Talk:David Hicks/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article still a defamation risk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Case That Never Dies

message: 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)
thread_title: Point of View

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criminal Info box 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terry Hicks reads poetry in video 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The plots of  the Jews 

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

message: 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).". 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."  
Anyone got US gov sources describing Hicks' classification? SmithBlue (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "enemy combatant", "unlawful enemy combatant" or "illegal enemy combatant" 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Invitation to continue discussion

message: "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.  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)
replies: text: Agreed, Smithblue. Good work finding that reference.Lester 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres another Law Council source that has many cases showing precedence regarding Hicks etc. Wayne (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See my comments above, please. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.".  Wm (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  David Hicks’ alleged activities in Afghanistan in 2001 were not illegal at that time 

message: Some users including , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disputed paras

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC/USER discussion concerning Skyring 

message: 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: 
She then says: 
These are the two sides of the spectrum of positions on David Hicks, but she says:
She quotes a senior Australian government official: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Todo list 

message: 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 ,  and . 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quotefarm?

message: 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)
replies: text: I just went ahead and changed it. Not sure it needs an rfc yet. --Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: Actaully, it was an unsigned Brendan who raised the issue, 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RfC : Identifying whereabouts of a released person appropriate/encyclopedic?