Wikipedia

Talk:David Hicks/Archive 4

< Talk:David Hicks
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tuntable in topic Tidy up lead in
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Infobox

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I love an info box with player stats or battle statistics or tech data: that stuff is well presented in the info box format. For DH article - I support its removal as unnecessary clutter. Others?SmithBlue (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Material for Article

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

From the ABC: Former prosecutor says he wouldn't have charged Hicks John Dalton (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the article formatted as a Wikipedia reference:

<ref name="ABC_prosecutor">{{cite news |title=Former prosecutor says he wouldn't have charged Hicks |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/29/2230530.htm |publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] |date=2008-04-29 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>

Copy-paste the above 2 lines and put it after the text you want to add in the article. If you want to format other references, go to Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Cheers, Lester 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, nobody has added this new information (above), so I just did it myself. Lester 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Leadsectiontoolong

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Despite some entertaining differences of opinion on this article, I'd like to think that we all share the goal of writing an encyclopaedia within the accepted wikicommunity standards. The lead section is too long. It should summarise the rest of the article, leaving the detail (and different views on his case) to the article body. If I remove (say) every second sentence, would that be acceptable? --Pete (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

hmmm - the length of the lead reflects the length of the article. WP:LEAD from memory says that 3 or 4 paragraphs for a lead is fine for a larger article such as this one. Now, that is just my comment on the length, it doesn't necessarily mean that the lead is written appropriately. Also, I remember, another suggestion was to split the article into a biography on Hicks, and another on the case and controversy. Clearly, the biographic article would a lot shorter in this case. --Merbabu (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The "different views on his case", as it has been described above, is the crux of the story. The controversy is crucial to the summary of events, so I would not like to see that moved to the bottom of the article.Lester 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm in no hurry. Is the POV tag on the article still current? Or do we have consensus? For my part I think it fairly NPOV. SmithBlue (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now thinking {Unbalanced} template should be added due to lack of torture report and scarcity of torture allegations and missing specifics of legal concerns with trial procedures. SmithBlue (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about this should be continued, and any "POV" issues should actively be worked on. I don't want to see the POV tag idly sit there if we aren't actively fixing whatever POV there is. I support torture allegations being added to the lead paragraph, as it could be done in 1 or 2 words. At the moment the article mentions "allegations of politcial interference", which could be changed to allegations of political interference and torture".Lester 03:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Without charge

Latest comment: 16 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

Is it contentious to mention in the intro that David Hicks was detained "without charge". I refer to [this edit] where the article was reverted to remove the words "without charge". Why was it reverted, and why is it contentious? Lester 02:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was contentious. I meant it has been discussed here at length before from memory. I am also questioning the accuracy of the statement. Is this indeed what the main article says? If not, it should not be in the lead. Even if it is accurate, why does it deserve to go in the lead? Given all the contention over the lead, such a change would need to get consensus here first. --Merbabu (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, for almost all of Hicks time in Guantanamo he was held without charge. The exception is in mid-2004 for when they laid charges and then withdrew them again. Then, just before his release he was charged with supporting terrorism. But for the vast majority of his time in Gitmo, there were no charges against him. I don't know how you word that. Lester 03:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While you are both free to discuss the lead I point out that that the lead is meant to reflect the body of the article and the body of this article is lacking both "torture allegations" and "specific legal concerns over nature of trail process" from known references. The Biblical metaphor of "a house built on sand" springs to mind. Hope you both have good weekends. (Yeah not all my edits are firmly based either - see Serbophobia ICJ material for example.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The first, but not the sole, criteria for inclusion in the lead is inclusion in the main body.
Lester, if as you are saying he was charged in 2004, and that you don't even know how to word the lead otherwise, why support a statement that says he wasn't charged until 2007? --Merbabu (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"without valid charge" covers the situation. I get a sense of deja vu ... SmithBlue (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"Without valid charge" is worse from a POV point of view. Valid according to what or who's POV? If consensus over the next few days is for "without charge" i could possibly accept that, but not "without valid charge". --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
From the article: "In November 2004, Hicks's trial was delayed when a US Federal Court ruled that the military commissions in question were unconstitutional." (This needs a cite) and "On 29 June 2006, in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunals were illegal under United States law and the Geneva Conventions." (This is the point that Pete turned up last time.) Do you now agree that "without valid charge" is possibly NPOV? SmithBlue (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"Without valid charge" remains POV, even if it is the point of view of esteemed (or otherwise) judicial bodies. This is a separate and new issue to "without charge" which was the original opener of this topic, but one which is clouding the issue. --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
PS, the words you quote in your post above are fine from a POV issue - they are written as a statement of fact (whether they are indeed fact is another issue - ie, your cite tags). But "without valid charge" is a POV-laden interpretation when inserted into the lead without further explanation. The solution might be to summarise (as opposed to judgmentally interpret) the text you've quoted above. --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Merbabu, my thinking is that the exact wording is here is relatively unimportant. I ask you to consider your position that charges/acts/detentions brought/done under laws or regulations rejected by the US Supreme Court are valid charges/acts/detentions. To my limited legal understanding they are without legal authority and hence well described as invalid. You seem a reasonable editor - "charges brought without valid legal authority" - how do you think we could well describe them? SmithBlue (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"without valid charge" is interpretative, therfore POV against wikipedia fundamentals. INdeed, the factual information on this issue is in the second paragraph. I'd be much happier if we just state the facts, rather than interpreting. But, these facts are in the 2nd paragraph. Thus, it has simply becoming an issue of moving info in the 2nd paragraph into the 2nd sentence. Not to single out anyone, it gets tiring when POV-pushers on both sides insist on having their POV as the opening sentence or two.
The original issue also remains: ie, the anon editor who insists that he wasn't charged until 2007, which we know is inaccurate. That the 2004 charges were later ruled "invalid" (or whatever), doesn't mean he wasn't charged.
When the real world topics are surrounded by disparate and strongly-held POV's, it's hardly unexpected that the subject faces similar problems on wikipedia. THe behavior of people on this article has been ridiculous and ties up the time of editors time. I can name (but won't) two specific editors on this article and others (one on either side of the political spectrum) who, if I had the power, would gladly ban from wikipedia forever as they bring only trouble to the project (not SmithBlue). So frustrating and a time waster. --Merbabu (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to me? I started a discussion about it, but haven't reverted it. A previous version of the article said "without valid charge", which was later changed to "without charge", then deleted altogether. I think "without a valid charge" or "without a sustainable charge" is OK, as the charges were invalidated by a subsequent court. For 5 or 6 years, Hicks was confined in Guantanamo without any charges, and it is important for this information to be in the intro and article body. It's a challenge to compact the information into a short summary for the intro.Lester 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sustainable and valid are the same. They're both judgmental commentary which is redundant anyway as accurate and non-POV info on this is in the second paragraph....
"Charges were first filed against Hicks in 2004 under a military commission system newly created by Presidential Order.[7] Those proceedings failed in 2006 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the military commission system was unconstitutional. The military commission system was re-established by an Act of the United States Congress. Revised charges were filed against Hicks in February 2007 before a new commission under the new Act.
Thus, why are people seemingly determined to put misleading and POV words into the second sentence? Currently it's handled quite well - the second sentence acknowledges that he was held from 2001 to 2007 and doesn't become a factual and POV nightmare by saying "without valid/sustainable charge". --Merbabu (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are we revisiting this? --Pete (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who has joined this discussion thread is doing so in good faith, despite sometimes (but not always) differing viewpoints. I don't think anyone needs to be banned for joining a discussion.
Maybe there's a balance that could be struck between the previously inserted statement that he was "detained without charge", and the present wording that he was charged in 2004, proceedings failed, and he was charged again in 2007. I agree with Merbabu that the second wording is factual. But it also misses something. The simple timeline doesn't capture the controversy and the protest that occurred at the time over the specific issue that Hicks was being held for such an extended period of time (many years) without charge. It was an incredibly unusual situation in US & Australian legal history that someone would be held for so long without charge or trial. There were legal academics around the world speaking out. There were ex PMs speaking out about the lack of charges. There were senators being ejected from the Australian parliament over the issue. PM Howard kept repeating that he expressed to the US president that charges need to be expedited. The issue that Hicks was detained for years without charge was enormous, it needs to be expressed in the article, and the controversy surrounding the lack of charges needs to be summed up in the intro. Everyone agree? Disagree? Thanks, Lester 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I phrased my question poorly. Let me ask it again. Why are you revisiting this? --Pete (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Peter, you shouldn't worry or question that Wikipedia edits get discussed on the discussion page. Please keep the discussion focused on discussing the edits, not the editors. Thanks, Lester 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Just answer the question, please. Why are you revisiting this? --Pete (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There has been recent edit warring over the "without charges" issue. Also, at least 3 editors have indicated a wish to include something in the intro to indicate the absence of charges regarding Hicks. I now agree with Merbabu that the original wording was not satisfactory, but I feel it needs something to replace that, as stated in my previous post (above) that begins with the words "Everyone who has joined". Lester 07:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's keep the wording in line with concensus, OK? That way you don't waste the time of other editors, and you can go do some fresh work elsewhere in the time you otherwise spend re-presenting a case we've all heard before. --Pete (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(unintent for readibility) Hi Lester. I’m not sure that there was edit warring over this in the last day or so – rather, there is much discussion on talk page – a much better state of affairs than edit warring.

Anyway, the lead contains several sentences about the history of charges against Hicks. We cannot say it doesn't - I've even quoted it above here in talk. To not acknowledge this here would be a little disingenuous (if you don’t mind me saying). The issue now is that an anon editor added "without charge" which is false/inaccurate and conflicts with the factual info already present. This cannot stand. Subsequently, other editors have proposed “without valid/sustainable charge” which is a POV nightmare and redundant as the actual facts which, I repeat, are stated clear as day in the lead (as opposed to interpretative judgements – i.e., “valid”).

I understand your concerns - no-one is suggesting that this case wasn’t controversial or that the article lead shouldn’t mention the controversy. The article needs some punchy opening sentences that must get to the point, but not be weighed down by either incorrect or POV information. Or get weighed down explaining the details of the charges. That’s the first two sentences. Then the third sentence – yes, only the third, still in the first paragraph – is devoted to the controversy (although it’s written in a borderline POV/commentary style – but that’s a separate issue). Surely this is OK? All that in the first paragraph! It’s crammed!

But, people want to move the existing info from the 2nd to the 1st paragraph. There is no way to get around the charge issue in a manner that is both (a) accurate, and (b) NPOV, without using a few sentences as a minimum. This is what we have in the second paragraph.

Regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording proposal

Hi Merbabu. (re: New wording proposal) How about this as a proposed wording change for paragraph #2:
He was transported to Guantanamo Bay where he was designated an enemy combatant, during which time he alleged he was tortured. For the first two and a half years of Hicks' confinement he was held without charge, a situation which drew protest from the Australian government. Charges were eventually laid in 2004 under a military commission system newly created by Presidential Order. Lester 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You are now talking about changing paragraph 2 also? This is a new issue, the need for which is not clear to me. The relevant part of this paragraph is below - could you please identify specifically why you think it is deficient in describing the charges, and why (again, specifically) your suggestion is an improvement:
He was captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance and sold for a $1,000 bounty to the U.S. military.[3] He was transported to Guantanamo Bay where he was designated an enemy combatant,[4] during which time he alleged he was tortured.[5][6] Charges were first filed against Hicks in 2004 under a military commission system newly created by Presidential Order.[7] Those proceedings failed in 2006 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the military commission system was unconstitutional.
regards --Merbabu (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
PS, Ah - i see - the new bit is the Aust Govt protest over lack of charge. Perhaps this could be added before the last sentence of the section I quoted above. If so, it should be short, sharp, neutral, and of course accurate with the broad agreement of other editors. if not, I suggest forget it. hope you understand my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The original version contains the facts, but one of the biggest issues surrounding the whole Hicks saga was the extended time he was held without charges. Someone reading the original text may be unaware of the controversy surrounding Hicks' lack of charges. It seemed to draw criticism from all sides, that is, from the Australian government (Howard & Ruddock publicly said they were pressuring the US to lay charges against Hicks), and there was also much protest from non-government sources. The difficulty is to sum all of that up in one compact sentence. Regarding the position of the text, I think it would need to go before we say that charges were eventually laid in 2004. Best wishes, Lester 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but "controversy" is already mentioned - in the first paragraph (what prominence! ;-) ). So, how about changing that sentence to:
Hicks's treatment, the two and half year detainment without charge,[or similar words] the evidence tendered against him, his trial outcome, and the newly created legal system under which he was prosecuted, drew widespread criticism and political controversy. ?
My question is for Lester, and of course the rest of the community - so please comment. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not bad. The only issue is that it was 2 and a half years until the charges were laid in 2004, then those charges collapsed, so then Hicks was held for more years without charge, until the final charges in 2007. Reference #7 in the article provides a bit of a timeline for when charges happened. Unless we use your above sentence, but change it to "many years without charge", or something like that, and then put the detail in the body.Lester 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the lead and body that does not contain the allegations, by third parties, that Hicks was tortured in Gitmo, to be substandard. As such work on the lead alone is irrelevant. 58.6.246.122 (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, excellent article over all. However I have tried to follow some links in the reference section and they are not working, the very first reference to SMH is an example. It would very useful for this small problem to be resolved.

Thank you in advance, 124.171.143.40 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Torture of DH

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I find the only claim of torture mentioned in this article are DH's own claims. However much was published stating that Hick was tortured - why are these reports not reflected in this article? Curiously there are 3 references used in the article that refer to torture in the title of the reference but none of this information is presented as relating to DH being tortured, (one of these references explicitly discusses how DH was being tortured). I question the balance of this article. SmithBlue (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm following you. Are you saying that reliable sources state that people other than David Hicks allege that he's been tortured, and that the wikipedia article doesn't include that? Or am I misreading you? Andjam (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference 28. McCoy, Alfred W.: Outcast of Camp Echo: The Punishment of David Hicks, The Monthly, retrieved 15 December 2006. one sample "The apparent aim of such sensory deprivation, one of the longest on record since the CIA adopted this torture technique fifty-odd years ago...".
Lateline 13/06/2006 "Hicks 'severely damaged', says CIA expert"
TONY JONES: Those are pretty dramatic statements you are making. I would have to say, though, the Red Cross is about to go and do an urgent inspection of the prison and it does appear that their reports back in 2004 do back up a lot of what you are saying. They also decided that what was happening at Guantanamo Bay amounted to a system of torture.
MCCOY ....but torture per se. Confinement at Guantanamo constitutes torture.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm Claims of torture in Guantanamo Bay AM (ABC Radio)- Wednesday, 8 October , 2003
Reporter: Ben Knight
US-based Australian lawyer, Richard Bourke, has made the allegations after working for almost two years on the cases of Camp X-Ray detainees.
RICHARD BOURKE: They are torturing people. They are torturing people on Guantanamo Bay.
BEN KNIGHT: And he believes the two Australian detainees, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, have also been tortured.
RICHARD BOURKE: I, I don't doubt that.
SmithBlue (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Red Cross: "The report of the June visit said investigators had found a system devised to break the will of the prisoners at Guantánamo, who now number about 550, and make them wholly dependent on their interrogators through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." Investigators said that the methods used were increasingly "more refined and repressive" than learned about on previous visits.
The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture,"[1]
At a minimum article must include the fact that the Red Cross found the Gitmo system in which DH was imprisoned to be a "intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture". SmithBlue (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The following was removed from the article by PresterJohn 23:44, 1 April 2007 edit sum:(→Rendition: Needs additional citation) "Professor of History Alfred W. McCoy writes[1] that:
  • Initially held onboard USS Peleliu in the Arabian Sea, Hicks was "flown to a nearby land base for ten-hour torture sessions, shackled and blindfolded, which were marked by kicking, beatings with rifle butts, punching about the head and torso, death threats at gunpoint and anal penetration with objects – all by Americans."
  • On July 9 2003, Hicks was placed in a closet-sized, self-contained cell designed to deny its occupant all stimuli; this CIA sensory-deprivation torture technique continued for eight months (244 days). Hicks "experienced 'extreme mood swings' almost hourly" and began to consider suicide. By early 2004 American attorney Joshua Dratel, "found Hicks at the brink of despair [...] obsessed with the minutiae of his surroundings, almost unable to comprehend the reality of his trial and the larger issues at stake." SmithBlue (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of torture allegations there is the lack of the published material alleging that the evidence used against David Hicks could include evidence obtained through torture.

"in response to growing public concern that evidence acquired through torture might be admissible in military commission proceedings. Military Instruction No. 10 purports to exclude evidence in Military Commission trials which has been obtained by torture. However, the definition of “torture” contained in the Military Instruction is significantly narrower than that contained in the international Convention Against Torture...
There are also serious doubts as to whether the Military Instruction will be effective in any event in providing protection against the reception of evidence obtained by torture, even if the narrower definition of torture is accepted." "[2]

Also lacking is info on most of the specific legal concerns raised over Hicks trails processes. Fair trials accord adds to pressure over Hicks SMH. Fine tuning the lead needs to wait until the article is balanced. SmithBlue (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user SmithBlue, regarding the article not covering the torture allegations enough. However, as with all aspects of this article, we must attribute the allegations to whoever made them.Lester 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering how to put the torture material into the article I see that Sections "Capture and detention" and "Torture allegations" are, at present badly differentiated and need to be re-worked. I suggest that "Torture allegations" becomes a sub heading within "Capture and detention" and that we present the names of the people making allegations and the allegations. McCoy has already linked the IRCRC report finding torture in Gitmo to DH - so the IRC quote appears usable. The issue of concerns over the admissibility of "material/confessions obtained under duress/coercion/torture" in DH's trial seems to be better placed chronologically in the "trails" area of the article. And also the material on the numerous other legal/ethical concerns on the trails needs to be re/included here too. Other thoughts? SmithBlue (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another allegation of torture "David Hicks might be back but the fact remains that the Howard Government left an Australian citizen languishing in a foreign jail and he was, by all accounts, tortured and abused." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/20/1928017.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unverifiable" claimed in recent edit summs

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recent edits have removed cited material claiming it is "unverifiable". Please show how this sourced material does not meet WP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead wording

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

The lead said:

David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who undertook combat training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, for which he was detained by the United States Government in Guantanamo Bay. After five years detention, he entered into a plea bargain with U.S. authorities pleading guilty to involvement with terrorism and became the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006.[1] Hicks's treatment, trial process and outcome, and the newly created legal system under which these events took place, drew widespread criticism and controversy.
In 1999, Hicks converted to Islam. In 2001, under the name Muhammed Dawood, he undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan.

The emphasised parts are redundancy. Under Wikipedia editing policy#Preserve_information, redundancy is permitted to be removed, which I had done but this was reverted. I seek discussion on restoring my edit. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with such "repetition". The first sentence or two must establish the notability of the subject, then the following paragraphs can elaborate. The elaboration would look a little odd without the main parts removed on a fear of repetition. Perhaps the repeated part (later) can be refined - but don't leave holes. Your proposed text removed much of what makes Hicks notable and what should be in the first sentence or two...
David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who, after five years detention by the United States Government in Guantanamo Bay, became the first such detainee to be trialled and convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006.[1] Hicks's treatment, trial process and outcome, and the newly created legal system under which these events took place, drew widespread criticism and controversy.
Please put new lead proposals here before editing the main space again. cheers. As a bare minimum, the first sentence, or two, must talk about Hicks' Al Queada/Taliban involvement, and his time in US custody. --Merbabu (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The lead as a whole is intended to summarise what is notable, not cram everything into the first sentence and then repeat it in the second paragraph. I was being bold and will continue to do so. I think there is certainly something wrong with repetition that adds nothing new (either stylistically or factually) to an article. A minor alteration to my original edit meets the criteria you have stated above:
David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who, after five years detention in Guantanamo Bay by the United States Government for involvement with al-Qaeda, became the first such detainee to be trialled and convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006. Hicks's treatment, trial process and outcome, and the newly created legal system under which these events took place, drew widespread criticism and controversy. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You're changes are not just removal of extra infomation - rather, you've added to the lead:
  • "became the first such detainee to be trialled and convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006",
  • "5 years detention",
  • and, re-ordered it out of chronological order.
These are major changes, and not just what you've said you've done. It took a long time to get consensus on this issue, please (as a minimum) remove the new information you added, restore chronological order, and get the agreement of others than yourself. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk about splitting hairs. The above points do not identify new information but a stylistic rewording of the same information. The lead previously said "became the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006" and my reword further qualified that per significant facts in the article. The lead previously said "for which he was detained by the United States Government in Guantanamo Bay. After five years detention...". My reword said the same thing, but in fewer words. It remains to be shown where the chronology is out of order as a result. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brendan, this goes against major consensus formed above - a number of editors including yourself ("concise, unarguable"), Skyring, and Lester all agreed. Now you want to unilaterally change it. --Merbabu (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not set in stone. Merbabu, my initial view, formed on an isolated reading of your wording for the introductory paragraph at the time, was that your wording was good. But on a more recent closer read, the repetition of text from later parts of the lead stuck out like a sore thumb, introducing redundancy that editing policy permits correction. Excessive repetition is unencyclopedic and creates undue emphasis (in this instance, on Hicks's Taliban/al-Qaeda involvement). Despite your assertions, no notable information (that was already expressed or implied elsewhere in the lead) was removed, the chronology is not out of order by my recent revision, nor has any new information (ie. that wasn't already expressed or implied) been added: 5 years detention was already mentioned in the original text, as was the comment about Hicks being the first conviction under the USMCA 2006, while the other changes I made were minor grammatical style changes. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains that you unilaterally and dramatically altered the first paragraph - all of a sudden, it has a new POV, adding emphasis to his imprisonment, while taking away factual information on his Afghanistan activites. You swapped cold hard facts, for parapraphsing and weasal words. And despite "your assertions" (and earlier claims that it was only information removal) you have introduced new info into the opening part of the lead.
You are quote guidelines that suit you, dismiss those that don't, and promise to continue to "be bold" (read edit war?), yet only a few days ago, accuse other editors of gaming the system. Are you going to continue? --Merbabu (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Merbabu, you are the only editor so far to object to my edit. I'm not understanding where you believe new information (inappropriate or otherwise) or weasel words were inserted, so it would help if you could explain exactly what you're referring to and elaborate how those specific parts of text are problematic. Factual information about Hicks's activities in Afghanistan are still in the lead, in paragraphs subsequent to the first. A convincing case for duplication of that information in the first paragraph has not been sustained. The POV is not changed by the new wording because the essential facts are still there (per your specifications above, I note) summarising Hicks's lengthy incarceration, the verifiable grounds for that, and the controversy/public reaction about his situation, which is elaborated upon in subsequent paragraphs in the lead. The lead needs to be read as a whole, not as sentences in isolation.
Can I also ask that, if you wish to talk about me as an editor, you please avail yourself of my talkpage and other relevant Wikipedia forums and try to keep article talkpages for their intended purpose (article content discussions). --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Brendan & Merbabu. It's difficult to determine what are "cold hard facts" in the David Hicks case. Yes, he confessed to things, but those confessions have to be viewed in the context that Hicks and his legal team alleged he was tortured. Hicks legal team say he confessed as his only means to return home, to avoid further torture at Guantanamo Bay. It gets back to what I've been saying all along, that there are 2 sides to this story, and both sides need to be told. We should say what the US government alleges, as well as the counterpoint from Hicks and others. Neither side is cold hard facts. Cheers, Lester 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Lester, this page has shown appaling editing behaviour from a number of editors from all "sides" of the political fence. Such editing actions - which I see currently as POV changes against consensus, and a promise to edit war to enforce one's own preference - are what drives others away from these articles or wikipedia itself. Having said that, I note that the readership statistics of this article is generally quite low - so for now I will spend my wikitime more producitvely on higher profile pages with less difficult and belligerent editors (again, that are from all sides of the political fence). It's a serious waste of good wiki time, and I can be of more use at higher profile pages elsewhere. Of course, I might return and be bold and insist on my preferences for the article at later date - it seems to be the accepted modus operandi. --Merbabu (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My view - in the context of the quality of Wikipedia as a whole this dispute is a waste of time in as much as it is about content. In as much as it reflects the way we edit it is disappointing. The lead is meant to reflect the content of the article. Yet no-where in this discusion to date do I see any mention of how much space is given to, say, detention and how much space is given in the article to, say, fighting against US forces, and not surprisingly I am not seeing these "spaces" compared.

In my opinion this article and WP would be better served by checking the article for WP:WEIGHT against the published material on Hicks - what is the published material about and does this article reflect the range and weightings of the areas addressed in the published material? And then see what sort of lead best reflects the article.

Enabling editors to work constructively together far outweighs the benefit of any minor improvement in the lead of an un-WEIGHT checked article. Brendan: Merbabu signalled a lack of consensus on your lead changes and yet, by my reading, you continued to insert without consensus. At present I don't see any other editors here playing that game. Please stop and work together with the current editors who all appear quite ready and able to discuss things. I realise that this state of affairs is unusual and that it takes time to adjust to such dramatic changes. SmithBlue (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue, Merbabu flagged discontent with my original edit. I came to the talkpage and discussed it. Merbabu specified some minimum conditions. I re-edited the lead concordant with those conditions. Merbabu then fired a salvo of criticism at me as an editor. I clearly and succinctly explained my reasons for my edits. I made no threat of edit warring. I simply noted that I will continue to observe Wikipedia editing policies. To my knowledge, consensus is not determined by one editor (neither me, nor Merbabu, nor any other single editor). If editors disagree with my edit(s), then discuss and/or revert. Is there anything specific about my edits that you find objectionable? By all means, put forward alternative views or suggest alternative wording. But this discussion seems to currently be beating about the bush rather than getting to the specifics of content and lead wording in particular.--Brendan [ contribs ] 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As I see it - if 2 editors are active and 1 disagrees then consensus does not exist. Policy as I understand it then says "Get consensus." If thats what you did, then great. SmithBlue (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Brendan, you removed hard fought consensus sentence without getting new consensus first and they don't allay my concerns. Please again, stop asking me to repeat myself further. You don't have consensus, and your actions on this page do warrant discussion here. You call it "splitting hairs" - I call it removing important information, and adding new information that slants the critical first sentence differently. INdeed, if it is just hair splitting, why are you so attached to it? Yes - in my mind, consistently reverting other editors, citing one's right to "be bold", and finding new reasons to justify a position, implies edit warring. --Merbabu (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have removed the repetition in the 2nd paragraph - Brendan's cited reason for his changes to the lead sentence. Thus, I have restored the lead because cited repetition problem is now solved, although this removal now introduces flow problems for the 2nd paragraph - personally, I feel the info ("repetition") serves an important prose purpose. I have retained all other changes made by Brendan. --Merbabu (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK so far. I've trimmed down a bit further and re-added the fact that his detention was "over 5 years" Merbabu removed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the restoration of the words in the line in the lead sentence that says: "who undertook terrorist training". We don't know that. We should instead present the fact that the US Government of George W Bush convicted him of being a terrorist, in controversial trials which many eminent legal authorities criticised as a show trial. That's different to Wikipedia making the accusation that he trained to be a terrorist.--Lester 08:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

His name?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Isn't wiki rules say that articles use the name that persons prefers? so shouldn't his name be "Muhammed Dawood" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnOicheGhealai (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The media generally refers to him as David Hicks. Before his capture, he used the name Muhammed Dawood. Is there a reference that says he now uses the name Muhammed Dawood? His lawyers and friends have referred to him as David Hicks in recent times.--Lester 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hicks decided to stop following Islam about five or six years ago. So I doubt he still wishes to be known by an Arabic name. Even if he were still a muslim, and even if he, personally, preferred Muhammed Dawood, I still think his article should be under "David Hicks" because practically all references refer to him by that name. Muhammed Dawood deserves a footnote, or reasonable equivalent. The article on Cat Stevens, on the other hand, was listed under Yusuf Islam. I think a stronger case could be made for Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam being listed under that name he has been known as for the last several decades. Yet, eventually, his article was moved back. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Good points, Geo Swan.--Lester 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"War Crimes Charge Was a "Favor" for Australia"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just read a good article, that might not be RS but tells an interesting story. Just as background information if someone is interested. Cheers IQinn (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Neely video

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The addition of the Brandon Neely video represented by this diff is inappropriate for this article. It's just some guy making claims on YouTube, and does not pass the reliable source test. It should be removed. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly right. Links to videos like this have absolutely no place here. See WP:VERIFY, WP:Reliable sources, WP: No original research, WP:NPOV, WP:External links, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I’ve removed once again, and have given the IP editor who keeps edit warring over it their second block. — Satori Son 13:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
People, this isn't just some guy making claims on YouTube. Firstly, this is Brandon Neely, a person who was already notable (and widely noted) for being qualified to talk on precisely this topic and doing so. Secondly, it isn't just some random comments, it was the main speech at the official launch of the same very organisation which that part of the Hicks article is discussing. Thirdly, I had added two additional references to the article myself (diff). One is a publication by an independent professional council of lawyers, which considered the mere fact of a presentation by Neely being scheduled for that launch as being something worth reporting. The other is the foundation itself, which passes the reliable source test for the purposes of information about its own launch ceremony (such as identifying which is the video from the event). As for the content of Neely's speech, we are all able to verify that he said what he did.
Is there any remaining objection? Clearly NPOV isn't applicable (since the idea is for the article to explicitly attribute the views to Neely without commenting on whether he is correct). External links no longer applies, as I fixed/wikified the referencing style. Not a soapbox isn't relevant, since Neely's opinion is of legitimate relevance to the article and can be reported objectively without advocating any position. NPOV isn't relevant because objectively reporting about Neely's comments is different from espousing those comments ourselves. NOR isn't relevant because we editors are not synthesising any new analysis (note: even just using the youtube source to quote Neely would still not qualify as OR). Verifiability is satisfied in spades (we have the entire video, we have official confirmation that it is the true video, we have independent reporting of the fact of the event). RS is a nonissue (one source is completely independent, the other is still perfectly valid here for the way it is being used). If you don't like the particular wording than improve it rather than excising the information entirely. Frankly, if you're just going to wikilawyer and keep obstructing this inclusion, I think you'll be afoul of WP:DUE. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I took a look at the two links you added. Neither of them provide any useful additional information, and quite obviously the intent here is to simply keep a pointer to the YouTube video - which is, again, just some guy making claims at a video camera - in the article. Leave it out, for the reasons stated above. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what intent you're reading into this. Perhaps you could explain more clearly (since I think I've addressed the reasons stated above, unless you can respond more specifically). I just think that if one of Hicks' former guards from GTMO is now making statements about him, the fact he is doing so at least warrants mention here, good or bad. For now, I'll just WP:CENSOR out the part you seem to be actually objecting to, but please justify your objection (since, though I haven't even watched the video myself, a self-published source does count as a RS on the topic of the views of that author and/or on topics on which the author is already established to possess significant expertise). Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This is better (for reference, current version is this one). Any reference to Neely's video itself belongs on his article page, if it belongs anywhere. But I'm not sure any reference to Neely improves this article at all, unless his claims about Hicks' supposed mistreatment are corroborated elsewhere. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bounty amount

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The introduction section of the article claims that the bounty amount was US$5,000 while the "Capture and detention" section claims the amount to have been US$1000. Shotgunscribe (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 33 external links on David Hicks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Hicks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Tidy up lead in

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is a mess, jumping all over the place. I've done a bit, but more needed. Hopefully without getting into edit wars. I am not trying to be pro or anti, just clean it up.Tuntable (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Monthly
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Hicks/Archive_4&oldid=1027345395"