Talk:Mamdouh Habib

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unsigned/undated early comment[edit]

Wow, this is a bit one-sided for a Wikipedia entry. I notice the use of the word "mercilessly" in the torture allegations. Really neutral language there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.50.53 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

Problems with article[edit]

I agree that this article has neutrality problems, however I don't think that it is particularly dire. There needs to be a mention made of the 60 Minutes interview given on 13th Feb 2005. Also it needs to be mentioned that he has freely admitted that he was in Afghanistan but refused to say what he was doing there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gil-Galad (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

I do not think the neutrality is too bad, but mention needed to be made that the Government (Ruddock?, Downer?) has rejected Habib's allegations that an Australian official was present at interrogations and during some of his detainment in Pakistan. I have made a quick change to put the Government's rejection of this allegation, although have not added media references (see the Age, SMH) --Takver 05:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree regarding neutrality. While much more emotion could have been put in to make it even worse, which they did not do, there is a huge amount of unsubstantiated material. This article paints the subject as an innocent and the US, Egypt, Australia, and others as bad guys. It says there is no evidence for the author's guilt, but then makes no case for it or provides no reference. The article is highly biased for the subject and needs to be heavily edited by an objective party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.170.49 (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mercilessly[edit]

An unnamed contributor snipped the word mercilessly, and the sentence about Habib's allegations being consistent with other allegations of Egyptian torture. They didn't explain why they made the edit. I know, from my reading, that his allegations are consistent. So I reverted their edit. I snipped the word "mercilessly". It is a trigger that makes people think this article is POV. -- Geo Swan 11:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that claim of consistency either. Says who? Some wikipedia editor's personal interpretation of the facts based on his own reading? Perhaps an expert would tell you they are actually not consistent because of some details joe blow wouldn't notice. While I'd bet the torture really did happen, use of original research to pound the point is not necessary. 69.226.148.228 01:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Habib's description of his transfer from Pakistan to Egypt is consistent with accounts from many other documented cases. " http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/what-should-we-believe/2006/01/13/1137118970093.html?page=fullpage Other sources, including Habib's US lawyer, have confirmed his allegations of torture in Egypt are consistent with other allegations. Umasfeet (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family[edit]

The section describing an alleged abduction by Habib's son needs verification - a more suitable link, preferably back to the original article. Banno 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of blogs have have excerpts of the article:

"THE son of an Australian al-Qaeda suspect held at Guantanamo Bay was" 1-10 of about 56 "involved in the abduction of a woman who was bound with tape and had her head" 1-10 of about 56 "shaved, a Sydney court heard yesterday." 1-6 of about 53 "Ahmed Mandouh Habib, 18, of Birrong -- eldest son of terror suspect" 1-10 of about 59 "Mamdouh Habib -- was charged in connection to the alleged assault at" 1-10 of about 56 ... "The 18-year-old victim's twin brother, Islam Hassam, and a 15-year-old youth who" 1-10 of about 20 ... "The youth held the victim while Hassam wrapped masking tape around her mouth" 1-10 of about 59 ... "The youth and Hassam cut her waist-length hair to her neck, then shaved her" 1-9 of about 53 ... "The woman moved out of the family home last year after a domestic dispute." 1-10 of about 60 ... "Habib and Hassam were remanded on bail to Burwood Local Court" 1-7 of about 43

The original article [1] has been archived, citing copyright reasons. But they still have the article title "Prisoner's son charged with kidnap". Ideally I'd like to quote the original article directly, but I've done the best I can. Andjam 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blogs aren't a verifiable source. Unless someone can dig up a newspaper article better to leave it. - Synapse 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supress torture allegations[edit]

Mamdouh attempted to supress the allegations his doctor made on the 7:30 report that he showed physical signs of torture, just hours before the show aired. The judgement came out against him and the content was allowed to be broadcast. The suppression order on the case was also lifted.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/2005/79.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NatslovR (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

inadequately explained excision[edit]

Another wikipedian recently excised the entire "torture allegations" section from the article, with the edit summary Torture allegations - Deleted Biased/Unproven/Uncredible Section.

I was going to respond on their talk page, but I decided I would put my comment here, instead.

IMO your excision shows you edited from a biased POV.

Your edit summary asserts that section is "biased". IMO, If you are going to remove -- a whole section -- on the ground it is biased it is irresponsible of you to fail to offer an explanation of your justification for calling it biased on the talk page.

FWIW, are you sure you understand the NPOV policy? It says you and I, wikipedia editors, can't insert our own POVs in articles. But the policy does not say wikipedia editors cannot quote or cite conclusions from verifiable, authoritative sources, even if they contain a biased POV, provided they are properly referenced.

Your edit summary asserts that section is "unproven. Excuse me? Isn't the title of the section "Torture allegations". Did you really mean to claim that it is unproven that Habib made these allegations? That is ridiculous. Sources to his allegations were right in the section you excised.

Your edit summary asserts that section is "uncredible" [sic]. Oh? And what is your source for this conclusion? If you don't have a source, and you don't properly reference it, the NPOV policy proscribes your use of this conclusion in the article.

If you find a verifiable, authoritative source, which asserts that Habib's claims are incredible, what you can do is balance Habib's allegations with the information you quote or paraphrase from the source(s) you properly cite.

FWIW, if the site(s) you find that assert Habib's torture allegations are "uncredible" [sic] are right-wing blog-sites, like little green footballs, I think I can predict that other editors are likely to challenge your sources credibility.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you believe that the sources were all verifiable and authoritative, here's something interesting I found at the bottom of one of the stories "Senior government figures have raised doubts about his story. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has said no evidence has been found to prove that torture has been used at the camp." Oh, don't worry, I have plenty of "right-wing blog-sites" and such.
Welcome to the jungle
Epsoul 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article to remove a little of the bias. I'll overhaul it more in the future. Feel free to leave your impressions on my talk page.
Epsoul 05:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Epsoul, could you please provide an explanation for your large and largely unexplained edits to this article? -- Geo Swan 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the edit was fairly excessive, a large portion of that was not cited. For example, the quote "They outsource torture" wasn't in the one source cited, neither was his planning a hijacking. I intended to edit it later, but you beat me to it, and you included sources so I stopped editing for the most part. As for my deletion of the medical report, the relevant info was already mentioned, in the correct section (torture). I deleted the allegations that he was attacked by dogs (the article mentioned he was threatened), I don't recall why I deleted the allegation that he was nearly drowned, possibly because it was fairly excessive. On a different note, was Begg ever in Egypt?
Epsoul 23:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, no references[edit]

the 1990's section has a POV tone. Furthermore, unsuitable statements are made:

"Mamdouh Habib is a known admirer and supporter of the sheik"

None of these statements have any references either.

Should I go ahead and edit it? (Truth 06 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Enter the Sheiks name & Habibs name into Google you would see multiple entries- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4214747.stm & http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/Terrorist-Habib-free-to-go-home/2005/01/11/1105423487886.html & http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1029 (Khanada 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It is not an unsuitable statement because it shows why ASIO were interested in him, you seem to be biased towards him being innocent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khanada (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.(Khanada 05:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please leave your personal feelings out of this, you just revealed your true colours (Truth 06 14:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

We dont accept such immature comments as "you just revealed your true colors" on Wikipedia whatever that is meant to mean, please try and leave your personal feelings out of this and talk about the article, what exactly did I write that you perceived as "personal feelings"? (Khanada 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Both of you, can you please talk about the article rather than each other? Thanks, Andjam 14:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I agree this article is biased(Khanada 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

NPOV, no references 2[edit]

The torture allegations section seem to contain hearsay & POV elements. I don't touch this article after seemingly being told I am biased, but perhaps someone could make it read more like an encyclopedia and less like a Socialist alliance home page.(Khanada 21:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Could you please be a little more specific? Are there any problematic paragraphs or sentences in particular? Also, describing the allegations he's made shouldn't be seen as automatically agreeing with them. Thanks, Andjam 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Dean Park[edit]

On the Dean Park article, Habib is remarked as being a notable former resident... this article only states that he lived in Sydney. Does anyone know where in Sydney he lived, and have a source which can be used on the Dean Park article if indeed he did live in Dean Park?

Thanks, Garrie 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance into Australian Politics[edit]

I added this section; was quite surprised it wasn't there already. It could probably do with further expansion as well. --Tim 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line isn't correct - Habib isn't a state politician. He has announced that he will run for a seat in the NSW legislature but he couldn't really be considered a politician. I won't change it, but suggest that someone with more wiki-cred does. -Phil S.
Of course. Woops. I've changed that now. --Tim 08:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence[edit]

"Mamdouh Habib (Arabic: ممدوح حبيب) is an independent political candidate in New South Wales, Australia, and a Muslim accused of terrorist links by the US administration and their supporters. He was born in 1956 in Egypt, moved to Australia in 1980, became a citizen there, married Maha, had four children, and taught Islam." I am wondering whether the line "and a muslim accused of terrorist links" is misleading. He is a muslim and thats important. He was accused of terrorist links, thats true. But he wasnt accused because he was a muslim. And the line reads that way to me. Additionaly the "accudsed by the U.S. administration and its supporters" would be best to state his actual accusers. i.e Who actualy charged him. Any thoughts? Jampire1 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption[edit]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 15:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

This is a WP:BLP. And BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Which I is what I'll do next. Replacing unsourced material in this biography will result in a notice being entered at WP:BLPN. SmithBlue (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners 20/7/2004[edit]

The URL for the transcript of this program is http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1157599.htm

WP:CITE#HOW says inline cites are needed for BLP (biography of a living person).

<ref name="name"> ... </ref>

<ref name="name" />

may help with multiple cites of the same source. Must go. Will be back. SmithBlue (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence obtained "by torture"/"under duress"[edit]

Are there sources stating that the claims against Habib are unsafe as they include evidence obtained through torture etc. SmithBlue (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify this question? Could you clarify what you mean by "unsafe"? Are you asking whether there is reason to believe the claims aren't credible?
I placed sources in the article to a pair of senior doctors who agreed that his medical record confirmed his claims of abusive treatment. His medical record documented that he kept having blood in his urine -- a sign of severe beatings.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed dubious torture[edit]

I removed "forced to listen to Howard Stern and watch the movie Private Parts repeatedly" or similar from torture section. This was unsourced, unsubstantiated, and, I believe, a tedious attempt at humour. Umasfeet (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"intended to sue NSW Police"[edit]

It appears that he actually DID sue someone in 2006 - he's currently in the Federal Court, suing the state for something - bit scant on details, but if you Google "NSD956/2006" it comes up. He was in the courtroom next to mine on the 15th Sep ;)

Mamdouh Habib's passport story[edit]

Maybe worth to add to the article if someone has the time [2] IQinn (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-divulged evidence has "no value"?[edit]

Evidence to support these claims has not been made public, thus they have little or no value.[5]

This assertion above was the most blatant of the biased views on this subject, and I have removed it. It MAY be the case that there are ethical problems with the non-divulgence of evidence, but it is plain wrong to say that it has "little or no value". Many government decisions, especially in matters to do with intelligence and security are in camera, and it is manifestly clear why that should be the case. Eric155 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, we now have available to us (against the wishes of the USA Govt) the content of spying/intelligence gathered on Habib and I see no reason we shouldn't put it here in wikipedia. There was evidence on Habib gathered by the USA Govt which was obtained by conventional spying on him, and we should report that. Mainperson (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books, media, Egyptian witness support Habib's account[edit]

Years later, there is extensive documentation, including the Torture Memos, books such as the reporter Jane Mayer's The Dark Side about extraordinary rendition, the ghost prisoners and torture of detainees under US custody; as well as accounts by other former detainees, such as Murat Kurnaz, to support Habib's account,as does the 2010 testimony by an Egyptian officer. The section of this article - 1990s - seems an earlier attempt to show why his complaints should not be trusted. But it is difficult to know how to summarize it all now and achieve some balance.Parkwells (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

failure to reference wikileaks document[edit]

I am astounded at this article's failure to reference the wikileaks article at http://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/as/us9as-000661dp.pdf ... hard to believe it contains nothing of relevance. Mainperson (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mamdouh Habib. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mamdouh Habib. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mamdouh_Habib&oldid=1207501420"