Talk:David Hicks/Archive 2

message: Hick's prosecutor was reported to have said in early March 2007 that he had no objection to Hicks being released on parole on Hicks's return to Australia, if he was found guilty. The prosecutor's comments suggest that he is only interested in a guilty verdict and not in further punishment or incarceration. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-has-no-objection-to-parole/2007/03/03/1172868811846.html and 
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21335102-661,00.html
Given the controversy over the extent to which Hick's should be considered a threat, particularly as the Australian government has said that it has relied on advice from the US, without being privy to the evidence against Hicks's, perhaps the prosecutor's view should be included in this article.Mickiewiki 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: possibility of parole

message: Does this section really belong in an encyclopedia article?  What does is contribute?  Nothing?
What is the criteria for a link being included as commentary?  As far as I can see it is
based on whim.
The aim of the article is to summarise the facts about David Hicks.  There should be no place in 
the article for opinions, which is presumambly what is meant by "commentary".  The commentary section
should be deleted in its entirity.  I don't think "it contains links both pro and con" is
a justification for the section existing.  Opposing opinions are still opinions.
If any of the links in the commentary article have reliable and relevant facts those facts should be incorporated in
the article and the links become sources.
Do others agree with the commentary section being eliminated?  If so, could someone else
please "second" my motion by deleting the section and its contents? John Dalton 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The commentary section arises because some editors wanted to place prejudicial opinions about external links being "pro" or "anti" Hicks, thus misrepresenting the controvesy about Hicks' detention as a personal campaign, rather than acknowledging the highly controversial nature of its human rights aspects. The key question to ask about the external links is: do they provide a valuable resource to those who are interested in the subject? One "fact" about Hicks is that the case has been highly controversial - disguising this fact by removing links to material about the controvesy reduces the article rather than enhancing it. Wm 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I'm not going to argue.  What are the criteria for inclusion though?  It seems to be quite arbitrary.  It would be a shame if the list of links is simply fall out from an edit war.  That latest link is a load of crap.  At least the rest of the links (pro and con) put forward a reasoned argument.  The newest one is simply an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise a vanity website.  A blog that consists of one entry, written five days ago, hardly makes the grade.  If it was a blog that had seen lots of posts, enthusiastic discussion and was widely read I could see a case for inclusion, irrespective of whether it is pro or con.  What's there isn't even funny, it's just sad. John Dalton 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary Section

message: This section should be deleted if the only thing supporting it is an op-ed piece.  The fact that Australians think that Australian law should apply to them when they break the law in other countries is really not pertinent (nor is it well grounded in reality).  --Jrk1998 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were any old op-ed then no. But this is from a "Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists" so it's not just an ordinary op-ed and should stay. Also, from what I can tell, the primary point he's making is that it's unacceptable internationally to punish people based on retrospective laws not that Australians should be bound by Australian law. While Australians do sometimes seem to think they should have to worry about the laws of the countries they're in, this doesn't appear to be the issue being addressed here Nil Einne 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was part of report that he did as "Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists", I would agree with you.  But its not part of a report to the UN, its merely him weighing in on his personal views.  Its his opinion. Given that the paragraph outlines, repeatedly, that the charges are in violation of both Australian law, and ignores the fact that he's not being tried under Australian law, it is completely meaningless.  --Jrk1998 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The personal opinion, of someone with such a background is relevant even if it is not part of an official report. As I've already stated, from what I can tell he's not arguing that David Hicks should be tried under Australian law, but that charging someone under retrospectively laws is wrong. He's using Australian law to help highlight his case (remember this is an op-ed in an Australian paper). He also mentioned how it's in violation of international law. P.S. Actually having read the article again I think he might also be saying that given that he's an Australian citizen the government of Australia should be trying to protect him as he would be under Australian law and should be under international law especially as the US is not allowing him the protections they afford their citizens under their laws and given that he was not captured on US territory. Regardless tho, you Australian law argument doesn't hold water IMHO since it's quite clear he's not doing what your saying Nil Einne 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I should point out that one of the conditions of accepting an Australian passport is that you acknowledge that you accept the rule of Australian Law whilst in other countries, so that you can be charged in Australia under Australian Law for crimes committed overseas whilst traveling under the Australian passport.  This is made extra clear in the axillary literature you get when you get your passport. Johnpf 05:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Australian laws apply to every Australian, no matter where they are in the world.  So if it was illegal to smoke in Australia, you could be charged when you return to Sydney if you were smoking in London (provided it was proven).  The part you are missing is that Australians must also accept that Australian law does not supercede local laws when travelling. This lack of awareness by most Australians is why Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade prominently displays (and repeatedly issues) the warnings that "When you are overseas, local laws apply to you and penalties, particularly for drug-related offences, can be severe and can include the death penalty".  The Op-Ed is filled with comments about the charges against David Hicks are a violation of Australian law. As he is not charged under Australian Law, I fail to see how it is relevant at all.  --Jrk1998 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a load of rubbish. Australian law does not apply to Australian citizens overseas unless the legislation directly specifies that it does. Smoking laws do not. If you smoke marijauna in Amsterdam, you can't be charged under Australian law. Even if you kill some one in Amsterdam you can't be charged under Aussie law. The only laws to my knowledge that apply OS are the extra juristictional measures to counter child sexual abuse, anti money laundering laws, and possibly laws against 'people smuggling'. aussietiger 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No offense meant but did you actually read the Op-Ed? He only mentions Australian law in 2 instances. One is when he mentions it together with US recognition of 2 international treaties. The other is were he mentions how said treaties are protected in Australian law. He then goes on to explain protection from retrospective law is necessary. He then mentions how the same applies under US law and to US citizens and goes on to explain how David Hicks appears to be in a 'no man's land' legal situation where he is not protected under US law. The greatest part of his article is devoted to this, not to Australian law which only is briefly mentioned (and as I've stated it appears to me to be to provide context for Australian readers, not so much to argue Hicks should be protected under Australian law). Even the title suggests that the Op-Ed is not about Australian law but about what he regards as basic human right Nil Einne 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offense taken. --Jrk1998 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies then, but your statements on the op-ed suggested to me that you hadn't since they didn't seem to be about what the op-ed actually said. Nil Einne 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In this opinion piece, Vickery makes no attempt to address the fact that Australian law does not apply to David Hicks in this case. He also does not address the US perspective that this is not a retrospective law, as put forth by the US legal adviser to the US Secretary of State.
For several reasons. Firstly its mostly OR. You can't put a 'response' to someone's opinion by putting forward your own criticism of said criticism, regardless of whether or not you have sources for parts of that criticism. The Australian law thing in particular is completely OR. It also seems irrelevant since as I've already explained, I don't see any evidence to suggest Vickery was seriously suggesting Australian law should or does apply to Hicks. As for the US Secretary of State bit, it might be okay (probably not but if someone does find a better source they can try to work it in a way that doesn't sound like OR) if we had a better source for this opinion. However the current source simply states it's not a retrospective law. He then says something about 'international war crimes tribunals using offences that were "obviously put down on paper much later than the conduct actually that was in question".'. However this doesn't actually explain why the law isn't a retrospective law. Therefore there is anything to do address here. I have moved the opinion to the 'charges laid' section where we first mention the law being retrospective. It is more appropriate there. Nil Einne 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgot to mention, if someone does find a better reference they welcome to describe the US position in a separate section. This should be fine. My point above is that if someone wants to mention this position in the Human rights worker section, they need to do it in a way that isn't OR. Unless this is a specific response to the op-ed, I'm doubtful this would be possible, but editors are welcome to try. Nil Einne 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights workers claim Hicks's charge violates treaties and Australian law

message: Again, this paragraph should be deleted.  Reason 1 - clearly not pertinent given the fact that his trial has started and counsel did not withdraw.  Reason 2 - Colonel Davis has stated that not only that he did not threaten charges, but that he doesn't have the power to do so.  Cite:http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-military-prosecutor-denies-mori-threat/2007/03/05/1172943318383.html --Jrk1998 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the whole case. Things don't disappear just because circumstances change. Currently, we have two views here. One provided by Mori, one by Davis. Neither side has AFAIK withdrawn their claims. Both are therefore still valid. We don't know who is telling the truth. We do know it was a noteable controversy in this matter not just because of the potential delays but because it sounded like a defense lawyer was being threatened for doing his job. Perhaps Davis was never serious but was just trying to intimidate Mori and it backed fired. Perhaps Davis was serious but when Davis or someone realised this didn't look good he or someone above him ordered it to stop. Perhaps Davis version of events is the truth. We don't know. All we do know is there was a controversy Nil Einne 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: N.B. We probably should reduce the length of the section and obviously we need to add Davis's denial however Nil Einne 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edited to reflect the "He Said, She Said" version, which adds so much value to understanding the history of what happened. --Jrk1998 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prosecution threatens defense counsel

message: This article is way too long and is dealing with mostly with Hick's detention and trial than the person. We need a new article so a lot of the text in this article can be shifted over to that. Perhaps it should be called The trial of David Hicks. Any thoughts on a name or what should be moved? Nomadtales 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hicks is a wholly unremarkable person, save for having got himself into a pickle with the Taliban. Hence, Hicks does not need two articles. Everything notable about him is related to his terrorism training and subsequent trial.--ABVS 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Further to my last comment, perhaps it makes sense to hold off on an any major changes until the article settles down a little?  As it is the article refers to a current event and it is changing rapidly.  Any rewriting or major changes would be trying to track a moving target.  Perhaps a solution is to let the David Hicks story play itself to the end, then make an evaluation as to the best way to present a well written article once we have the entire story? John Dalton 12:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article needed

message: It says in the news article that he abandoned the Islamic faith. Is this confirmed?
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21474241-5001021,00.html
:Given that he has been held under duress in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years, it would be impossible IMHO to verify such details. And since he is forbidden from speaking with the media for a year, it's not going to get clearer anytime soon either Nil Einne 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the Australian was running some stories a month or so ago which were claiming that he'd memorised the Qur'an and was reciting it. Obviously he might've been doing both things several years ago and not anymore, but it just goes to show there's evidence being thrown around on both sides for this one. Speaking of which, I don't see that being said in the article cited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hicks still a Muslim?

message: In this section a reference from Alfred W. McCoy is used to assert that Hicks was "high-school dropout, former drug addict, sometime car thief". The article cited, however, does not provide any sources itself to back up these claims. I don't know too much about this, but does this leave enough of a basis for this part to be included? Or does the lack of citations in the McCoy article make it an invalid source in this context? --FearedInLasVegas 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think FearedInLasVegas is querying whether the citation provides the quote.  As you have pointed out, the words are prominent in the source.   Rather I think FearedInLasVegas is querying McCoy's sources and McCoy's credentials to make such a statement.  Perhaps that shoul dbe further investigated on this talk page.  If there is dispute about McCoy's words, perhaps it is better to locate sources that state the facts more directly.  Eg.  Rather than "high school drop out", perhaps state that Hicks was expelled, which is less opinionated? John Dalton 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are exactly right, John. Obviously I read the source before posting my comment, but I was unsure as to the standard of the statement. McCoy seems to pass this information off as fact (as it may well be), but without providing any information to substantiate this. I didn't feel that this was enough basis for the quote in the article, but I wanted some clarification from someone before taking any action. I see the quote has been removed now anyway :) --FearedInLasVegas 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: The following was added to the article, then removed by another party:
"The Prime Minister of Australia has defended the media ban, saying that it is not linked to an Australian federal election being due by January 2008"
The justification given for removal was "who is saying it is related to the election?".
The justification for removal is irrelevant as the article did not say that the Hicks media ban was related to the election.  What it said was that the Prime Minister denied that the two were related.  These are two very different statements.  The first is a conjecture, the second is an in disputable fact.  No one can deny the PM's denial.  To quote the reference which was provided: "The Howard Government insists it did not speak to the United States about the sentence that gags David Hicks until after the federal election".
It is significant when the PM sees an allegation as being important enough to devote the time to issue a denial and in doing so to acknowledge that links are being made.  The denial itself is significant.
I'm going to reinstate the sentence and its reference in the article as its removal was not justified.  John Dalton 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inclusion is not justified. To add a Howard quote at random with no pretext does not make any sense. Prester John 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the politics of it and what you think of David Hicks. Looking through the source, it is clear the Australian government denied the allegations and it is a relevant fact to the section. There is no reason not to include the sentence in the article. If someone feels that the reference is not clear enough, there's a squillion more to choose from, so someone will put it back (should you delete it) with another source. Vision Insider 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the denial is significant in its own right in that the PM and the foreign minister have both issued it.  It's as bit of a moot point though, as someone else has stepped in to provide the desired context.  Thanks!John Dalton 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi - Free Speech rights under the constitution do indeed extend to non-citizens, if you read the US constitution almost every right guaranteed under the constitution (bar only the right to vote) actually applies to all citizens and non-citizens that are within the jurisdiction of the United States (as a non-citizen living in the United States I looked it up). I think it is one of the greatest clauses of that document. As for how unusual it is - I've never heard of another example of it in the US or Australia (but that would be original research - the actual reason I added it is because those two reasons are exactly the reasons used by US and Australian critics to reach their speculation, as you can read in the sources below). Sad mouse 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Ban and Election

message: Heads up to everyone here that 4 corners has a program tonight analysing Hick's plea.   It airs at 8:30 tonight and is repeated at 11.35 pm this Wednesday and on ABC2 digital at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday. John Dalton 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 Corners

message: I put in this sentence into the article:
There has been speculation in the Australian media that the one-year media ban is a condition requested by the Australian government, as it is a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech.
It was deleted by Prestor John on the grounds "Doesn't mention anything like that in the given reference". I have checked the reference, it is explicitly mentioned. Both critics in the US and in Australia have raised the possibility that the gag order was a political favour from Bush to Howard. A quick google news search shows up dozens of articles, here are three for examples:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/mixed-reactions-to-hickss-sentence/2007/03/31/1174761804155.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/liberals-sought-hicks-gag-order-brown/2007/04/01/1175366067833.html
http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=162140
Not to mention that it has been a hot political topic on a number of Australian political shows, for example in the recent Insiders episode where Bob Brown was invited to talk. Furthermore, the extent to which it has been raised as a possibility is confirmed by the number of articles in which Howard has denied it is true, eg: 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pm-denies-gagging-hicks-to-stop-election-fallout/2007/04/01/1175366080767.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=257977
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=25011
Therefore I propose something like: 
There has been speculation Australian and US critics that the one-year media ban is a condition requested by the Australian government and granted as a political favour, as it is highly unusual and a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech , however this has been denied by John Howard .
Prestor John, I would also suggest that you take a little time out from this article to relax, as a number of your recent numerous edits seem hasty and without due diligence, and include personal insults and political bias in the edit summary.
I looked through all of these references and STILL couldn't find any mention of the United States First Amendment. Show me where it is cited or I will keep deleting it.Prester John 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gag order

message: Let's face it, Hicks became a sort of "hero" to the folks who dislike U.S. foreign policy.  Whether Hicks was actually a terrorist, or just some sort of wacky young idiot seeking adventure, he makes an awfully poor semblance of a hero even to those who dislike the U.S. on a kneejerk basis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.24 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that it is the only picture on Wikimedia Commons of someone protesting Hicks which I came across (it came from WikiNews BTW) I thought it would be good to add to the article. If there was another picture from a rally involving more people, then I that would be preferable. I am not sure of your concerns though, I have seen quite a lot of bumper stickers, etc saying the same thing. Nomadtales 01:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Protester

message: This whole section is untrue and not referenced. I'm giving a small amount of time before deleteing the whole bit.Prester John 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unreferenced because you removed the reference! How is it untrue, Hicks does have British citizenship, Britain has condemned Guantanamo on many occasions. The high court justice did say that Hicks was entitled to UK protection. Do you actually live in the UK or Australia? Because if you dont, I strongly doubt that you will have followed this story on television (except in the United States where the word "terrorist" and "war" will have been used in every other word!) -- I'm so special 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice you are an Australian! Sorry -- I'm so special 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I volunteer to cleanup this section. Why don't you post your concerns individually here and/or on my talk page and I'll try and salvage it. -- I'm so special 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the government makes repeated statements to the tune of close guantanamo. I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense could google that quite easily. John Reid isn't anything to do with immigration and breached legislation and procedure in his interference. This I can provide a source for. The section is not history, I'll put it straight back. Please do not remove constructive content. --I'm so special 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of U.S proceedings at Guantanamo

message: The selective quotes which are being dropped into the article are misrepresenting the content of the sources.  For example "He eventually lost contact with his two young children" comes from a discussion about Hicks being shattered by the loss of his wife, her not wanting a bar of him and the eventual loss of contact with his children.
The quote about car stealing is hearsay from his ex wife.  The article goes on to say that Hicks had no criminal record and attended Euabalong Farm, a facility for at-risk boys.
None of that comes through in the recent additions to the article.  Maybe the author should reverse or amend his changes in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which is highlighted at the top of this page? 
A source can be made to say anything if it is sliced into small enough pieces and reassembled.  Better to summarise a source in your own words to accurately reflect its entire meaning rather than destroy the readability of the article with slabs of dubious quotes.  The reader can follow the link to the source to get the original words (which should have the same meaning as the article).  John Dalton 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains Hicks "lost contact" with his two children. It is referenced and relevant. If you can find a reference that says otherwise then go right ahead.Prester John 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does half the truth equal the truth? John Dalton 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ask that on the Buddhism talk page. Are you saying Dawood didn't lose contact with his two young innocent children? Do you think he has paid a cent in maintenence?Prester John 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by this Prester John? Are you trying to say Hicks is in the wrong for losing contact with his own children? -- I'm so special
What do I mean by what?Prester John 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've flagged this article on the Biographies of living people noticeboard.  Being about a living person this article needs to adhere to higher standards than a regular Wikipedia article. John Dalton 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is quite clear that policies do not have to be followed when dealing with David Hicks! Wikipedia better be careful or we might all be charged with providing material support to a terrorist. aussietiger 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Deletion of Religious conversion and terrorism is proposed.
For discussion see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_conversion_and_terrorism
--ISKapoor 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion of related article

message: This article is near impossible to keep neutral due to the opposing veiws of Australians in Genaral v Americans in General. I believe the only way for people to think it would be neutral would be to take a completely anti-Hicks view during the entire article. This of course is hypocritical, and thus the article is indeed as neutral as it needs be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Storm 59 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical of the anti-American view. "I'm right, you're wrong, and let's not let facts or balance get in the way." For heaven's sake: He worked for the Taliban, a vicious, brutal, occupying army. Maybe his claims need checking? Anybody ever audit this guy? I have personally audited serveral extremists of various types and found them to be habitually free with the truth. That's why they're called extremists. Scott Adler (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of Article

message: The article says:
:"David Hicks was born in Adelaide, South Australia, son of Terry and Susan, (who is a British citizen by birth)"
And that's my question too. Who is a British citizen by birth? —Pengo 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, anyone? See also: British_nationality_law.--220.238.219.253 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement 

message: I don't agree with the name move based on the idea that this is a common name and Hicks' notibility will fade quickly. Alan Johnston is a common name and his ordeal will fade quickly but his article is not being renamed. If there are no major conflicts with other articles, just leave it be. WP:NCP states use "the name that is most generally recognisable", adding a Matthew to the article deminishes this. Also please discuss before making major changes, like renaming. Nomadtales 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is a conflict, with David Hicks the most influential interior decorator/designer in the XXth Century. He is much more notable than the felon.--70.57.246.220 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the wiki article if he is so notable? Nomadtales 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of unwritten Wikipedia articles about notable people.  In this case, I am working on an article on David Hicks.  Just do the Google search: "David Hicks" 1929 for more information. --Bejnar 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name move 

message: The sources given identify that the aliases were alleged by US Military prosecutors, are described exactly as that in the later body of the article, and no references have been given to conclusively prove that these were actually aliases used by Hicks. These aliases should be verified with additional sources or remain "alleged". --Brendan 07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you even read the references provided in the article? Let's together look at reference number three located here.
Let me quote from the reference;
*ELLEN FANNING: And he changed his name, we read [to], Mohammed Dahwoud? 
*TERRY HICKS: Mohammed DARwoud.
*ELLEN FANNING: DARwoud. 
*TERRY HICKS: Yes. We never recognised that name. We never called him by that name. I mean, he was David, a couple of times he didn't like it but he new darned well that I wasn't going to call him Mohammed Darwoud. 
So despite the fact that none of the sources for this article seem to be in any doubt about his a.k.a's, and your desire to add your own original research in to attributing this to some evil US military conspiracy, We have a quote from Hicks' own father saying that Hicks literally begged his family to call him "Muhammad Dawood". In fact he got all pissy when the family on several occassions didn't call him Dawood. Now the question is this Brendan. Do we accept Terry Hicks as a reliable source for this article? Or does it make more sense to claim this is just some fabrication directed from the high office of Chimpy McHitlerburton? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your language, tone and inferences are unreasonable. Please assume good faith, remain civil and avoid misrepresenting the contributions of others. I never asserted an "evil US military conspiracy". I said that the sources given and the Hicks article itself state the aliases were alleged by US Military prosecutors (ie. in the briefs of evidence). Read the Hicks article, it did say that (under the Charges and New charges sections). I agree I was mistaken on "Dawood". Thanks for supporting with a concise reference. It makes such a positive difference. I didn't see the Terry Hicks' reference to "Dawood". But also be honest and concise -- you've only cited a second source for one alias, then extrapolated that to a "fact" that none of the sources seem to be in any doubt about any of his aliases. What about "Abu Muslim al-Austraili"?--Brendan 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Status of Dawood is of this very moment a convicted terrorist. Your continued assertion of being a "citizen" is redundant as that is a given when we write the word "Australian". Your inference that he was only know as Muhammad Dawood in Afghanistan is wrong. He demanded to be known as this in the Balkans and in Australia. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed the reasons, you don't seem to be able to read or even recognize them. The latest current information is that Hicks is in prison after pleading guilty to his material support for terrorism charge. The facts about Gitmo are addressed in the second paragraph, whereas you seem to erase his conviction altogether. I cannot keep repeating that the Hicks used the Dawood name in regions other than Afghanistan.Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Known as Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Muhammed Dawood" 

message: I've protected the page in response to an edit war. Please discuss your differences here on the talk page and try to reach consensus. If edit-warring resumes after the protection expires in 4 days, there will likely be a lower threshold for blocking involved editors. MastCell Talk 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I reverted because his lawyer said he wasn't practicing any religion -- I don't see why the heading for this section should say "Islamic beliefs" not "Religious beliefs"  I certainly don't understand why the change from religious to islamic should be justified by a claim of NPOV.
Cheers!  Geo Swan
:::Let me enlighten you, it is POV to describe Islam as a religion, it is more accurate to describe it as a "Death cult", but that is also POV. It is probably better to just describe it as Islam. Accuracy is better. I, Prester John am a cunt, a complete and utter one. So really just ignore what i sayPrester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Daewoo <chuckle!> ;) Although, there is little room for such confusion in the article as it currently stands. It is clearly spelled out, throughout the article, that his interest was with Islam, not another religion. Requiring a subsection of that title is unnecessary. Moreover, I don't think any separate subsection is needed, as the religious views seem better contextualised by their infusion into the larger narrative about militant activites. Doing that would also enable more accurate portrayal of the chronology of events and the significance of his religious views (at the time) to the militant choices that he made. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religious beliefs" versus "Islam" 

message: These are mine. Even though I had logged in, the session was lost somehow, leaving my edits unsigned. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyedits of Religious activities 

message: I contend that the use of the word "convicted" is POV here.  It implies that there was a fair trial, that evidence was presented and that he was then found guity on the weight of the evidence.  None of these things happened - he pled guilty as part of a plea bargain.
Here is a definition from dictionary.com:
"   1. Law: To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court: The jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter."
While we could say that the tribunal found him guity after he pled guilty this is not what most people would think when reading that he was convicted.  I'd like to change the wording but I'll wait for comments first. Robert Brockway 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring additional evidence of the proper use of these terms, I agree that "pled guilty" appears more appropriate. - Merzbow 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convicted 

message: I find it disturbing that some editors have been deleting inline references from this article. Presumably the deleting editor doesn't like some of the incidental content in that reference. I ask people to stop deleting references, as they are there for the purpose of identifying and verifying one particular fact, and other content that the reference contains is immaterial.--Lester2 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of references

message: I should have noted this yesterday, but I have blocked both Brendan and Prester John for disruption. I will note to everyone on this article that there is a lower then normal tolerance for revertwarring and disruption on this article. Being disruptive is being blockable, please discuss rather then revert. you guys might actually find a few points where you guys agree. Please remember there is mediation available if you need it. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks 

message: It needs acknowledgement in the lead that the concise context of the guilty plea was a plea bargain, between the defense and the convening authority judge, which bypassed the chief prosecutor altogether (as widely reported by numerous Australian and American sources). This is an important factual distinction. I've added this context to the lead and ask for good faith editorial comment. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guilty plea bargain

message: This is a notice that the claim in the intro that Hicks was an "infantryman" with the Taliban must be removed. Here is the text:
In 2001, Hicks served as an infantryman with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Reason it must be removed: Possibly libelous. Does not conform to WP:BLP. We don't know what the man really did, as there are claims and denials all over the place. We are not attributing the claim to anyone else. Hick's father once thought Hicks was a fighter, then retracted the claim. The reference provided did not support the statement.--Lester2 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, "infantryman" is unnecessary and not really accurate language. - Merzbow 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "infantryman"

message: We only have a few more hours until Brendans ban is expired and the edit warring will continue. Let me predict some of the points he will again try to whitewash and gloss over under his policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brendan has repeatedly erased referenced information about his cannibas use and penchant for scratching satanic symbols into his arm. Despite the quote from the reference being; "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. ", Brendan seems happy to use the reference for other purposes, yet redescribe his satanic leanings as "body mutilataion" similar to getting a nose ring, or belly button piercing. Brendan originally edited this out using the edit summary of "adding" material, here so it is wise to go through all his edits with a fine tooth comb. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was it that complained about "whitewashing" John Howard? I think it's PKB time here. --Pete 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an atrocious discussion: 'Prester John', it is completely inappropriate and incivil to predict what someone might or might not do, or to make personal remarks about them.Skyring(Pete), to talk about payback time is also atrocious. These actions have no place in civil discussions. --Lester2 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Snerk. As for predicting actions, yeah, I agree. Let us judge Brendan on what he does, not what we think he might do. There were all sorts of predictions as to what would happen when I officially came back, and they were all wrong. I'm not entirely happy about mentioning the symbols, but an anti-Christian attitude displayed in Hicks' childhood could help our understanding of his later actions. Then again, he may have just been hoping to shock or impress people. It's certainly colorful. --Pete 04:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skyring(Pete), I accept you meant "Pot Calling Kettle Black", instead of Payback time. My misunderstanding. However, the discussion topic is still in bad faith, because it is trying to predict what another editor will do, and taunting. --Lester2 04:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Speculation about "anti-Christian attitude" is barely even original research. I did edit the language for NPOV/weight before -- eg. "self mutilation" rather than "scratched satanic symbols" -- but, on further reflection, dispute the inclusion of either forms. Comments attributed to unidentified "former friends" of Hicks, by a single media source, fall short of reliability of sources and verifiablity policies. Note that WP:BLP requires a higher standard of both. On this basis, the material about "satanic scratchings" will be removed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna agree with Brendan here, this source is not reliable enough for these types of claims. - Merzbow 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder which relevance this is supposed to have. Bingedrinking and cannabis smoking are quite common in Australian High Schools, and self-mutilation is not a rare behaviour either. Unless you try to construct a pseudo-psychological explanation (when Satan wasn't evil enough, Islam filled the gap), it doesn't help to understand why he was held five years in prison. Without sources it is pure slender. --203.214.33.211 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't see that quote in the ABC reference?! Neither is it in the BBC story.  It is in the magazine style show, one that has disavowed any pretense of a news program. It quotes the recollection of a person who makes a sweeping categorisation of a group of students, these things rate much better, who would complain? Not their advertising clients. The same clients who benefit when someone makes a fallacious claim on wikipedia, sends people off to wade through the advertising and find the misquotation.  Cygnis insignis 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus appears to be for exclusion of this poorly sourced, unverified, unclearly attributed, POV, overly weighted "satanic scratchings" mention. I have reverted Prester John's latest re-insertion of this accordingly. Prester, please desist from ad hominem rants, use article talkpages to discuss content (not other editors), and notice the general absence of agreement with your position.  --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with that source as a whole, it's a transcript of some people talking on a show. I'd support not using it in any capacity. - Merzbow 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with Merzbow's previous remark. Very solid sources are required, otherwise delete it.--Lester2 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Satanic symbols

message: Prester John keeps removing this reference without discussion on the claim that it is a "partisan blog" (here and here). Can other editors please comment on the acceptability of the use of this reference in this article (as attributed to the comment "widespread criticism")? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again we have more tedious misrepresentations by Brendan in his ongoing POV push. If you check the current article you see the reference Brendan claims I am deleting is in fact still there. Brendan is now conjuring up this latest scenario in an effort to insert this reference, hoping someone will fall into his trap and revert this partisan blog back in. Check my diff carefully and you can see exactly what is going on. It is these constant and repeated bad faith games which really should indef block this lying and disruptive editor. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for goodness' sake. The diffs here and here (that I linked above) plainly belie your claims. If you can't comment honestly in good faith, step aside and let other editors have a say. Your bullying, ad hominem, handwaving and hostility on talkpages and in edit summaries are intolerable. You've been warned many times about incivility, by many editors, arguably well beyond the limits of reasonable courtesy (for recent example, about your trolling on my talkpage]). What will it take in order for you to become a respectful editor rather than remain an outright belligerent one? --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptability of reference : Devika Hovell article in JURIST