Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz

message: I'm just another editor who doesn't know much about the subject but does want to see an article that simultaneously
#is factual, neutral and complete
#doesn't get Wikipedia sued (the Wikimedia Foundation has no means to afford it)
All being well achieving 1) will achieve 2) despite Quadell's apparent concerns to the contrary.
Specific comments following the re-write:
:On supposedly being OBL brother-in-law: One CIA guy said that there was such a familial relationship. A load of newspapers reported that one guy's comments. All those newspapers subsequently retracted the statement. The original guy testified in court that he made a mistake. In the absence of any other facts, doesn't our article still give too much credence to the original statement? Shouldn't we switch it round a bit?
:Re point 1.8: Why don't we be more specific about (some of) the court cases the Sheikh has won? After all they are significant events in his life. Why not mention, for instance, the Mail on Sunday and Pluto Press libel cases? See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1063697,00.html. Pcb21| Pete 17:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments following Quadell's substantial re-write

message: Guardian September 26, 2001 talks about the allegations that Muwafaq has connections to terrorism. It points out that this is ancedotal. Secretlondon 03:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed it as interesting example as the US government claimed it was connected to terrorism, a friendly government asked for evidence and none was provided. We need to be aware that there is a strong political dimension to all of this. There is no connection between the two as far as I know. I have no idea whether any other additions to the US's terrorist list have been audited in any way.Secretlondon 21:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: On the article itself

message: Is there no reference to the Ehrenfeld libel suit in this article because of legal fears, or just inertia?  It is extensively covered in the Rachel Ehrenfeld and Funding Evil articles.  Grover cleveland (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Funding Evil]]

message: Any family ties between bin Mahfouz and Bin Laden has been proven wrong, therefore I don't see the point of keeping this false rumor on this article, it only makes things more confusing, and Wikipedia's intent is not to list all the fake rumors that feed the reputation of rich folks. I am removing it, please argue here if you think it should be reinserted in the article:
Alleged familial relationship with Osama bin Laden:In United States Senate testimony in 1998, Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey stated (wrongly, and later retracted) that bin Mahfouz's sister is a wife of Osama bin Laden, making the two brothers-in-law. Bin Mahfouz has consistently denied this. Many publications, including The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, the Washington Post, and USA Today, reported that the two were brothers-in-law. Each publication has since issued a retraction, sometimes after lengthy litigation.
In the libel trial against him, Woolsey testified that bin Mahfouz had been misidentified. Woolsey later stated, "I don't know what to say other than there was some confusion, but I never meant to refer to Bin Mahfouz's sister."
Best, --Importemps (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged familial relationship with Osama bin Laden