Talk:John Walker Lindh/Archive 1

message: Someone had entered:
:One possibility is that all his testimonial could be thrown out in court due to technicality and the prosecution would have no case against him.
Well, yes.  Another possibility is that his defense lawyer, James Brosnahan, is making statements to the press for tactical reasons.    Let's wait and see.  Wikipedia is not CNN.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs)  15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: Was an official explanation of his motives for fighting on the side of the taliban ever given? I didn't see that in the article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.130.112 (talk • contribs)  01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not CNN.com 

message: First paragraph says "and, arguably, a traitor".  Why not take this part out?  http://www.freejohnwalker.net/ has some good information which should at least indicate that there is more to this story than first apparent and that labelling him a traitor in the first paragraph is detrimental to the quality of this article. --Erik Enge 16:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So carrying a weapon in the service of a foriegn power with whom your country is engaged in combat isn't even arguably treason now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs)  21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Northern Alliance captured him in November. President Bush declared the Taliban to be the protectors of Al Qaeda, and so enemies, the previous month. The number of American military in Afghanistan at this time was limited to the 555, 585, 595 special forces with some CIA. Each of the three groups was about a dozen men, who could divide into three four man squads, and these guys were using lasers to guide the bombers. They were almost certainly not within rifle range of anybody, except possibly on their days off, for the excitement.  Martin |  talk • contribs  03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arguably a traitor" 

message: The article asserts John Walker confessing to being al-Qaeda, but there is no citation given for this.  And if he did so confess, how do we know it wasnt a coerced confession, as he was in fact tortured by the US military and had no representation?  According to his father's speech at the Commonwealth club, aired Feb 10 2006 on KQED radio, John Walker was not aware of al-Qaeda and not involved in al-Qaeda, and joined the Taliban thinking he was helping the Mujahadeen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.255.157 (talk • contribs)  05:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case he'd be too mentaly deficient to stand trial, as the Mujahadeen didn't need any help, the Soviets being gone for more than a decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs)  21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He wasn't fighting the Soviets. He went from Lahore to fight with the Pakistanis against the Indians in Kashmir, to protect the "Islamic World". The Pakistanis were hardly the spiritual people he expected, so he left for Kabul. Since he did not speak Pashto or Urdu, only Arabic, he was sent to Kandahar where the arabic speaking group was, and was shipped to Taloqan, north of Kabul.  Martin |  talk • contribs  04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: He apparently claimed to have volunteered to fight for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance -- thereby upholding the values of crackdowns against "beard-trimming", public executions in soccer stadiums, and a ban on female education, no doubt... AnonMoos 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: His parents have certainly done him no real service -- if they had just once publicly apologized for Johnnie's actions (especially to the Spann family), or if they had even simply admitted the possibility that his actions might have been at least morally wrong -- rather than putting on display their faded-hippie "If it feels good for you, then it must be right" attitudes (which didn't play very well in the aftermath of 9/11) -- then the scapegoating might have been much reduced.  Certainly Johnnie's parents have succeeded in antagonizing the Spann family and making them into their determined enemies, as a result of their rather ill-chosen public remarks. AnonMoos 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are two sides to this story. Robert Young Pelton makes a very strong rebuttal to the above-mentioned Commonwealth Club speech (I've provided a link to it below the link to that speech) in which he makes a case that Lindh was very much part of Al-Qaeda (which Lindh in an early interview refers to under an alternate name, "Al-Ansar"). Pelton points out that although Lindh was fluent in Arabic, he did not speak a word of Pashto or any other Afghan language, which would mean he would have had to fight alongside the "Afghan Arabs" or "Foreign Fighters", in other words, al-Qaeda. The recent Esquire article magazine article (also linked to under "external links") argues the opposite. Both views should be covered in this article. Peter G Werner 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describes self as al-Qaeda?  

message: Frank Lindh (JWL's father) hit the lecture circuit about 6 months back trying to drum up support for executive clemency for John Walker Lindh. The campaign has gotten some support amongst some left/liberals (can't think of any notable ones offhand) and, of course, is strongly opposed by many people as well, most notably Jonny Spann, father of Mike Spann, a CIA agent who was killed in the prison uprising Walker took part in. An evenhanded discussion of this recent campaign should be incorporated into the article. Peter G Werner 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clemency campaign

message: The article is good, but the #Trial section needs a lot of citing. Kilo•T 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced

message: I think that everybody should just remember that in another time or in another time John Walker Lindh would have been executed for treason, possibly on the battlefield. I think he was obviously treated mercifully by the United States military and government. Whirling Sands 22:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just remember 

message: I've changed this paragraph as both JWL's lawyers and Khizer Hayat have denied any homosexual relations and it is widely agreed that the original comments were wrongly reported.  Therefore this subject must be seen in the full context. Also the paragraph has been redrafted to avoid any libel. Darth007 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Walker Lindh "alleged homosexuality" clarification 

message: lead is too short to summarize the article, external jumps abound, refs have poor and inconsistent formatting, footnotes should come after punctuation, a section with just one sentence?, has cite needed tags, footnotes should be above external links.Rlevse 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fails NPOV standards by reporting for a full paragraph (undue emphasis) a false report of homosexuality. It either [1] doesn't belong in the article at all, or [2] needs to be relegated to a brief footnote. - Nunh-huh 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the paragraphs on homosexuality do not deserve the prominence they have. Clearly, his capture and the events before and after that are the reasons that this entry is in wikipedia.  Martin |  talk • contribs  03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Here is a news story regarding said request. Perhaps this information could be made into a sentence or two for the article?-Andrew c 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news, request for reduced sentence 

message: ifound this picture of him kinda disturbing
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/05/lindh6407_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg --Halokiller27 00:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbing picture 

message: The two paragraphs in the Trial section starting "The court scheduled..." strike me as highly speculative. The content deals with evidence suppression and the motivation behind a plea deal. There are no references for this material; can someone offer sources to clarify exactly why the players chose to offer/accept the plea? Gerta 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: It is said that Khizar Hayat "admitted to" having a homsexual relationship. To admit to something implies that that something is wrong or illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal the use of "admitted" implies that a relationship of that sort is wrong. In order to maintain neutrality I have changed that phrase to "reported having."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.249.80 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Word Usage 

message: I changed a couple names to reflect International Community standard when translating Arabic to English. Since their is much ambiguation in the two languages, IC standard eliminates "C-O-P-E" when going from Arabic to English. For example, there is no such name as "Mohammed", it would be "Muhammad". Also, there is no such word (technically) as "Abdul", it should read "Abd-al". Grannis 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic to English 

message: The section regarding Yaser Esam Hamdi seems out of place & could probably be shortened or deleted altogether. Kaiser Vinny 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

message: :Image:John Walker Lindh Custody.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:John Walker Lindh Custody.jpg

message: If this appellation is at all noteworthy, which I doubt, then it belongs in the body of the article, not boldfaced in the lede. The term gets 54 Google News Archive hits, compared to 9,430 for "walker lindh" and 4,760 for "american taliban"; furthermore the majority of the 54 hits are found in letters to the editor, press releases from rightwing groups, or even mainstream papers criticizing its use on <SMALL>FOX</SMALL> news, etc. Eleland 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would a complaint about "rightwing groups" be without a lame attack on Fox News?  Seriously, do you people use a template?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jihad Johnny" 

message: <<Editors: the introductory sentence is clearly incorrect. The body of the story includes the list of criminal charges against Lindh in federal court. None claim that he was a fighter in any way at all and it is reasonable to believe that, had he been a fighter, one or more charges would have mentioned that. He certainly was a Taliban sympathiser. The Taliban was at the time, the government of Afghanistan. -- Warriga 08:22, 17 October 2007
:That he was a Taliban sympathizer is of little note. The United States government sympathized with the Taliban, having given them 4 million dollars in March of 2001. Also, being captured by our "allies" does not make the detainee an enemy. -- 22:17, 22 October 2007 22:17, 22 October 2007
<<As well, the claim that he was captured in November 2001 is clearly mistaken, as the body of the story shows. He was captured by the Northern Alliance in October, and handed over to US forces in November. >> -- Warriga 08:22, 17 October 2007
: I changed "... while fighting there for the Taliban." to "... while serving as a soldier for the Taliban." This coincides with Lindh's own statement: "I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban ...". Comments? --TCav (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong statements

message: 1. The introduction to this page claims that Lindh fought with the Taliban. There is no evidence to this effect. He certainly did not fight against US or other Coalition forces, because he had been captured by the then-Northern Alliance forces before any Coalition units were anywhere in the area. The US federal charges against Lindh. cited in detail on this page, include no suggestion that Lindh fought against anybody.
2. The entire section on Lindh's "'alleged homosexuality'" seems a pointless and overwritten slur that should be removed or at least, edited sharply. Cited as references for the idea are stories in TIME magazine and the Guardian newspaper of London, England. The TIME story was published in the issue cover-dated October 7, 2002 and the Guardian daily newspaper article is dated October 7, 2002 and obviously sourced from the newspaper's Washington correspondent. That citation is worthless.
As to the TIME assertion, the alleged homosexual acts would have been between Lindh and a Pakistani businessman named Hayat. The assertion is a claim by the article's authors and is not supported by the quotes from Mr Hayat, which the Wikipedia page suggests. Hayat is quoted at some length in the TIME article and is seen to have limited and childlike English. He says that Lindh loved him very much but says nothing to suggest there was any sexual liaison between them. According to TIME, Hayat had made Lindh's acquaintance as part of a delegation of Muslim missionaries to California in 1999. Later (the lengthy TIME account does not say when), Lindh wrote and phoned him to ask him to find a place in a Moslem religious school in Pakistan -- which Hayat did. It does not seem homosexual for a religious man, which Hayat clearly is, to say that Lindh loved him very much. He certainly felt love for a foreigner who had left his home and family to study the beliefs of his religion.
3. The TIME piece was researched in depth and bears six separate reporters' bylines. It makes no mention whatsoever of Lindh bearing arms against anybody. He did once in Pakistan loose off a couple of AK47 rounds during a bird hunt, to no harm to any bird. The AK47 is freely available in Pakistan, and held by many Pakistanis for household protection and hunting. Lindh left the gun behind when he went to Pakistan, and the TIME story -- written after Lindh had been found guilty of a federal offense and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment -- made no mention of his ever having his hand on any other firearm at all.  
Warriga 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "... while fighting there for the Taliban." to "... while serving as a soldier for the Taliban." This coincides with Lindh's own statement: "I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban ...". Comments? --TCav (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindh didn't "fight with the Taliban"-- see the official US charge sheet reproduced on this page. And the gay section seems a slur 

message: The article says he was kept in a medium security prison but then transferred to a Supermax facility.  Why?  The way the article is written it sounds as if it was a punishment for being the victim of an attack.  70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADMAX transfer 

message: Whoever added the neutrality dispute tag: Exactly what is under dispute, and what part of the talk page discusses that dispute?
As far as I can tell, while the article is missing some facts (how he got from school in Pakistan to fighting for the Taliban forces against the Northern Alliance), those that are there are presented neutrally. None of the common unsubstantiated allegations from either side are presented as facts, and most aren't even mentioned. The homosexuality rumor is presented only to be debunked. His interment and interrogation are described dispassionately, without using loaded words like "torture" except to describe his claims. There's no attempt to tar his family as "hot-tub hippies," or to attack Spann's family or the Bush administration for using him as a scapegoat.
In short, the article seems as NPOV as could reasonably be expected. Since there's no explanation for why the tag is on the article, and no documentation for the dispute on the talk page, it should be removed. --76.200.101.233 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: The article states that Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison without parole.  As far as I know, parole has not existed in the Federal Prison system for several years.  Does anyone else have any insight on this? Illinois2011 | Talk 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without Parole? 

message: Why was this left out of the article?  The father dumped the mother for his gay lover, and almost immediately after that John Walker started searching out the Islamic stuff and went off the deep end.  And the father's lover at the time (dunno if they are still together) was allegedly the owner of a gay bathhouse.  Ruth E (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father is A Homosexual 

message: Wikileaks.org has just published a photo of him with mouth sewn closed and cheeks penetrated by steel wire (yes that medieval). 
http://wikileaks.org/w/images/thumb/500px-Us-detainee-wired-2004-08-06.jpg
Therefore JWL was tortured and unusually punished and thus his trial and verdict is null and void under US law and international treaties, to which the USA is party. I hope the public evidence of atrocities forces USA to leave the afghan people alone and quit the crusader oppression. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That photo is not of Lindh.  It's a photo of a guy who has had surgery on his jaw.  The wires are holding his face together.  It's not an example of torture.  And you're an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you mean that in a descriptive way and not a perjorative way( Martin |  talk • contribs  03:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  JWL to be released 

message: There's nothing in the entire wiki that supports this statement, and while he was charged with "Using and carrying firearms and destructive devices ...", nothing in his plea bargain statement can be interpreted an admission of "fighting." Two others have already objected to this statement, in Wrong statements and Lindh didn't "fight with the Taliban"-- see the official US charge sheet, and no one has posted any opposition to the change.
Can we do this? --TCav 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --TCav (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, what exactly do you think he was doing, jackass?  He was, get this "USING and carrying firearms and destructive devices..." (emphasis mine).  What do you think he was using them for, to tenderize meat?  Lindh himself admitted, upon capture, that he fought with the Taliban.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we take out "while fighting there for the Taliban"? 

message: I believe a major revert needs to happen to remove the rather un-encylopedic additions of User:Jlcoving.  He has added significant unsourced material which is inappropriate to a biography.  Including in the allegations added are that Lindh "Lindh was fully aware of what was about to happen (the uprising), yet remained silent and did not cooperate with the Americans", a serious allegation which absolutely requires a source.  Additionally, the rather POV part "he chose to stick with his friends: murderers and known terrorists" which not only is unsourced, but it is hard for me to see how it could be sourced with anything less than a quote from Lindh himself since it involves Lindh's opinions of others.  I'm going to do the first revert, but I hope others will put their opinions in on this issue. -- Cjensen (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "source" is apparently some guy who went to Afganistan and talked to some guy.  Do you have a real source (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources)?   You say he "chose to stick with his friends."  How is it that you know they were his friends?  Is there a quote from Lindh somewhere where he says this?  I don't see any other way you could know whether he was friends with some one...  -- Cjensen (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHOA!  Major changes! 

message: The entire entry strikes me as a biased, train-wreck of an article and clearly not nearly up to Wikipedia standards. For example-
"Although he claims he never fired his weapon, he contradicts himself by his previous statements. While fighting in the trenches of Takhar, he had been issued an AKM rifle and two hand grenades. During the fighting in the trenches, his AKM malfunctioned and he was then issued a new RPK rifle. In order for a rifle to malfunction, it must be fired. Therefore, despite his later claims to the contrary, he at least fired his weapon once in aggression towards the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance."
How does the author know it was not a tin can that Walker Lindh shot at? Does he have a witness the shot was fired against the Northern Alliance or indeed fired at all? It appears the author is playing an amateur detective or a Sherlock Holmes. Also, there is no section discussing any of the criticism regarding the case, evidence, trial, or long prison sentence.
69.114.251.156 (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: Wow. I am at a loss for words. What a mess this Wiki entry is and I am glad someone alerted me to it. Grief-stricken family members of victims can't be counted as unbiased sources regarding the circumstances of their deaths under such controversy. Likewise, the Arlington National Cemetary's Memorial, nor any eulogies can be considered impartial. Please, folks, use credible sources.
Mike Spann's death was well documented by Time Magazine shortly after the events and it is one of the very few news reports on the subject that did not suffer the "mysterious" redactions regarding many of the events the Bush administration found itself entangled in. Mike Spann engaged in activities that could be considered illegal according to international law (note I emphasized "could be").
I've added more credible information regarding Mike Spann's death and referenced the Time Magazine article verbatim.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,186592-1,00.html
Someone please curtail Keifer Sutherland's Wikipedia access.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblizaman (talk • contribs) 04:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use credible sources and not grief-stricken family members. 

message: I think the image is a little extreme for it to be on the top of the page.  Can we at least move it to the bottom and reduce it's size???  Or find an image where the subject is fully clothed (like a mug shot or something).  --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This section seems pretty POV:
Lindh initially gave his name as "Abd-al-Hamid" but later gave his birth name when interviewed by Robert Young Pelton for CNN. Pelton brought a medic and food for the American and interviewed Lindh about how he got there. Mr. Pelton also brought Lindh home with him and a U.S. soldier who had been in combat for three weeks gave up his bed so Lindh would have a nice place to sleep that night. Within two hours of his arrival, he was wrapped in two comforter blankets for warmth. One soldier provided him with a small heater. [14][15] Repeatedly Pelton asked Lindh if he wanted to call his parents or have Pelton do so, which Lindh replied in a hostile manner or refused. [16] Despite all of this, Lindh's parents continue to paint Pelton as a terrible person and the one "responsible" for the "image" of their son. 
Someone should probably change it. 75.71.69.49 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This document,
"False and misleading statements by Mr. Frank Lindh omits many known facts: Article of appeal" by Johnny Spann (PDF)
is listed among the external links.
There, Mike Spann's father makes some claims that aren't discussed in the article, namely that,
quote:
* 2. John Walker Lindh was a member of, and trained with Al Queda. Al Queda is a league of foreign fighters who are trained by Osama Bin Laden. Members of this group of fighters are typically not citizens or natives of Afghanistan. John Walker Lindh was not allowed to join the Taliban, because he did not speak any of their languages like Dari or Postum, and was not a Afghan. But was allowed to join and train with the Al Queda. (page 1)
* 6. John Walker Lindh stated that he had knowledge of the plans for the 9-11 attacks against the U.S. He stated that he knew that Al Queda members had been sent to the United States to carry out suicide missions. (page 1)
(bold and italics by me)
Since not even the US government regards Lindh as an al Qaeda member (but merely as training at al-Farouq and fighting for the "... Taliban, an entity that was providing sanctuary and protection for al Qaeda"), I think this claim is unfounded, but I see why it would stick. A clarification would be welcome - what unit was Lindh actually a member of?
Then Johnnny Spann goes on to claim that "Lindh stated he had foreknowledge of 9/11", although Spann speaks more vaguely of "suicide missions" in the next half-sentence. This also is not reflected in the court documents I read, but where did Mike Spann's father get this idea? (Edit: some clarification about that here.)
It would be nice to have some recollection of media misinformation that is either untrue or controversial, or allegations like this will crop up again forever.
95.89.65.85 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Johnny Spann, Sr. (the father of the Spann that was killed) simply mistyped what he meant. He probably meant to say "Al-Ansar" or the "55 Brigade", which IS the unit of foreign fighters (such as Lindh) trained and funded by Al-Qaeda. JWL was merely one of many other terrorist-trained foreigners fighting on behalf of Al-Qaeda via Al-Ansar/55 Brigade; which in turn fought with the Taliban. Others have joined the brigade from similarly troubled parts of the world: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. There are Muslims from western China (Uigurs), Russia (Chechens) and the Balkans (Bosnians). JWL was just one of the few American's (few in comparison to the amount of Arab-world foreigners). So to answer your question, JWL was a member of the unit Al-Ansar or the 55 Brigade, which was funded and trained by Al-Qaeda as a foreign-fighters unit. jlcoving (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims/allegations by Johnny Spann 

message: unnecesssary and pointless. come on. seriously. there are dozens of articles where if you put a 'shock picture' like this, they would be deleted as not encyclopedic. I.e. pictures of torture in the CIA article.  .. or at the very least, they would be considered POV . how about some consistency here? Decora (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photograph of him in custody 

message: Hi, before an edit war got underway, I figured I'd avoid it and post here. User Zhurlihee removed for the 2nd time this line under "In Popular Culture":
* In a National Geographic documentary, Taliban Uprising, the only video of Lindh speaking since his capture is shown.
National Geographic has been around since 1888. It has circulation in 33 languages and over 50 million people receive the magazine monthly. They have won numerous awards in a plethora of different categories. The National Geographic TV channel is available in over 143 countries, seen in more than 160 million homes and in 25 languages. I don't see how it could possibly not be considered part of "popular culture"? I accept there is the possibility that I'm wrong though, which is why I'm posting here for the opinion of others. Does "popular culture" only include George Bush and "Steve Earle"? The latter of which I had never even heard of before; I'd argue far more people (by magnitudes of 100x) know about National Geographic than Steve Earle. Also, Law & Order is over as of May 2010, whereas NatGeo continues.
Furthermore, the only video of Lindh speaking since his capture is pretty important information for this article. I argue the NatGeo bulletin should be kept. jlcoving (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Geographic source is used multiple times in the article and I would consider it journalism as opposed to pop culture. Its not that I am opposed to its inclusion, quite the contrary as its used several times in the article, I just don’t think it fits the pop culture label. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geography / Popular Culture 

message: Is his father jewish?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.186.154 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish father? 

message: I believe the Law+Order episode is S13Ep1 (2002): American Jihad. Wil Horneff played the American/Muslim "youth" charged with Murder after having returned from Pakistan. The L+O Episode page doesn't give a synopse, but it's on NOW on TNT (US Eastern Zone, 2-3 PM).
Not sure what would be needed for sourcing so I put it here instead of just editing it in. 
Pls forgive lack of log in, it was just a quick "OMG I know that!" kind of thing ;) 71.49.108.207 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The part of the article I don't think is accurate, or at least appropriately referenced, is: On the second day, the Red Cross sent in workers to provide treatment to the wounded and try to get them to surrender. As soon as they entered, they were murdered by those inside.. 
History
*The link was marked as a dead link by someone in 10/2012.
*I removed that information because I did a pretty detailed online search without finding any information to support what is said about the Red Cross worker's murders.
*Jlcoving undid my revision stating: The episode of National Geographic, titled "Taliban Uprising", clearly states this information.
*I presume Jlcoving didn't read my comments and realize that the link was dead so it couldn't have stated the information he said it did. Right after he undid my correction he made another edit where he added a working link. While searching for information, before I originally deleted that part of the article, I did find and watch the 3:38 video clip titled "Taliban Uprising." That video makes no mention at all of any Red Cross workers being murdered. 
*I wasn't going to delete this part of the article again but the editor specifically said the information is in that video but, like I mentioned before, that video mentions nothing about the Red Cross or any similar type of murders.   You must then click the link to the video. .
*I'll put on message on Jlcoving's Talk Page so he/she can provide better information.
If anyone sees where the last reference used (that's linked right above) says anything to back up the previous editors stated, or any other references that do, please fill us in. Thanks. 
─ Matthewi (Talk) • 08:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: the article says 1 killed. I just edited the article to reflect this. M.boli (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I was going to go through and find the exact portion of the full-length episode (not just the 3:38 video clip) that 100% clearly stated this, but M.boli's cite seems to satisfy the need. I will add M.boli's cite as well as reinstate my own, unless there is an issue with this? The episode I am referring to is the full episode of "Taliban Uprising", not just the 3:38 video clip. I could post a link to the full episode in torrent form, but I don't think that is allowed? The portion of the episode, "Taliban Uprising", that states this is towards the end when they are going over what happened after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda linked soldiers took refuge in the "pink house."jlcoving (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder of Red Cross Workers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Walker Lindh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/12/16/a-long-strange-trip-to-the-taliban.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified