Talk:Joseph T. Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Joseph T. Thomas is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph T. Thomas article.
Article policies
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Thomas acquitted of terrorism conviction Friday, 18 August 2006

The conviction of Melbourne man Jack Thomas on terrorism offences has been quashed in the Victorian Court of Appeal.

Thomas had been sentenced to five years in jail in March, but has now been acquitted on two charges of receiving funds from a terrorist network and for carrying a falsified passport.

The court ruled Thomas's interview with Australian Federal Police (AFP) in Pakistan was inadmissible.

His lawyers argued he had no legal representation and only agreed to the interview because he was earlier threatened with torture from foreign security agencies. http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200608/1718664.htm?victoria

Another failed frame-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.64.214 (talk • contribs) .

So he is not a criminal as stated in the first line of this article prior to 1108 18/08/2006 Thanks harro5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.79.25 (talk • contribs) .


What I want to know is - why "Jihad Jack"? His name isn't Jack...it's not really close to being Jack...so why Jack? Why not "Jihad Joe"? Whoever made it up just wanted to associate the name Jihad with him to scare the public into thinking 'Ah Jihad! He must be bad!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.12.13 (talk • contribs) .

Talk pages are for discussing the wikipedia article, not the subject of the article. Andjam 11:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a fair question, "Where did the name 'Jack' come from?" I notice that the 4 corners transcript (as published by the Australian) refers to "Joseph Thomas" as "Jack Thomas" and Patsy Thomas (his mother?) refers to him as "Jack". Presumably "Jack" is a childhood nickname? Is "Jack" a common contraction of "Joseph"? Need a source! To answer 61.69.12.13's question the origin of the "Jihad" name is given in the 4 corners interview. Mr Thomas chose the name (Arabic for struggle), in honour of "aussie battlers" when he converted to Islam. Unfortunately (for him) his choice of name later made a catchy newspaper headline. John Dalton 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
His parents have called him Jack in interviews. It is obviously a childhood nickname. SilentC 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: The referenced article says his curfew is midnight until 5am. Yep. The SMH got their story wrong. Sometime in the 3 hours from when I read the article to when James Foster read the article it has been modified and the SMH has failed to highlight that they have corrected their article. ABC Lateline backs the 12am-5am figure.John Dalton 13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Terroristic?

I looked that one up in the Macquarie dictionary because it's not a term I have heard used before. It means "denoting or relating to terrorists or their methods." I'm not sure how replacing anti-terrorism with terroristic in the phrase "Australian anti-terrorism legislation" serves the clarity of the article. It actually makes the purpose of the legislation a bit obscure, until you follow the link to Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Let's call it what it is and leave our judgements of the legislation out of the article shall we? SilentC 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Terroristic is in my opinion precisely correct. The legislation is "relating to terrorists or their methods", whether it be "anti-terrorist" or not. "Anti-terrorist" goes beyond saying "relating to terrorists" and makes a subjective statement on the debated effects of the legislation. It is not a neutral term.
Use of the term "anti-terrorist" might make the stated intent of the legislation clearer, but it hides (and pre-judges) the effect of the legislation. Why the automatic assumption that the article should favour intent over effect? Most scholars would see effect as the more important of the two, intent being a footnote to history.
A title (of a book or legislation) is an arbitrary statement chosen by the author. Adjectives should describe the item's subject, not its title. Why should the title overrule the subject of a book or legislation? If so we would have to say The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith[1] is a book about blacksmithing. Libraries catalogue this book according to its subject (race relations), not its title.
Logically the word should be "terroristic". Hopefully logic will prevail and the word will be changed back. (Please do it someone!) John Dalton 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all very true. However, the title of the legislation is the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005. Calling it by its name is not judgemental either way. If you want to argue that the phrase is not meant to reflect the title of the legislation, rather the intention of the legislation, then perhaps we should just replace the phrase with the actual title of the legislation, then there is no argument. We are not here to debate the suitability of or the affects of the Act. We are here to present the facts relating to Joseph Thomas. If people want to discover what the act is all about, they can follow the link. Why should we be trying to cast it in any particular light?
Nevertheless, I would hope that the drafters of such legislation do attempt to find an appropriate title for it, so that the "Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith" conundrum does not occur. SilentC 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. I think your chosen solution is logical. John Dalton 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it bugs me that what we write has to be restricted by the vocabulary of the reader. It strikes me that the only way in which "terroristic" might obscure meaning is that it might not be in people's common vocabulary. It bugs me that we are not allowed to stretch each other's vocabulary, expanding our knowledge of English in the process. It goes against the reason I write for Wikipedia: to spread knowledge, and reduces Wikipedia to tabloid status. I'm not asking that the article be changed, just making a general observation about life. John Dalton 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, however I think there is a lowest common denominator that we need to consider. I am not uneducated but don't consider myself an academic. My first impression when I saw the word 'terroristic' was that it was a "made up" word, which is why I looked it up. It isn't in my vocabulary and seems clumsy to me. I understand the meaning of it (pertaining to the activities of a terrorist) and I'm sure most other people would comprehend it - it's not a complicated concept to grasp - however it's not a word that people would use in every day conversation. I like to stretch my vocabulary (and I am in your debt for that) but not everyone wants to!
Elsewhere in the article appears the phrase "anti-terrorism" and there is an article by that name - this is a term people are familiar with. Naturally it conjurs up a certain image, no doubt that was a strong impetus for the naming of the legislation, but we aren't here to debate the policies of our Federal government and my argument was simply that we should use the name of the Act, rather than attempting to paraphrase its intentions. I agree that it gives the article a connotation - he was subjected to an order imposed under the anti-terrorist act, ergo he must be a terrorist. Whether or not we believe this to be true is immaterial here. My guiding principle when editing is to try and use everyday language. It's not always easy and in topics like this there are always several ways to put something depending on your viewpoint. I figure that adhering to the language used in the title of the legislation is keeping the article factual and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about Mr Thomas and about the legislation in general. SilentC 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph copyright status

What's the copyright status of the picture which has been uploaded please? I've seen the same picture in news reports, implying it was taken by one of the news wires and not "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media" as claimed by the uploader, Andrew777. Chances are the quoted source: http://democracyfrontline.org/news/?m=200602 doesn't have to right to use or give away the picture. Could Andrew777 please verify the picture's status or remove it from the article?John Dalton 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I've sent the following email to info@justice4jack.com.

Dear Ms Sparrow,

I am writing regarding the following picture of Jack Thomas, for which you hold the copyright:

http://www.justice4jack.com/wp-gallery2.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=176

I ask your permission to include the above picture in Wikipedia's "Joseph Thomas" article[1]. For the picture to be included it will need to be released under a Wikipedia compatible license, ideally the GNU Free Documentation License. If you agree, could you please upload the picture to Wikipedia [2] choosing the "GFDL (self made)" license option, or formally release the picture under the GNU Free Documentation License so I can upload it.

Regards

John Dalton

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Thomas

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload

I nominated the above photo as it appears to the the most neutral on the website. Others are free to approach other sources if they disagree. John Dalton 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


There's been no response from Andrew777, so I'm soon going to delete the image as a copyright violation. I notice the image appears in an Associate Press article [2]. Last chance to object. John Dalton 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaser appearance

Does anyone think his appearance on The Chaser's War on Everything is relevant here? Not just because he was on it (which would amount to nothing more than a pointless trivia item), but because of the way he acted and behaved on it, laughing at Chas and saying things like "I'd invite you in for a coffee but I have to take my wife to the doctor". Every other representation of him in the media was completely the opposite. It's not something I'm 100% sure on myself, but I notice there hadn't been any discussion about it. -- Chuq (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)