give due weight to opposing minority or extreme opinions, like not much at all, really. Realistically, Hicks himself isn't the story in our article as it stands, and perhaps we should split it into two, one showing biographical details, and the other exploring the controversy of his capture, detention and trial (a more interesting and disturbing article, given the ramifications on justice, freedom, terrorism and the GWBush Government.)

As for specific criticism above, the lead para has only two sentences, one of which is devoted to the controversy of his detention. That seems like "adequate weight" to me. Feel free to suggest refinements to the wording. I'd like to see a version that everyone is happy with, but through discussion rather than edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to note that there may been "critcism", but this is much less meaningful than actually specifying in simple English the main points of those critcisms. An adequate wording would explicitly mention at least the points that I have noted above.Wm (talk) 02:27, 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)

Our personal views are not relevant. What is relevant is that that fact of his detention has been viewed as controversial by many parties and thus was a major news story for several years. Therefore this view must be adequately represented. Your other claims that there is no concern about other inmates are clearly false. e.g. http://www.witnesstorture.org/ Wm (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, this article gives far too much weight to the controversy. That really demands a specific article. May I ask that editors refrain from making inflammatory statements, such as the "clearly false" one above, which goes well beyond what was actually said? --Pete (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out the falsehood of a statement should not be regarded as "highly emotive. I have simply demonstrated that certain unqualified rhetorical claims of PresterJohn are easily shown to be untrue. Wm (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From where I stand, you aren't helping much. The only positive thing you've done is point out that "alias" is an inappropriate word to use. Think like an encyclopaedia editor, please, rather than someone rooting for their team. --Pete (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From where I stand, Wm is helping immensely. Pete, you shouldn't be lecturing about "teams" given your past actions of teaming up with Prester (or which this is another example) to distort and equivocate around the known facts. That's unhelpful. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:18, 11 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)

SmithBlue, you have read the article we are editing haven't you? This part in particular contains a hellava lot of Nada" as you say. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its just that sometimes there is a diffence between what is on the charge sheet and what the court decides the person has actually done. What did the court decide DH had actually done? Not the offense but what actions constituted the crime. I dont see this in the article. SmithBlue (talk) 04:23, 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)

It's very sad that some have reverted to edit warring and incivility. This article really needs external assistance to put it back on track.Lester 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"enemy combatant", "unlawful enemy combatant" or "illegal enemy combatant"

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)

Only three people had been classified by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal at the time Hicks was, David Hicks, Omar Kadir, and Salim Hamdan. All were classified thusly: "The Tribunal’s decision that detainee # is properly classified as an enemy combatant was unanimous....This case is now considered final". This decision was never changed for Hicks. Even this is cloudy because to be an enemy combatant of any type he needs to have legally been a civilian which he was not as he was "a lawful combatant with the consent of the Government of the Day (Taliban)".
While looking for this I found a few notable facts that are not in the artical. 1: During his last trial Hick's chief defense counsel was dismissed by the Judge "because while he agreed to abide by all existent rules, he refused to agree to "all" rules for the tribunal without first knowing what those rules were" (HRW). 2: The FBI certified that redacted evidence not presented "would not support a determination that the detainee is not an enemy combatant". 3: The Australian Constitution prohibits retrospective legislation (1898 Constitution Convention debate Hansard page 1753) so hicks can sue the government for illegal detention for his time in Yatala regardless of his guilty plea in another country. I doubt he will want to rock the boat and complain about any of these points but it just shows how complicated the whole shebang is. Wayne (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening par proposed wording

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)

As a first paragraph in a lead I find it acceptable. If the total lead I find its lack of reference to the controversy over the legality of the charges against DH and the controversy over the circumstances of the plea bargain leave it severely lacking. SmithBlue (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only should the intro mention there was controversy and dissent, it should briefly outline the main points of the opposing argument.Lester 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

user:WM's version (above) is an improvement over what was there before. I agree with SmithBlue's comments above. In addition, I think the first paragraph should give an indication of just how long Hicks was detained without a valid charge. Cheers, Lester 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the material on the charges is contained in the third para of the lead and there is no need to repeat it in the first. Lead sections should be concise, because they function as a summary of the whole article. As this is a biographical article, the lead paragraph should contain key points about the life of the subject, rather than launching a criticism of the U.S. detention process.

While the process richly deserves criticism, that really belongs in an article that is not biographical in nature. This article should only contain facts that are directly relevant to David Hicks. --Pete (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the detention of David Hicks was highly controversial and this is directly relevant to his notability as a biography. Without this controversy he is a person of little note. The reason Hicks was in the news day after day, year after year, was precisely because of the circumstance and process of his detention. As there are several editors here who want to make this change, will you to continue to block it, offer an alternative wording, or offer some other way that we can resolve this? Wm (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Hicks stems from the fact that he was involved with terrorism. He was front page news long before criticism of the process was more than a murmur. Any change which attempts to evade or disguise this fundamental fact is doing our readers a disservice. They come seeking information, not a particular political view. --Pete (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to continue discussion

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)

"Refused"? Is that what you call it? I initiated discussion on this topic, raised several points against the proposed changes and instead of addressing the points raised, comments from other editors were mainly directed towards political discussion rather than writing an encyclopaedia. I point this out, noting that you personally have opted out of valid discussion, and I'm refusing to participate? Sheesh! The fact that I decline to endorse unsatisfactory and unbalanced edits does not mean I withdraw from discussion on improving the article. --Pete (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

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 :

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute
• Do not revert good faith edits

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)

• Make that four editors, Wm. I agree with the wording you propose. Pete is being his typically intractable self. --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You made the change, knowing full well that it has no concensus. I've made my objections to the proposed wording plain. That is not "moving forward". That is disruptive editing. --Pete (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Skyring: I noticed that you changed my comment heading above (diff). Please note Talk Page Guidlines. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. As the comment is signed by me, it should consist of my words only. Do you think you could please change it back to my original wording? Thanks. Wm (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to address the points I raise or are you just interested in arguing? --Pete (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which points do you feel I have not responded to adequately? Wm (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read what I wrote, hmmmm? --Pete (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As you do not like the edit proposed wording above, are you able to propose an alternative set of words that incorporates our concerns that insufficient weight has been given to the controversy of Hicks' detention? Wm (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? Read what I write, address my concerns, we'll get along perfectly fine, maybe find some way to make the article better. --Pete (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your concerns are addressed very well by the version that you have reverted to many times. What is not addressed is the concern of several other editors that the wording you prefer is POV, partly because it highlights a generality (i.e. involvement with terrorism instead of highlighting the facts (e.g. held without charge, held without trial, convicted of 'giving material support to terrorism').

It is understood that you believe that it is undisputed that Hicks was "involved with terrorism" and some agree with you on that point, however this phrase implies a certain level of violence that is not necessarily demonstrated by any reference. Was Hicks involved in a terrorist incident against a civilian population? Has he ever been convicted of a violent crime? There is a view in the circumstances that this phrase is too vague and attempts to extrapolate too much from the known facts.

Not only does your preferred wording highlight a generality, it fails to give satisfactory emphasis to the unorthodox nature of the legal system employed against Hicks. This has been a major news story for several years and the failure to promptly charge and try him was a significant political problem for the Howard Government. There are many such deficiencies in the article and they can never be addressed unless people are allowed to edit the article, something which you seem intent of preventing. The constant reverting over the past weeks to a single fixed wording appears to be a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:EW and I would ask you to consider editing the article constructively or rather than reverting straight away, first attempt to get a response on the talk page for your concerns.

While you have expressed your view many times throughout this talk page and you have stated that you are willing to reach a compromise, there is no indication that you will in fact accept any other wording except that one that you have constantly reverted to. My questions for you are: will you allow other editors to change the lead par, or will you propose a new wording that attempts to address the concern of other editors? (You will note that several suggestions that have been implemented by others over the past weeks have been reverted by you) If not, will you provide any suggestion at all that will allow the lead to be developed from your current wording, instead of endless re-iterating of views on the talk page; or will you volunteer to go into mediation to resolve the deadlock? Wm (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm astonished at your lack of comprehension, to put it kindly. Where on earth did you get the impression that I believed it was undisputed that DH was involved with terrorism? Furthermore, why don't you read the third paragraph of the lead? It is the longest by far. It gives details of the delays. Maybe we need to connect the dots a bit more for those unfamiliar with the case. And to address your final point - I have let alterations to the lead paragraph stand. Not to mention significant changes to the body of the article.

I've explained several times why, precisely, your proposed changes are no good. Why don't you look at what I have written, in context, and address the points raised? --Pete (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks’ alleged activities in Afghanistan in 2001 were not illegal at that time

"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)

Agreed, Smithblue. Good work finding that reference.Lester 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Heres another Law Council source that has many cases showing precedence regarding Hicks etc. Wayne (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead talks of involvement with terrorism, and if anyone thinks that Hick's close involvement with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was not involvement with terrorism, then they are kidding themselves, and worse, trying to mislead our readers for reasons which I cannot understand. I quote from the al-Qaeda article: "Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council." --Pete (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't write what we think is terrorism but what is legally so. AFAIK al-Qaeda was not a designated terrorist organisation when Hicks joined and since the Constitution prohibits retrospective legislation....2+2 does not equal 5. I point out that under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 members of the French Resistance in WW2 are now legally defined as terrorists and illegal enemy combatants even though they were on our side but no one is asking to change their page so you need to use common sense instead of emotion. Wayne (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above, please. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 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)

The statements were made by Gerrit Hlavka who is, I believe, an expert on constitutional and legal rights. He is known mostly for writing books on legal arguments that can be used in courts and legal critiques of High Court decisions. He won a case in 2006 after being arrested for campaigning for people not to vote in the previous federal election after he proved in court it was not a legal election so I'm assuming he knows what he is talking about. Wayne (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Gerrit Hlavka another Daniel Brandt? I couldn't find any mention of him in third-party reliable secondary sources (I came across a primary source at the AEC mentioning him along with Ned Kelly). Checking out google news archive drew a blank. A google search came across blog posts, an AEC primary source, and his own web site. His web site also mentions the blackshirts (the Australian version, not the Italian one). If retrospective legislation is prohibited, I'm sure a slightly more reliable source can be found saying that. Andjam (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if applied retrospectively, at the time the activities were not illegal. Retrospective legislation will always be more controversial than legislation that is passed and enacted in the normal manner. As I recall Howard and Downer et al said many times that Hicks could not be prosecuted for any crime in Australia. Howard said: "If he returns to Australia, because that wasn't a criminal offence at the time it happened, he can't be prosecuted.". [8] Wm (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto law#Australia also says courts have a "strong presumption that they do not apply retrospectively". The High Court decision in Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 ruled that a Bill of attainder was an exception to ex post facto laws and Bill of attainder legislation would be in breach of the Australian Constitution.
High Court ruling:"The distinctive characteristic of a bill of attainder, marking it out from other ex post facto laws, is that it is a legislative enactment adjudging a specific person or specific persons guilty of an offence constituted by past conduct and imposing punishment in respect of that offence. Other ex post facto laws speak generally, leaving it to the courts to try and punish specific individuals....the separation of powers effected by our Constitution would invalidate a bill of attainder on the grounds that it involves a usurpation of judicial power". Wayne (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of case?

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)

That's a major misrepresentation of the situation. More than half of the lead section, including one of the two sentences of the first paragraph, are given over to "the controversy and legal details" of the case. As anybody may see for themselves. In a biographical article, that is more than enough space given over to material not directly related to the subject, especially when there is a more useful article at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. --Pete (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy of Hicks detention is the only thing that justifies a page for him. Not only the lead but the article should devote a majority of space to it and in much more detail than is currently there. Wayne (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you seek to rename the article to something more appropriate? Seems to me you want to use the man to carry an ideological message. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not sufficient for the intro to just say "there was controversy" or "it was controversial". The intro must briefly outline the points as to why there was dissent and controversy. The intro should put forward the government case, followed by the reasons that others thought the legal process was flawed. At present, the reasons for dissent are not properly covered.Lester 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead, which you apparently have never read, goes into sufficient detail, though perhaps we should make more effort to join the dots for those who know little about the case. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 3 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)

Looking at the version mentioned, my criticism is that it belongs to the "Hicks as innocent tourist, framed and tortured by bastard U.S." school. It might not say this explicitly, but that is what it is, and I began my participation in this article by making plain my rejection of such a view, because we have solid sources for Hicks' involvement in terrorism. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm – yeah possibly. I’d like to look closer at all the viewpoints/versions argued over. And I have a few ideas that might help in reaching consensus. Generally, I like to keep leads as factual as possible (ie, the info we all agree on and can’t argue with) for as long as possible, and put the contentious bits towards the end – and make it clear they are contentious. Hopefully, I will be back tonight with more to say/suggest. --Merbabu (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This RfC doesn't seem to have attracted much in the way of disinterested comment. However, you make some good points, Merbabu. In the lead, which is a summary of the article, we should be leaning more to telling, rather than showing. We do a lot of showing later on. And, as I keep on pointing out, the third para of the lead goes into a fair bit of detail over the reasons for controversy.

We should connect the dots a bit more, but not at the cost of bloating out the lead, or skewing the balance. To my mind, there are three major points to be made about DH:

1. He was involved with terrorism
2. He was detained by the U.S.
3. There was strong criticism over the process, mounting with the increasing delay

None of the proposed wordings maintain a balance on these points, --Pete (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your point #1, we can't say he was involved in terrorism. If it was just a normal trial and the accused admitted to the crime, then in a normal situation you could say the accused is guilty. However, this is no normal case, due to the common believe amongst the mainstream legal fraternity that the legal process is flawed. We have the finest legal minds in the land disputing the fairness of the legal process. We have prominent Australians such as entrepreneur Dick Smith disputing it. Hicks himself has a gag order preventing him from speaking, however, his legal team, on his behalf, has stated that the confessionn was forced. Therefore, we must phrase the introduction to say that the US government alleged, or the US government charged Hicks with such an offence. When we say that Hicks confessed, we must also state that his legal team said Hicks was pressured to confess. What we are striving to do is depict both sides of the story, and attribute each claim to its source. Lester 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Get on with you! He was arrested for being involved with terrorism, he was detained for being involved with terrorism, he admitted to being involved with terrorism, he pled guilty to being involved with terrorism, and he is the subject of a control order for being involved with terrorism. We have solid sources for all of this. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Charming POV generalisations. Sources indicate he was arrested under suspicion of involvement with terrorism, he acknowledged he had contact/training with a group later declared as a terrorist organisation, he accepted a plea bargain that he knew was his most immediate ticket out of Guantanamo, and he is the subject of a control order simply because the law and political will permitted it (not because he is a credible risk to society). --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:38, 11 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)

I look forward to seeing your proposals. I'm certainly not inflexible on this, but I will not tolerate any version that seeks to hide the facts - from any perspective. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am here to respond to the Rfc. The guideline Wikipedia:Lead section, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. So, to answer the question Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention?, I'd ask a question back: Is the weight given the controversy in the lead roughly equivalent to the weight of the controversy in the article? Well, it seems not, as the article spends a lot of time on the controversy. Whether or not the article should spend so much time is beyond my understanding of the subject. TableManners^C·U·T 03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is a terrorist group. A reliable source says so.

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)

A newspaper calling it that doesn't make it so. You can go back as far as you like but legally they were not until 2003 in Australia and not much earlier in the US. There is no argument that it is a terrorist organisation, the dispute is whether it was when Hicks joined. I'd say it was and several newspapers did say it but that is OR because we are writing about legal consequences so we have to use the legal view. Wayne (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a newspaper a reliable source? Andjam (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to use it for a legal determination based on it's own opinion. A newspaper can say what it likes and particularly in America the law protects their right to lie when reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do some jurisdictions have ministries of truthers to ban publications that are lying? Or are these lying newspapers part of a global conspiracy? Andjam (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the US State Department, al-Qa’ida was first designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1999.[9] Australia listed it in October 2002.[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work in finding that US State Dept source, AussieLegend. I looked on al Qa’ida and could not find that info. Will pass it over there now. SmithBlue (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thus as an Australian citizen any actions by Hicks in Afghanistan prior to October 2002 can not be terrorism unless they violated Afghani law. Wayne (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless of course he is scoping out the U.S. embassy in Kabul, which of course is considered U.S. territory, and thus falls under U.S. jurisdiction. Ultimately this is what nailed him in the end. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AlQaeda is a terorist organisation. We don't need a legal definition to say so, any more than we need a legal finding to say that McDonalds is a restaurant chain. What they do defines them.

However, it would be a stretch to say that David Hicks is a terrorist. He took training in terrorist activities, certainly, but working out at the gym doesn't make you an athlete, any more than doing a first aid course makes you a doctor. We can say he was involved with terrorism, because he is the subject of a control order, and a judge has to be satisfied before issuing one of these, and you can't get one without being involved witrh terrorism to a serious degree. Let common sense rule. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, it would be a stretch to say that somebody who joins the Army and receives army training is a soldier. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, point taken, but when does one become a terrorist? Doing the training or carrying out the act? When does someone become a murderer? --Pete (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be getting a little philosophical, but murder is something you (hopefully don't) do, whereas a soldier is something you are. Andjam (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To say he was a terrorist is interpretative and joining dots, thus should not be used. Stick to what we know - ie, the training. On the other hand, reporting that "X said he was a terrorist" would be factual and thus OK, (if of course that opinion is notable). --Merbabu (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be misleading to call him a terrorist, unless we qualify the term (trainee, minor-league, wannabe?) though of course we can report opinions. A cadet, rather than a soldier. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think qualifying the term would end up breaching WP:OR since there doesn't seem to be any "official" definition on terrorism ranks. Why not simply describe him as being involved in terrorism related activities and let the reader decide. That said, in the profession of arms, which is the profession that terrorism most closely attempts to resemble, you don't need to complete training to become a soldier/sailor/airmen. You're a soldier, sailor or airman from day one. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:25, 6 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)

Hicks may not have blown himself up in a crowded restaurant or flown a plane full of passengers into a building but that doesn't stop him being a terrorist. I'd be surprised if bin Laden has ever actually been directly involved in the commission of a terrorist act but I don't think anyone would argue that he isn't a terrorist. Based on what I've seen, Hicks certainly had significant involvement that could be classed as direct support of terrorist acts. Translation of training documents after a suggestion to the head honcho himself is one that stands out for me. I'm basing that on definitions that the Australian military used when it was introducing mandatory random drug testing several years ago. Even the young lass in the tech library who was lucky to see a weapon only once a year was deemed to be directly supporting combat ops and surely, if loaning out publications is enough to get you legally called a soldier, writing publications and actually carrying a gun is enough to justify the terrorist tag.

Regarding the training, as I pointed out above, you don't even have to do any training to become a soldier. You just have to join the army. Special forces units do not receive training in a lot of things that terrorists are trained in. Hijacking 101 and Suicide Bombing for Beginners are definitely two subjects that are missing. Then again, there is training that they receive that terrorists don't have access to, fortunately. Regarding the claim that most Australians believe the control order is a knee jerk reaction, if that was in the article it would have {{Fact|date=March 2008}} slapped on it in two seconds. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will qualify it then by saying "Most South Australians" as there has been considerable controversy over the media harrassment of Hicks. (Hicks moved into a secret safe house and the media immediately visited his neighbors, told them he lived in the same street then published it). The Advertiser took a poll in January "Should Hicks’ control order be reduced?", the result was 55% yes, 31% no and 14% no opinion/didn't reply. Maybe Adelaide would be more favouable to hicks but I assume it would not be by much. Regardless of public opinion, under Australian law he is not a terrorist. Wayne (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet polls aren't worth the paper that they're printed on. An uncited internet poll even more so. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:56, 8 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)

The other thing we must remember is that we are not writing this for an Australian or US audience. We are writing it for an interenational audience. Just because the US describes a person or a group as a terrorist, doesn't mean every country does. Therefore, the claim must be attributed to the US government. Lester 11:43, 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)

Even that is not straightforward. AQ was not a terrorist organization at the time. He doesn't appear to have committed any terrorist acts. He doesn't seem to have done anything that was illegal at the time. However, you can say, without controversy, that Hicks trained with AQ, retrospectively deemed by Australian authorities to be a terrorist organisation. Trishm (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The USA had officially declared Al Qaeda to be a foreign terrorist organisation in 1999, as I posted further up in this discussion. Hicks' involvement with Al Qaeda, especially his covert surveillance of US asserts, was an illegal act under US law. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Australian constitution takes precedence over US law in Afghanistan as Hicks was there and acting with the permission of the Taliban who at the time were the legal government. The US claims the same right for their own citizens in foreign countries. Wayne (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Taliban was the legal government until recognition was withdrawn on Sept 22 2001. The US argues they were not (and thus Geneva Conventions don't apply) because "No political or independance movement can claim to be a legitimate government" but "just in case" they also argue that they ceased to be "a government or authority subject to the GC" from the date recognition was withdrawn. Wayne (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

US law has some limits of applicability, doesn't it? I would have thought that David Hicks would be subject to Australian law (due to citizenship) and Afghanistani law (the land he was in), with few exceptions. The applicability of US law in this case is not clear to me. The justification seems to have been an allegation of covert surveillance of the embassy of Kabul which had been closed for ten years , which, frankly, I find a little on the unconvincing side. In any case, if he broke the law, the proper thing to do is to put him through the court system. Even keep him as a prisoner of war. But the US government didn't choose either of these options - and that is where the controversy lies, for me at least. Or am I missing something? Trishm (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nations under attack can and do suspend normal peacetime rights. Lincoln did away with habeas corpus during the Civil War, and Churchill imprisoned at least one MP without trial for several years in WW2. Getting sidetracked into legal debate detracts from our article. Our duty is to tell the story in a factual manner. We can point our readers to sources and legal opinions, but the last thing we need do is hold our own onwiki trial. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring(Pete) said: Getting sidetracked into legal debate detracts from our article. I would argue that the legal debate is the crux of the controversy and the most important aspect of this article. Regarding what we can say about Hicks, I believe we are still subject to libel laws and we should tread carefully. If a person or organisation in the news says "Hicks is a heinous terrorist" then we can quote them and attribute the comment to them, but we should not make such a statement on our own bat without attribution. If we are quoting someone else, then we are not libeling Hicks ourselves. Subtle but important difference that we should always be conscious of. Lester 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it seems most of us agree not to call him a terrorist, I think it's more than just BLP/libel issue. It's simply POV and interpretative rather than indisputibly factual that he is labelled a "terrorist". Even if he actually committed "terrorist" acts, it's better to spell those acts out, than to call them "terrorism" - even though we have no problem calling him a terrorist off-wiki. It gets back to the show, don't tell principle.

Anyway, looking through this discussion it is very long and has taken up good wiki time, yet most people are in agreeance. My problem is the "involvement in terrorism" (again, interpretative rather than dry facts) but I will put forward other suggestions soon - I know I promised it a few days ago. --Merbabu (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We have enough sources to show him supporting terrorism to justify saying that he was involved with terrorism. We don't have anything, despite Lester's attempts above to conflate the two, to justify saying he was a terrorist. We can argue over definitions all day long, and some here seem inclined to do so, but at the end of the day Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation, regardless of when the US or the UN or anybody else applied the definition. Mealy-mouthed wording saying that he was suspected or accused of involvement may be true, but that is like saying that Hitler was suspected of being a Nazi or Kevin Hicks is accused of being a politician. We should tell our readers the whole truth, not some sanitised vesrsion of it. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole truth indeed, the specific truth, and nothing more. Mealy wording is a pain, but I'd take that over not reporting actually or embellishing/interpreting facts. Not sure the Hitler - Nazi example fits, it usually doesn't in my experience. --Merbabu (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, that doesn't mean I agree with the wording reverted here. I promise I will put my version up SOON and my reasoning for it, you'll see my contribs have been down a bit of late. I suspect it might help. --Merbabu (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean I agree with the wording either. I think we can do better. But I'll not tolerate giving our readers the impression that Hicks may have been an innocent tourist. He wasn't. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What's this "innocent tourist" wording you keep referring to. The reverted content (that Merbabu has linked to, above) is not all that different from the previous one. Sentences shorter, grammar/spelling corrected, and the word "accused" inserted before the word "terrorist". Instead of it saying the US detained him for terrorism, I changed it to say the US accused him of being involved in terrorism. It just attributes the claim. It didn't omit the claim. It didn't say anything about being a "tourist".Lester 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete, no-one is saying that Hicks was an innocent tourist, or even that he may have been one. However, he also does not seem to have broken any non-retrospective law. The lawfulness of his detention is where the question is, not whether he is sweet and innocent. It is perfectly possible to deal unlawfully with a person of less than "pillar-of-the-community" status, and it's much easier to not get called on it. I support Merbabu: this article has to very be specific and factual if the story is going to be told without distortion. Trishm (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"We should tell our readers the whole truth, not some sanitised vesrsion of it." - I'd remind you that Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What we should be doing is presentiing the facts that can be verified in an objective way. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. So please verify your earlier claim that "Hicks' involvement with Al Qaeda, especially his covert surveillance of US asserts, was an illegal act under US law." Which law? Which jurisdiction? Why was he never charged for this outside of the Guantanamo legal system (which came into existence after the offence you allege occurred)? --Brendan [ contribs ] 00:53, 11 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)

Edit war destroying this article - community call to stop it

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)

Stop being melodramatic, Lester. We have been discussing the wording. You know that controversial changes are best put forward on the discussion page. You knew that I'd revert your edit, and you knew exactly why because you know my views on the subject. As expressed here repeatedly when you tried the exact same thing before.And the time before that. And then you have the hide to complain. I don't revert all changes to this article. Heck, I let most things go through without a murmur. If they are reasonable and well-sourced and add to the article, add to the understanding of our readers, that's a bonus.

But so many of your edits are not. They slant articles towards a political position. They slant articles away from telling the full story. They might be the truth, but they are not the whole truth.

Wikipedia solves disputes by consensus. Not by edit-warring until someone has to sleep or gives up in disgust and leaves the project. Why don't you, instead of making controversial and political edits, discuss your proposals first? Who knows, we might find some acceptable wording. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a flawed argument that reverting content solves disputes and has anything to do with gaining consensus. Reverting is a way for a single editor to stop the community from getting involved in content decisions. A quick scan down the history list reveals that my edit was one of countless edits that were reverted without discussion, even though many edit summaries written by the reverter state "please discuss". The reverter did not initiate any discussion about any of his reversions. None. Zilch. If the reverter's version really was so much better than the newer version, then he should have been confident enough to initiate a community discussion detailing what was reverted and why. Let the community decide which version is appropriate. Lester 01:09, 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(Pete) and user:Prester John have made comments on the discussion page, sometimes about content, but neither have initiated discussion about the particular content they have reverted, or their reasons for reverting. This is where the system breaks down, when two editors sit there waiting for others to add content, then revert it immediately. Those who came for the RfC will be driven away from the article. Lester 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is one thing the discussion has shown, it is that the version being reverted to is not consensual and there is no justification for insisting this version stays in place. In any case, WP:EDITWAR states: Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited. Wm (talk) 04:40, 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)

There was no need to post that here. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, in my humble opinion - that Prester John might be (just slightly) biased here. I doubt that's a groundbreaking revelation. --Capitana (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The innocent tourist or the dangerous terrorist

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)

You reverted that piece of text ("accused of") two days ago, then without explanation, and I see you reverted it again today. The "dangerous terrorist" accusation was one espoused by Pauline Hanson (of the One Nation Party) who said Hicks was a suicide bomber. However, just because Pauline Hanson proclaimed Hicks a dangerous terrorist doesn't mean we can too. We know that torture occurred at Gitmo prison, and Hicks' legal team said his confession was made under duress. We can say that Hicks confessed, but we must also add the qualification from his legal team that they claim the confession was made under duress. Please don't remove the counter-argument. I don't think we should bring the Pauline Hanson view to this article. Lester 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Lester.--Capitana (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving JCL aside, I suggest that you cease misrepresenting the situation, Lester. I've repeatedly stated that I don't think we can describe David Hicks as a terrorist. Pauline Hanson might think so, but if we were to quote her at all, it would merely be for colour and opinion, not as a definitive source. The "dangerous terrorist" view is one extreme of the range of opinions. The other end is the "innocent tourist" view, and I'm amused by the earnest way in which you fail to see this as an extreme position.

Personally, I reckon if we make an article that has the effect of getting up the noses of those holding extreme opinions, then we are getting it about right in terms of balance. I also reckon, judging by your contributions, that you represent the opposite extreme of opinion to Pauline, though without the talent for publicity or taste in clothing. Possibly you see yourself as holding down the left end of the bell curve, with your nose a marker for balance. If you don't, I certainly do.

As for "accused of", I've stated my position on this wording several times over, though it seems that your considerable research skills have somehow sightlessly skipped over this. Instead, let me direct you to the Wikipedia guideline on words to avoid and weasel words, which states, in a kernel: If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. I'll let others grapple over JCL's other changes, but "accused of" goes, because the situation of David Hicks went beyond accusation territory. We're well into Admissionland here. --Pete (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

People are responding to your posts, and are discussing where they disagree with you. Why do you say people are not reading your posts? It almost seems that you can't believe that any moderate view would differ from your own. Your view seems to assume that the process that Hicks went through was reliable and lawful, which leads to his admission being reliable. Not everyone would agree with that. That admission to what was a bunch of weasel words with very little detail about actions which were not at the time criminal after five years of detention without access to a court of law does not carry the weight you ascribe to it. But the argument does point out that the word "terrorism" appears to be the weasel word which is causing all the contention. Trishm (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I say people aren't reading or understanding what I say because I see people assigning opinions or attitudes to me that are not mine and which I have expressly denied. For example, you say to me, "Your view seems to assume that the process that Hicks went through was reliable and lawful...", when I know very well that I say above:

• I think that the length of detention and the fact that the process was thrown out by the court are both very important here
• the original charges were found to be part of a flawed process
• the process richly deserves criticism
• There was strong criticism over the process, mounting with the increasing delay

I say something repeatedly, and yet the echo comes back different. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As to "terrorism" being a weasel word, it's not. Not in the definition that Wikipedia uses. I once again reject calling Davids Hicks a terrorist, but I say that, given his admitted support of and co-operation with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, that involvement with terrorism is amply demonstrated. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that "involvement with terrorism" is a ludicrous suggestion - I am sure most would agree with the notion - but as a phrase in a contentious topic in wikipedia, it's been questioned, and thus it's probably best to stick to the facts only. ie, although it's a common sense interpretation, it's a bit loose and still an interpretation, and a fix is not that hard (ie, proposal below). regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction - conflation of how it started and end result.

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)

Mmmm. Point taken, but he wasn't detained for five years solely on the basis of taking up arms against the U.S. At some point the Al Qaeda connection became apparent. Also, the "alleged" is superfluous. There doesn't seem to be much doubt about the circumstances of his capture. We don't need a trial or a charge or a verdict to remove allegations, otherwise Wikipedia would be full of such weasel words. All we need is a valid source. --Pete (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that "involvement with terrorism" is gone. I'm not sure what it's supporters are suggesting it's merits are. The phrase is only arguably true if we're talking around a table in a pub, but that's not the standard we want in wikipedia. Trishm's was an improvement, but again as he himself suggests, smacks a bit of govt rhetoric. I'm working on a diffrent approach to the lead - the first proposed sentence is below. I've changed it to reflect my understanding of exactly what he did and what it was he was arrested for. No, prose is not as succinct as "involvement with terrorism", but accuracy needs to come before prose. No one disputes he did train in Afghanistan and serve with the Taliban, right? Or that this is why he ended up in Guantanamo? Thus...

David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, for which he was detained by the US Government in Guantanamo Bay.

Thoughts? More coming. --Merbabu (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. One unavoidable result of many editors is that prose becomes strained and diselegant. You've captured the guts of it very prettily. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Concise and unarguable. Very nice.Trishm (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, very well put. --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would "combat training" be better than "military training"? Andjam (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still pretty emotive. "Served with the ruling Taliban"... well, he was in Afghanistan, and another word for "the ruling Taliban" would be "the Afghanistan government". Why do we not call the government of Afghanistan at that time "the Afghanistan government"? What is the reason it is different for Afghanistan to other countries? Do we want to paint a picture of them being illegitimate? I'm not supporting any actions by the government of Afghanistan, but I'm just pointing out that we are treating this country different from other countries. I think the first sentence of the article should cut to the chase and say that Hicks was a detainee of Guantanamo Bay. Second sentence should then describe how and why he got into Gitmo: -Fought with local militia, captured by Northern Alliance, sold for $1000 (or whatever the amount was) to the US military, allegedly tortured and thrown in Guantanamo Bay. Sentence #3 should be the legal controversy and dissent that ensued. It might be added that Hicks himself said he was in Afghanistan to help "independence movements" (relayed via Dick Smith). If emotive language of the US or Howard governments is used, then the alternate wording should be included immediately afterwards. For example, "US government says he was involved in terrorism / Hicks claims he was there to help independence movements". As always, I don't think the US government claims should be deleted, they should remain, but it's just a matter of including both sides of the story. Thanks, Lester 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So Merbabu's wording gets up your nose, Lester? I'd say that's an excellent sign that it's spot on. Please stop grizzling and making trouble. We should have gotten this article stable long ago, barring ongoing developments. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu is a good conciliator who has been very civil throughout this, and has asked for comment. The fact that I offered comment does not indicate animosity between anyone, and I appreciate Merbabu's efforts to find balance in this article. There are two stories to be told, and both sides need inclusion. This article is a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), and I find it hard to understand how David Hicks' version, relayed via his legal team or prominent Australians such as Dick Smith, is considered not relevant for the article, when it's a biography of that person. The US government obtained a confession out of Hicks / Hicks legal team said the confession was obtained under duress. US claims he was involved in terrorism / Hicks says he was helping independence movements. Whether we agree with Hicks version of events or not, how can we say Hick's version is not relevant to a bio about David Hicks? Lester 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several views, as I have pointed out repeatedly, but choosing your preferred one as the definitive account is not going to work. The lead should be neutral rather than balanced, as we do not have the luxury of space to give all views in a few words. The body of the article is the place to mention extreme positions. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Much I want to comment on but rushed off my feet at work this morning. Will comment later - no-one kill anyone in the meantime (lol). IN the meantime, why not just drop the word "ruling" from the sentence, and then implement it - apart from that, the sentence is at least an improvement we all agree on, right? Then we nut the rest of it out here? --Merbabu (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring(Pete) said "The body of the article is the place to mention extreme positions." By "extreme" positions, I assume you may refer to dissent from the Law Council of Australia, or the group of eminent Australian lawyers who said that trying Hicks under a US military commission is in itself a war crime, or the unanimous condemnation of Hicks' trial by all state attorneys general. Or maybe Hicks' version of events or the legal controversy over the politicised plea deal is considered too "extremist" for inclusion. BTW, the fact that we may consider Hicks' version to be worth of inclusion doesn't mean we have to agree with Mr Hicks. 'User:Skyring(Pete)' also said: "we do not have the luxury of space to give all views". Don't worry, the version of events from Hicks or his legal team need only take a handful of words, and would not make a substantial difference to the size of the intro. The intro must be a complete summary of events.Lester 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By extreme positions, I mean views at either end of the range of opinion. The narrow ends of the bellcurve of views. I thought that this was clear. Are you somehow trying to misrepresent this into me saying something else? Please don't. But nice of you to bite, anyway. --Pete (talk) 22:47, 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:

David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who undertook combat military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, for which he was detained by the United States Government in Guantanamo Bay.

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)

I think the status of the Taliban is very important to this story, because it is one thing to lawfully serve under a foreign government, and quite another to join some rebel terrorists. Under Australian law, it is legal to serve in the military of a foreign government, provided they are not in opposition to Australia. The Taliban trained its soldiers in al Quaeda-linked camps. Hicks can be viewed as quite lawfully serving with a foreign government which happened to use a dodgy outfit for military training. As I understand it, this is why Downer repeatedly states that Hicks could not be charged under existing Australian law. Trishm (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe people should read the Taliban article. Only three states (Islamic at that) recognized the legitimacy of the Taliban rule. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the purpose of the lead paragraph - ie, the first sentence, whether the Taliban were legitimate or not is irrelevant; my question was how to express the point that they were in control at the time, or indeed whether that is actually necessary. Perhaps it is irrelevant and I'll leave it as it is. Easy. Next... regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be solved with the addition of a single word. Refer to it as the Taliban government. It's critical that this information be provided to the reader. What possible reason would there be to leave the word 'government' out? Lester 10:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it really "critical info"? Why? A question, rather than disagreement. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The importance of the word 'government' is because the average reader is not very knowledgeable about the Taliban and not aware that they were the government of the time. Otherwise, the average reader will get the impression that the Taliban were some renegade group of outlaws operating within Afghanistan. I am not saying the Taliban were good. They weren't. But at the time Hicks was there, the world (including Australia) recognised the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan. Using the word 'government' gives the reader a clearer and more accurate picture of events at that time.Lester 11:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regime or Oligarchy, Governing or Ruling, Combat Military or Military Combat

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)

I doubt we will ever get a perfect descriptor. Having said that, I don't mind "the ruling Taliban". It's the best (least worst?) out of the various suggestions implemented over the last day or so. It concisely presents that the Taliban were in charge while I think it actually is a good thing that it skirts the issue of legitimacy - it's the first sentence of a long article and just allows us to get over the point, which is not the main focus of the article anyway, certainly not the lead.

Any other suggestions? I strongly suggest it is discussed here until some kind of agreement is reached. (A spirit of compromise from everyone, rather than one of combat, is good here!). Or maybe we just drop any describing words - just go with "the Taliban" - it is linked. That's another way out that'd satisfy me - sometimes it's best for the encyclopedia to go with the minimalist solution rather than waste so much time for a possible poorer inclusionist solution. --Merbabu (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A way of attempting NPOV here is to consider how one might refer to say, Australian Prime Minister John Howard's son going to work for Us President George Bush's election team. Was he working for the 'ruling Bush administration', the 'Bush administration', the 'Bush Government', the 'Bush family dynasty', the 'government (at that time, presided over by George Bush the younger)' the 'republican party' or what? There are plenty of other formulations. Presumably, there could be a form of words that describes both of these 'appointments' (or are they 'liaisons' or 'collaborations' or what?) using the same or very similar terminology without the charge of unbridled moral relativism. Our feelings towards the Taliban will colour what we think is an acceptable way to describe them here, and using media descriptions may only be helpful to a point. I don't have the answer, but my edits on this small point were designed to arrive at something approaching NPOV. Given that Taliban is linked, readers who are sufficiently interested can find out in more detail about them, their background, and where their political, financial and other support has come from over the years. Eyedubya (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect most readers are likely to understand that "the Bush administration" refers to the American government, whereas the same cannot be confidently said of "the Taliban". Also, some descriptors are geo-politically nuanced (Bush Administration, Howard Government, Taliban regime). I think it is important to use wording here that identifies the control the Taliban exercised over Afghanistan (without regard, in this article at least, to the legitimacy question). I'd be content to see it trimmed down to "Taliban regime" (ie. sans "ruling", as this is implicit) but would prefer to see the wording/legitimacy debate occur over on the Taliban article first and foremost (from which a precedent could guide us here and in other articles). --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely what I was trying to get at. The phrase "The Administration" is a well-known way of referring to whoever is in power in the US (for example). What I was striving for was a way of describing "The Bush administration", "The Howard Government" and "The Taliban Regime" using the same or at least very similar terminology. Of course, this is no simple matter. Our cultural biases are already so deepy ingrained that we are happy to identify the collective elite that governs 'us' with a single person, because our whole culture is driven so much by the ideology of individualism. At the same time, the collective elites that govern societies we are suspicious of are more often than not named in terms of a group rather than an individual to distinguish them at this fundamental ideological level - even if the differences are not necessarily so great. This is why the phrase "The Administration" is so interesting - it doesn't name a group, it names a function - the function of administering. Things don't get much more 'neutral' than that. So perhaps we might consider this a universal term for 'government', whatever its stripe or legitimacy, because the most neutral way of describing what governments/ruling elites/regimes do is 'administer' territory. So I suggest 'the Taliban administration'. Of course, the WP entry Administration (government) will need to be enlarged to cover the increased use this term will get, but I don't see why only the governments of the US and Europe should be the only ones to be described as 'administrations'. Eyedubya (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Regime is a perfectly suitable word also. See its Wikiarticle and dictionary definition. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that references to 'government' or 'administration' across WP articles be replaced with regime, such that we get 'The Howard regime', 'The Republican regime' and 'The Taliban regime' and 'The Chinese communist regime'? (I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just looking for consistency). Eyedubya (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I think the terminology variation in that context (ie. different words to describe different executive bodies of different countries) can be appropriate, because that variation itself imparts information about variation in politico-cultural norms that would otherwise be lost through the sort of standardisation you're seeking. On balance, I don't see any particular benefit to the encyclopedia from that. It seems like sacrificing relevant nuance for a very small, somewhat subjective, NPOV improvement. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, though I'd note that these 'subjective, NPV improvements' are exactly what is at stake here - the attempt to achieve consensus on NPOV is also an attempt to get to a form of words that keeps everyone 'happy' - a state which is necessarily subjective while the consensus is 'objective'. Having reviewed this entire discussion (from two section headers above), the issue has become clearer. Most, if not all editors are concerned to make it clear that in the leader, 'Taliban' is qualified by a term that indicates they were in government at the time Hicks went to Afghanistan. The debate has been over the kinds of nuance that different words for 'government' have. The issue is that some editors are concerned to make it clear that while the Taliban were administering Afghanistan at the time, their legitimacy was in question. So, the word 'government', for some, implies a legitimacy that the Taliban is argued not to have had. Its not clear what is wrong with the word 'ruling' since its clear that's what they were doing. My sense is that 'ruling' is regarded by some as too neutral, lacking the sense that there might be something wrong with their rule. The most recent discussion about the distinction between 'administration' and 'regime' make this clear: According to WP definitions, administration is only the function of Euro-American governments, and according to the article, only refers to specific spheres of government in those countries, while the article on 'regime' makes it clear that the term has strong connotations of an oppressive or unpopular government/administration. Certainly, Europeans and Americans (and even Aussies) refer to their governments as 'regimes' when they don't like them, even though they are legitimate. So, to return to the reason why this is being discussed. Its my understanding that the leader for this article on Hicks needs to be as NPOV as possible and to use words that are true, even if some might wish to qualify them according to cultural, political or aesthetic bias. I don't see this as 'standardisation' (which carries negative connotations for many) I see it as being consistent with aspirations for NPOV amd brevity. The qualifications that relate to the government/administration of Afghanistan or any other country for that matter are surely a secondary issue that is either to be dealt with in sufficient detail via links or discussion within the article. But the leader itself, as has been noted by others than me above, has to be as factual and brief as possible. For that reason, the discussion among editors so far makes it clear that the words which are objectively neutral are: government/governing, administration/administering and rule/ruler/ruling. While nuance is a good thing, I don't think in this case we are talking here about 'variations in politico-cultural norms' - i.e. is it a 'norm' that governments in Afghanistan are less legitimate than those in Australia, the US or Europe? Certainly governments in places like Afghanistan have been involved in complex interplays of geopolitics, meaning that they have been more prone to change in recent history, and that instability has inevitably been portrayed through the 'poilitico-cultural norms' of the western media which frame politics in ways that make western military interventions look good. While I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, I'd strongly suggest that precisely because WP is not a newspaper that a more neutral word for government than 'regime' should be used to describe the Taliban in the lead line. Eyedubya (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis, but on some essential points I differ. I don't agree that 'regime' is primarily negative (not according to its more common dictionary meanings). And yes, we do have a Labor regime at the moment in Australia, prior to which we had a Coalition regime. Nor do I see where the regime article "makes it clear that the term has strong connotations of an oppressive or unpopular government/administration":

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.

I also don't agree that governing/government or administration/administering is necessarily more appropriate, given the dearth of recognition for the ruling Taliban in the time period we're talking about (see Taliban et al). Despite 'regime' meaning 'government', I think there is a context for 'regime' that is not being fully discerned: "those who are in control, regardless of (lack of) formal recognition". Again though, I think this debate about how to characterise the role of the Afghan Taliban at that time would be better had over at the Taliban article (which currently uses the words "ruling" and "regime"). Start an RFC over there? --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, though my interpretation of the WP entry is based on this: 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. Its such connotative meanings that for me pull it away from NPOV. Eyedubya (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Even so, examination of the verifiable facts strongly suggests that the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan was oppressive and dictatorial. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's as maybe - though you've slipped from the neutrality of 'regime' to wanting to use it because of its negative connotations! Also, as you say, such discussion of the character of that period of the Afghan government properly the subject of the article on the Taliban itself. To throw a few POV/NPOV comparisons from other WP articles in, Bush's first term was regarded as illegitimate by some, but that didn't mean a whole bunch of embassies were withdrawn either. And in Palestine, Hamas was elected as the government - and is described as 'the government' by WP, yet clearly not legitimate in the eyes of those governments that list it as a terrorist organization, and displaying many verifiable distateful aspects. Also, the communist 'regime' in the PRC is described as the 'government' on WP, despite its total lack of any claims to democratic legitmacy and a veriafiable history of human rights abuses, etc etc. As I say, the most NPOV term for government is the one that will enable any and all such situations to be qualified where necessary. That's all I'm really saying. Government is the NPOV term - why does the article have to get into qualifications about the character of the government in Afghanistan, given that the subject of the article is David Hicks? I don't see that it does. I guess I'm feeling more inclined to say it should be 'government' as per some other editors' suggestions, purely for consistency of NPOV - I am not a sympathiser with the Taliban, but they are hardly worthy of singling out as worse than many other governments who have are referred to thus. Eyedubya (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed paras

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)

Can you please provide diffs to help focus our attention. It would be nice if everyone refrained from from mass reverts without any helpful edit summaries. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 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)

My sentiments exactly - see this. I will try to find some from the other side of the POV spectrum. I decided to take it to talk because, being a member of amnesty international - it is not really neutral of me to continue wading in as I have been; however the mass reverts that PJ has been doing can only serve to damage the article. In that diff he just says "don't lie". But as I said - as a human rights advocate this isn't the kind of article I should be working on so I shall depart and leave it in the hands of Merbabu --Capitana (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Merbabu. May I suggest that the article stay at the version prior to the dispute, and that the changes be discussed here first. It would be lovely to get this article stable. There is room enough for different views to be examined and discussed in the body of the article. I'd prefer to see material added rather than replaced, because inevitably any major change results in terrorist activity. --Pete (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that both POVs deserve a place in the article - obviously not as fact but instead included as an analysis of different views - for example there's been a discussion on talk about innocent tourist v suicide bomber. That debate may deserve some mention in the actual article. Btw - is it acceptable for me to suggest improvements on the talk page - rather than edit the article. I do acknowledge my conflict of interest. --Capitana (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John appears to be back "working" on the article - yet he doesn't seem to have paid much heed to Merbabu's instructions --Capitana (talk) 20:36, 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

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)

"Jihad Diary"

Thoughts as to how to appropriately include this? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good. Probably should go in the section you keep edit warring to delete. Prester John (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PJ, you keep re-inserting duplicate information about the self-repudiated Abbasi memoir. Together with inclusion of a few non-duplicate quotes from that memoir, you're giving the claims made by the memoir undue weight and also inserting undue weight to its relevance in the wider story of David Hicks. Please consider that this comes across as disruptive editing. Please instead use the talkpage to seek consensus and avoid 3RR. Can you perhaps suggest some good wording for the "Jihad Diary" evidence? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The removal from any article of any section titled "Character and beliefs" is an improvement for NPOV - such sections are inherently POV. Please highlight any information that is no longer in wikipedia after Brendan's edits. From my reading, there is none. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's listening, Merbabu. He's too busy compiling a 3RR report against me (look closely at the links). Never mind that my last edit was a change to a different section of the article so could not logically fall within 3RR... --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:24, 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".

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)

If that is the case on my own review, I will replace it - for now. --Merbabu (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) PJ, then use this talkpage to seek consensus to insert those quotes into the existing narrative (rather than duplicating other info to push a repudiated POV and create undue weight). The repudiated memoir is a blip on the radar of the broader Hicks story. Consensus for including those quotes is questioned (subject to the views of a wider audience of broadly impartial editors). --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

These are the opening paragraphs of the source...

Feroz Abbasi disliked the brash Australian who competed with him for the attention and favor of their al-Qaeda boss. He described his rival as "Al-Qaedah's 24 ct. [carat] Golden Boy" and claimed he'd said he wanted to rob and kill Jews back in Australia and crash an airplane into a building. Abbasi's resentful and deeply unflattering account of his Australian comrade, David Hicks, is contained in a 148-page memoir he wrote for anti-terrorism investigators while incarcerated in the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

In a signed statement made on Oct. 20, 2004, and seen by Time, Abbasi repudiated all the claims made in the hand-written document and described the allegations against Hicks as "ludicrous in their content (yet believed by dense interrogators)." But Time has learned that Abbasi's memoir of the prisoner he repeatedly refers to as "Golden Boy" may have been used by those interrogators to build a case against the Australian terror suspect, who has been in Guantánamo Bay since 2001. Hicks' lawyers have also questioned the veracity of the document's content. Hicks' name, like most others in the document, has been inked out by censors.

The memoir, obtained by Time last week, contains detailed recollections of "David Matthew Hicks," who Abbasi says trained in Afghanistan in the same al-Qaeda camps as Abbasi and failed British shoe bomber Richard Reid. Abbasi says he first met Hicks during a fitness exercise that involved jogging around their Al Farooq training camp near Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan. He writes that Hicks was teamed in the camp with Filipino recruits from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Interesting. What do people think? --Merbabu (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Was there a particular aspect you're seeking comment about? It all seems highly speculative to me, right down to the comment that the memoir "may have been used by those interrogators". The verifiable facts, which the article should reflect with due weight, are that a disparaging and suggestive statement of allegations, whose evidentiary weight was never tested before a court of law, was written by another Guantamo inmate who later retracted it in the strongest terms. Unless other information comes to light that shows the memoir to be more significant than has been suitably verified thus far, we would do better justice to the article by giving more consideration to other aspects of the case against Hicks that can be verified (eg. a clearer and more concise explanation of what was contained in the various briefs of evidence to either of the commissions). --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

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)

WM, I agree. I'm glad to see that someone contributing to this article has access to Leigh Sales' book, which ought to be an invaluable source. This article needs work. Aside from it not being up to scratch in terms of frank, balanced and thorough coverage of the subject matter, there are areas of messy duplication and repetition that create an effect of POV-pushing and undue weight (whichever way you look at it). --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I support the tag being replaced. This article needs a lot of work to get anywhere near NPOV. Eyedubya (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Local libraries will have access to Leigh Sales' book, if anyone wants to get hold of a copy. Excellent referenceLester 04:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Morris Davis allegations of political interference

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)

In reference to an editor who changed "political interference" to "political intervention" >>HERE<<, the reason it originally used the word "interference" is because that's what the good Colonel said. The reference states: "what Colonel Davis says were other disturbing signs of political interference" and also: "It's not just political interference he alleges but concern too that under Mr Haynes, evidence obtained through torture". Sure, an "intervention" may sound nicer, but I feel we should use the terminology from the source. For this reason, I will change the article back again, so it refers to allegations of "political interference."Lester 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Interference is Colonel Davis's POV loaded term, His bitterness at being hoodwinked by the judge and defense has no business being treated as fact. We must write an encyclopedia in a NPOV fashion. It must seem odd to call Howards actions as "interference" when thousand of Australians and Human rights groups were constantly "begging" him to "intervene". Prester John (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept the term "political interference" may be Colonel Davis' "POV" as you say, but we attribute the term to him, and we call it an allegation, not a fact. It's a highly unusual situation for the chief prosecutor to make an allegation like that. Lester 10:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Instinctively, I too thought (after seeing PJs edit) that "intervention" had a better ring to it. Until it became apparent that we do want to accurately attribute this verified view of a highly notable figure in the Hicks case. That's not a POV inclusion. Good call Lester. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lester is 100% correct. WP:NPOV bars contributors from inserting their own opinions. Quoting or paraphrasing verifiable, authoritative opinions is completely compliant with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John wrote of Davis's "...bitterness at being hoodwinked by the judge and defense has no business being treated as fact."

What the Australian wrote was:

"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."

In point of fact, while both Susan Crawford (Pentagon) and Thomas Hemingway have been judges in the past, they were not judges in Guantanamo. Crawford is the "Appointing authority", the civilian with the authority to appoint the judges, prosecutors and defense. Hemingway was the Legal advisor to the appointing authority.

I have no idea what PJ means by "...has no business being treated as fact." If PJ think we should challenge that the deal was made behind the prosecutions back -- this was very widely reported at the time, not just by The Australian. Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice user:Prester John has reverted it back again! Lester 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Todo list

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)

Mediation

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)

I noticed Pete hasn't edited anymore since halfway last month. I would like to allow him some time to still join mediation if he wishes, but I'm going to set a deadline for his return. In case he doesn't return, do you still want to carry on with mediation? And how long do you think we should wait for his return? I'm inclined to say a week if you do want to carry on, and two weeks if mediation isn't needed would he not return. If the situation changes, we can always still start things back up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Skyring just dropped me a note, that he won't be back to regular editing untill late April. I propose to close this mediation for now, and reopen it if required. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry over this - waiting till end of April and re-applying for Med Cab, if no consensus has been reached by then, is OK with me. However if Prester John would like to continue with this present opportunity for mediation then I am happy and willing to continue. SmithBlue (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm closing for now. Ask me to reopen it at any time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Accept

Sure Why not. Prester John (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. SmithBlue (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotefarm?

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)

Clarification: in fact, some of the new quotes are worked in nicely into the prose, however, the “Lashkar-e-Toiba” section is the main point of my current concern.--Merbabu (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the section you referring to violates quote guidelines. Quotes from Hicks's own hand are worked chronologically into his middle eastern escapades. The quotes all detail "different" aspects of Hicks's life at this time and are not presented in "list form" which prompts the usual application of the tag. Prester John (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I said I wasn't actually questioning the content, rather their presentation. That there is prose between the quotations in “Lashkar-e-Toiba” doesn't prevent it from looking like a list. Anyway, other commnet may be forth coming, and others may wish to present the information more satisfactorily - per the wiki process. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Satanism claims revisited

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)

One source says SL "schoolmates say he scratched Satanic symbols into/on hand/arm", current single source (Gold Coast newspaper) also attributes to schoolmates a non-specific claim of "Satanism". Not a wide spread claim in multiple highly regarded RS. "Satanism" claim appears posibly ill-founded, sourced to schoolmates, questionable and probably not notable in current form. SmithBlue (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to relevance: Joseph Thomas (aka Jihad Jack) said that he bought a Satanic bible (Islam's warrior by The Age) while exploring various religions before becoming a Muslim. This kind of information is useful for those exploring why some people convert to a violent form of Islam. With regards to reliable sources: If I was saying things about someone who has trained with Al Qaeda, I might prefer it if my name were not mentioned. Didn't he once remark that he wanted to "get" the person who supplied the media with the rocket launcher photo? However, I think the extent to which the claims are repeated by other reliable sources is relevant. Here's another mention - would the "AFP/so" bit at the end be Agence France-Presse, one of the largest news agencies in the world? Andjam (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Implying a correlation between the "satanism" of David Hicks and the bible-purchasing habits of Joseph Thomas would be original research. Justifying inclusion of the Satanism claim on the basis of "exploring why some people convert to a violent form of Islam" would also be original research. Mere repetition of a claim does not make it sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Speculation about what Hicks might do to a critical source does not obviate the need for sources to be reliable and claims to be verifiable. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"described as dabbling in "drugs and Satan""(APN) - I doubt notability. SmithBlue (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can't assert notability because that'd be original research. In my opinion, Hick's notability comes from the fact that he did some very stupid things which lead to unpleasant consequences - but we can't discuss his background? Andjam (talk) 03:28, 19 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 note that "Sunday" is described as "a public affairs program" and has won "a Gold Medal in the New York Festivals television awards for its ongoing coverage of events in East Timor, and a Silver Medal for its investigation of sexual abuse cover-up claims involving the Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth. ...and the Logie Award for "Most Outstanding Public Affairs Program on Australian Television" at the Logie Awards of 2003.[13] " so it is not to be automatically dismisssed as a nonRS. SmithBlue (talk) 06:20, 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)

Coming in as a third party that has not previously been involved with this matter, I would say that "some high school mates" is not really a reliable source to base anything upon. The goldcoast.com.au link in particular is a weak source, given that it self-describes as "more-gossip-news" in the URL. If we could attribute a name to these claims, then it might be worth another look, but as it is it seems a bit dodgy.

Note that I'm not questioning the value of AFP or Sunday, I'm just saying that an anonymous claim that's only mentioned offhand in the articles is probably not enough to constitute a reliable ref. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

I've had a look at Factiva. The only sources I can find are -

• an Andrew Bolt column in the Herald-Sun 9 Aug 2006
• an Andrew Bolt column in the Herald-Sun 3 Dec 2004
• Gold Coast Bulletin, Cairns Post, Hobart Mercury repeating an AAP line on 28 Aug 2004 "Some former classmates describe him as a rebel who experimented with drugs and alcohol and dabbled in Satanism."
• Right-wing paper The Washington Times 20 Jan 2002 "He dropped out of high school at 14, after a period in which Australian press accounts say he drank heavily, used drugs and was interested in Satanism, the San Francisco Chronicle reported recently."
• The aforesaid San Francisco Chronicle article on 9 Jan 2002 "dropped out of high school at 14 after a period in which Australian press accounts say he drank heavily, used drugs and was interested in Satanism."
• And guess what... Herald Sun, 17 Dec 2001 and 13 Dec 2001... I'll leave you to figure out the author.
• One additional story in the Herald Sun (journalist Belinda Hegden) also on 13 Dec 2001, which AFP picked up. "Boy's dark side FORMER school friends have described David Hicks as a freak with a passion for drugs and satanism. A Salisbury High School classmate of several years - who did not want to be identified - said Hicks would use a compass or other sharp items to scratch satanic symbols into his arm before adding ink to finish the tattoo. He said Hicks was also a heavy drinker and cannabis smoker who once smoked a joint in class. "He was always a rebel when he was in school," the friend said yesterday. [...] "He was heavily into drugs and Satan." AFP picked it up later the same day as: "SYDNEY, Dec 13 (AFP) - David Hicks, the Australian captured fighting for the Taliban, dabbled in drugs, had an obsession with satanism and was nicknamed Indiana Jones because of his penchant for adventure, according to accounts published on Thursday." [...] "'He was always a rebel when he was in school,' the friend told the Herald Sun newspaper."

I think this can be safely discarded as a unreliably-sourced furphy by one newspaper with known leanings, taken on by a columnist with a passion, and reported per the laws of hearsay all over the world with each repetition seemingly adding weight to what was one claim by an anonymous alleged ex-student of Hicks's high school. Orderinchaos 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Orderinchaos's appraisal. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Brendan & OIC. JRG (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

I'm leaning towards concurring too - but not 100% convinced. However, the fact that the info is so short and vague and could mean a lot of things, suggest that it is better left out than in. --Merbabu (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC : Identifying whereabouts of a released person appropriate/encyclopedic?

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 just went ahead and changed it. Not sure it needs an rfc yet. --Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 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)

(Edit conflict with SmithBlue) Your [Merabu] edit still left the suburb in. Did you mean to do that? Are your concerns that he might suffer harassment because people know what suburb he lives in? Or are you thinking that it is irrelevant? I don't really like the media reporting on him while he's got a gag, but we can't do anything about that. People who really wanted to harass him (or give him employment) can probably find his current suburb from major publications fairly easily - there seem to be about 15 google news hits for David Hicks and his suburb. But maybe if we didn't include his suburb here we'd be sending out a message. As for relevance - I guess it may be relevant depending on whether the suburb is blue-ribbon or blue-collar, largely immigrant or mainly non-immigrant. That said, I support your sentiments. Andjam (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actaully, it was an unsigned Brendan who raised the issue,[14] and I had a go at fixing it. I don't have particularly strong feelings on it, apart from the fact that (a) the info seems a little trivial, and (b) and given the trivial nature of the info then, then if people are voicing other concerns, then take a cautious approach - it's no great loss to the article. --Merbabu (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SmithBlue. BTW Merbabu, my RFC was unsigned because that's what the RFC instruction page says to do. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)