Talk:Ahmed Zaoui

message: Last night I attended the launch, in the "Beehive", of a book about him (promoted by members of two parties in Parliament) and was persuaded to buy a copy. Seems fairly factual despite a spelling error in the first sentence. It quotes most of the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that gave him official refugee status in August 2003. 
I have easy access to every issued New Zealand Court decision about him (in case anyone's interested); currently (ie this morning and probably much of the afternoon) I'm doing things to an "rtf" version of the 30 September 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (which I noted on the September 2004 page). Robin Patterson 21:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone have a public domain or suitably licensed picture of Zaoui, with which we could illustrate the article? Drop me a note on my talk page if you have a picture but don't understand the process of uploading it to Wikipedia and linking it into the article.
Good job by the anon who included the Supreme Court decision in the article so quickly, by the way.-gadfium (talk) 04:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture wanted

message: Wow, this article REALLY needs a cleanup on both counts. As it stands, it might have well been written by Zaoui's lawyers.
Just a few examples:
*"Algeria sentenced him to death in absentia." -no cite, this was Zaoui's claim when in fact, the LEADERS of the FIS are alive in Algeria
*:I've added a cite. Note that the Algerian referendum of September 2005 may have changed matters.
*::Comment - the current situation does not change the fact he was sentenced to death in Algeria. No one's disputing that.
*:::As the article stated. The current situation however, offers an amnesty. Armon
*::::The amnesty does not offer any protection from the ongoing torture of disappearances of FIS members, information which you keep removing. Tell me to get back to work! 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some comments that I think are relevant. I don't subscribe to a position on whether Mr Zaoui is guilty of the claims against him, but I am disturbed at the large amount of mis-information and confusion surrounding his actions and circumstances. Tell me to get back to work! 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but you haven't actually pointed to any mis-information and confusion in this article, just slapped the NPOV tag back on. Your biggest beef seems to be too much information re: the SIS summary. Armon 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the majority of the article consists of the position of one of the two main actors in this dispute (the other being Zaoui and his counsel) means that it certainly isnt NPOV Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and factual errors 

message: I am concerned at the inclusion of the full SIS summary in the article. Firstly, this summary now takes up the bulk of the article, which unbalances it.
* That's a fair point but it's only temporary. As I said in my edit notes I'm "chipping away at it" -the article will be much longer in the end and will include a "cause celebre" section which will present his supporters critiques of the case against him.
Secondly, assuming we have the right to republish it, it is a source document, and should go in WikiSources.
* Maybe it should go in both places? If the government has released a document publicly don't WE have the right to publish it? (That's not a rhetorical question)
Wikipedia is not a suitable place for very lengthy quotes, and certainly not a place for the complete text of documents. I would prefer to see a summary of this document, and some of the information in it moved to the main part of the article detailing Zaoui's life before arriving in New Zealand.-gadfium 18:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "chipping away" is a good way to approach it. I don't know what the copyright status of the SIS summary is. There are a number of copies freely available on the web but that means very little. The problem with using the SIS summary as an account of Zaoui's life is that it shouldn't be edited by anyone. If we take the exact same information, but put it in our own words and put it in the "Background" section of the article, with links to the original document, then others can expand on it. As it is, we have much of the same information in both sections. I have no objection to quoting individual paragraphs of the SIS summary, as appropriate.-gadfium 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SIS Summary

message: Hi, I put those tags on the article and plan to remove the Disputed tag once I think all the factual errors are gone. I don't however feel I should remove the POV tag until I get at least a second opinion once I think it's neutral -is that the right way to do it? Armon 11:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine to me. I've posted on the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard suggesting that more people getting involved with this article would be a good idea. There are other places to ask for outside comment, but that seemed like the place most likely to get people who had some familiarity with Zaoui.-gadfium 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I stuck it on in the first place but I admit I haven't done as much on this article as I should have. I don't have a problem with that so I'll take it off. BTW I removed the AI "position" that you restored because it's uncited and may be problematic in terms of NPOV. Armon 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting the tag back on because the SIS summary of allegations is still far to large in relation to the rest of the mans life, and any contrary assertions. It hasn't been chipped away at, which was the rationale for keeping it there. If it doesn;t change within a few weeks I'll remove it and replace it with a smaller section. Tell me to get back to work! 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point about me not continuing to chip away at the article, but the SIS summary doesnt need it -it's already a summary. His case in NZ is the reason he's notable and therefore even in WP. As for you edits tonight, some are good, some aren't, but none of them cite sources so you'll need to put them in. Please keep in mind though, that claims by Zaoui himself, or via his lawyers, don't meet WP:RS. This is why the reference to his supposed torture scars is coming out now. Armon 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the scars on his arm being caused by the 1986 torture is accepted as true by a court of NZ, after verification from an independent medical expert. As far as I know no-one has contested this except you. Your apparent refusal to accept anything published in the RSAA appeal is getting ridiculous (ie, you've reverted every edit I've made that used the RSAA as a source) Tell me to get back to work! 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Disputed Tag 

message: While I didn't add the Amnesty position in the first place, I think something is necessary to balance that paragraph. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that Zaoui can't go home anytime he wants now that there is an amnesty. Clearly, it isn't as simple as that. The cite for the AI position isn't hard to find: crtiticism of amnesty, continued torture. On the other hand, maybe we should be producing a paragraph or section in History of Algeria about the amnesty and its critics, which this article can then link to.-gadfium 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is an amnesty, (Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation) and that the chief criticism of it is that it has allowed both Islamist and government murderers to get away with their crimes, and also keeping in mind that the FIS leadership (ie Ali Belhadj and Abbassi Madani) is free in Algeria -there really isn't any need to balance the article with a non-credible threat against Zaoui. It's simply his supporters' rhetoric. 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've linked to the Charter article from that para, so those who want to get the full story on the amnesty can do so.-gadfium 19:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have done that myself ;) Armon 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the amnesty is to be included, the existence of continued torture and abuse needs to remain. Otherwise this article is giving the false impression that there is nothing preventing his return. The bias in the article is already strong enough. Tell me to get back to work! 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would favour the paragraph on the amnesty being rewritten to explain that although there is now an amnesty, and Zaoui is therefore presumably no longer under a death sentence, there are good reasons why he cannot be expected to return to Algeria. I don't know exactly what those reasons might be. The paragraph has to be about Zaoui, not about the amnesty.-gadfium 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this needs a bit more research. I'm assuming that Zaoui has has given his reasons why the amnesty is unacceptable. There should be a source for this somewhere. Armon 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty in Algeria

message: I suggest that we copy text here which need citation. Armon 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but it will need a rewrite. The claim of an Algerian/Malaysian conspiracy needs to be attributed to Zaoui rather than presented as though it's a fact. <<-armon->> 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a proper cite for this? 

message: Armon has been reverting discussions made by myself (including as IP 210... and 131... sorry, I didn't always log in.) without discussing his reasons on talk. This is getting frustrating. I'm busy, and will do a thorough rewrite of the page later in the year, and at the moment I've only got time to add small snippets. Armon, you seem dedicated to removing information that does not fit a particular view of the case unless it is immaculately referenced. Stop it. Tell me to get back to work! 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check out Carbonite's law. -I think you mean edits, not discussions. I've responded to all of your points on this page. Please log in when you edit, and please cite the page of a novel-length document. As for removing improperly cite material, if want your edits to stand  -cite the page so everyone can see what you're referring to. The fact that you are busy (as is everyone) is not an excuse. Armon 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I'm using paragraph numbers is because there are two versions of the document - printed and online, and the page numbers don't correspond. This way anyone can find the information, and more accurately and faster too. I can't always log in to edit (wikipedia is often extremely slow to load on my connection (up to 10 minutes per page); despite having broadband, meaning logging in can take another 20 minutes). As for your reversions, they were removing factual information from the article without discussion, often replacing it with incomplete or incorrect material, implicitly assuming that my contributions couldn't (or shouldn't) stay. Tell me to get back to work! 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that are removing uncontested, referenced factual material and replacing it with incomplete or incorrect information. By rv'ing as soon as I say anything, you're making out that I'm making shit up. You're reverting way to much, way to quickly. Tell me to get back to work! 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Assume good faith]]

message: User:Mostlyharmless has left a message on my talk page asking me to mediate a dispute on this page (or give a third opinion, it's not entirely clear).  The claim is that User:Mostlyharmless and User:Armon are in a content dispute of inclusion of certain sources.  From looking at the history, it looks to me that there is a slow revert war going on, so I certainly see that there is some sort of dispute in the air.  Now, at this point nothing has been put even on the Mediation Cabal page, so it's even less formal than "completely informal", but I'm willing to lend a hand to get this straightened out.  Here's the question:  do the two users in question think it's a good idea for me to try and mediate this dispute? --- Deville (Talk) 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure, I haven't done this before! I'm in support of an impartial commentator looking at the dispute, and if you'd like to play that role, that would be cool.(perhaps it should go to the mediation cabal then?) Tell me to get back to work! 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's totally not a problem at all.  The MedCabal is already extremely informal so it doesn't really matter much.  I'll just wait until we hear back from Armon and then I'll jump into it. --- Deville (Talk) 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, I've got no problem with that -though I view this as a content/POV dispute. The irrelevancies of any other arguments I may have had, plus his obvious following me here from another page,  suggests to me that Mostlyharmless is beginning to meet the definition of a wikistalker. Armon 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reject those allegations entirely. I came to this article, and then went to Algerian Civil War for more information (being both an FA and something I'd used earlier in the year for research). When I was there I tried editing, as there were significant POV and reliable source issues with some of the information you were contributing. I was reverted without talk after trying to change things, behaviour you're repeating here. In my opinion the debate there remains unresolved, but after realising I didn't have the tenacity to stick it out over you, I gave up. Then I came back here, and haven't touched any of the pages you've edited. I research thoroughly, which is why I looked at your contributions (the contributions link is there for a reason!). This is about content. But it's also about your constant reversions. 210.86.85.138 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you went trolling for "ammo" against me -rather than looking up the proper citations you were "too busy" to provide. Also, given the expansion of this talk page since you've arrived, your repeated claim of "I was reverted without talk" is more than slightly dubious- spare me. Armon 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've just called me a stalker and a troll. Since I realised that you require a much higher standard of proof than any other article I've edited for anything you don't like to stay, I've referenced to as high a standard as possible. But you're right - I have 45,000 words of uni to write in the next 6 weeks, and there is no way I should be here. I would appreciate comment from Deville as to what course of action to take. Perhaps something more formal would help Tell me to get back to work! 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Very much informal) request for arbitration 

message: I'm sick of this. Armon miscontrues the truth once again. He's just gone on a POV rant which shows how it's not about getting the most accurate article, but disliking a refugee who has publicity. The opinion of Mr Zaoui about whether NZ was a safe country for asylum doesn't prove anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the $1.4 million cost so far is the Crown's spending on appeals and the SRC. The reason the legal battles of Zaoui are not over is because of continued delays from the crown. The latest delay to the review of the risk certificate was not due to any fault of Zaoui or his lawyers, rather, the SIS asked for more time so they could try and find more evidence and put together a case, three and a half years after issuing the risk certificate. Incompetent, or just lacking in evidence required to pass by a retired high court judge? I don't want to know.
I'll come straight out and say it - I'm far better informed about Ahmed Zaoui than you are. I've spent much of the last two months researching this case, and have read thousands of pages and dozens of documents, written by all sides. You only ever take things out of context, ignoring the smear campaign launched against Zaoui and the FIS. He might well be guilty of serious criminal acts. But the RSAA was right to disregard the European trials as unsafe. Irrespective of the guilt of Zaoui, the trials were based on hearsay, confusion, unreliable sources, and hyperbole. Much of the evidence they accepted was just plain wrong.
Given the way you're treating anything I put in this article, I have no confidence that waiting this out or going through processes will have any effect. I really don't think that any editors of this encyclopedia have the competence to assess the respective claims of truth of the evidence we're presenting without doing extensive research themselves. Those who can reliably comment on parts, like User:Mustafa, you're just going to reject out of hand. 
So, with that, I'm leaving.
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where truth doesn't matter.
 Tell me to get back to work! 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who needs the truth, or context, or even just reading sources carefully and in their entireity?

message: The recent changes are all pretty good. In the spirit of renewed cooperation, I hope that we can edit without conflicts :) I've just clarified that refugee status was granted in 2003, but the Security Risk Certificate meant that the NZ Govt had an appeal (so to speak) against letting Zaoui stay in the country (while still accepting his refugee status, which the NZ Govt did not contest) based on security grounds. Mostlyharmless 06:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if there is reason to keep the allegations made against Zaoui by Helen Clark in the article - they were indicative of the New Zealand Government's position towards Zaoui at the time, and as such are useful for the reader who might not know the context of the way the case was being handled by the Govt and media. Mostlyharmless 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In September 2004, Prime Minister Helen Clark's office stated that Zaoui had links to al Qaeda, but Clark later withdrew the claim, saying that her "office had probably gone too far in making the link" PM can't back up al Qaeda claim, Ruth Berry and Catherine Masters, New Zealand Herald, 21.09.2004.
In my opinion these references are absolutely the most important things to keep because they fall down the memory hole very easily.  The initial allegation will have left a cloud over the case which no timid retraction or failure to restate ever wipes away.  This is how smear campaigns achieve the desired results even on the basis of no evidence.  It's crucial that people are able to pin down the precise source of the allegations so they can identify where the mysterious imprint on their memory came from, as well as to prove that some smearing happened.  So it's disappointing that people have chosen to delete this reference in the interest of tidiness, because this is the only place it is ever likely to be recorded.  I would strongly urge people to put it back in somewhere as a side comment before it gets completely lost.Goatchurch 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put the quote in, but contextualised with the stances of other political actors who took prominent stands on the issue. Mostlyharmless 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Ahmed Zaoui. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011002043/http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011002043/http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified