Talk:Husain Haqqani
Vandalization
Can I ask editors to keep an eye on user Watchbulldogger who appears to have registered on November 18 solely for the purpose of vandalizing this page. He removed a whole section of the article without explanation. --Idrees 07:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
Hi Stan ley,
Just wondering why -if this is a website where one can edit pages - you keep changing what I write and inserting what Mr Idrees has written. Is there something wrong with the links I have inserted - I dont think so as I have checked them very carefully.
Honest Desi
You altered information on Husain Haqqani that was already referenced and have added some links to support your argument that do not work or support your claims. A syop should decide if your changes are appropriate or not. Paragraphs have been repeated. Stan-Ley
Suggest Hold on Edits Until resolved
Given the dispute over edit changes to this page can I suggest a halt on further edits until I have had a chance to go through and try and resolve the issue. I'll aim to review it and post a note back here in 24 hours. (Have other obligations today). Feel free though to post points to the talk page. --Bob Burton 17:25, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
Bob, if you are happy with the changes then it's fine by me, but Honest Desi has replaced sourced and referenced material with favourable opinions on Husain Haqqani and by his own admission on his talk page he claims to know him. The external links have also been changed and are not even accessible. As I said it's not a big issue to me but I assumed that it's wrong to remove material that has been sourced. Stan-Ley
Explanation of changes
I haven't finished yet but notes on progres so far:
- I reverted to Stan's version as the basis for reviewing the changes. This was largely because there had been the unwarranted and unexplained deletion of urls from the reference links by Honest Desi.
- I have left the statements "He writes a syndicated column that is published in Gulf News [www.gulfnews.com]; the Nation (Pakistan) [www.nation.com.pk] and The Indian Express (www.expressindia.com]" out for the moment as I can't see a reference for it. I'm happy to have it back in if there's a reference for it.
- HD wrote "The report quoted Haqqani and Schwartz as attacking mainstream American Muslim organizations without making any distinction between what Haqqani said and what Schwartz said. " - This is not true. The reference link http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/02/12/news/local/cmuslim0213.txt clearly distinguishes what they individually said.
- HD wrote "That is consistent with Haqqani’s published writings. But the report then goes on to suggest that Haqqani and Schwartz went on to say: ... That sounds more like Schwartz than Haqqani." - this is speculation. The reference - after reporting what they individually said - states that both supported the lobbying suggestion.
- "Haqqani is critical of the Saudis (and other authoritarian Muslim regimes) and supports Jewish-Muslim dialogue but keeps his discourse above attacks on individuals and groups within the United States." Maybe he does, but that is a separate point (which would need referencing) and it does not invalidate the earlier report.
There's a couple more points to go yet but I'll return to those later. --Bob Burton 00:39, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
Round 2
- HD had added:
- "The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, cited Haqqani to make the argument that Guantánamo must be shut down. He wrote:“Husain Haqqani, a thoughtful Pakistani scholar now teaching at Boston University, remarked to me: ‘When people like myself say American values must be emulated and America is a bastion of freedom, we get Guantánamo Bay thrown in our faces. When we talk about the America of Jefferson and Hamilton, people back home say to us: 'That is not the America we are dealing with. We are dealing with the America of imprisonment without trial.'" [1]
While the quote is accurate I'm a bit ambivalent about its relevance. While Friedman uses thge quote to support his argument that Guantánamo Bay prison be shut down it is not clear that that is the position of Haqqani. We have the comment of what Haqqani said but we don't have his conclusions about what he draws from the reaction he gets from extolling the virtues of the US. Perhaps he has covered those points elsewhere but as it stood I wasn't sure what the point is (aside from Friedman thinking he's worth quoting).
- HD wrote:
- Haqqani has been accused of having neocon connections for his advocacy of Muslim recognition of, and peace with, Israel. The allegation was made first by the Pakistani Jihadist group Jamat-ud-Dawa, [7] http://www.jamatuddawa.org/English2/twistedreports/hussain_haqqani_is_a_self_exiled.htm)which was recently designated a terrorist group by the State department and repeated on some independent news websites, notably http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00282.htm
Again I don't get that from reading the source. At the top of a reprint of an article by Haqqani originating from the Carnegie Endowment (see http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17308&prog=zgp&proj=zsa) was a brief preamble par reproduced in toto below:
- Hussain Haqqani is a self exiled Pakistani journalist living in US is paying back to US. In this article you will clearly notice that he is trying hard to spare US from all kinds of allegations. The analysts of the whole world are on one side and Hussain Haqqani is on the other. In the way he opposes Jihad shows that he is not Haqqani but a Qadyani. People who know the origin of Qadyani religion will realize the Qadyani instinct in this story.
While critical of him, it doesn't specifically refer to him having neocon connections at all. And the status of Jamat-ud-Dawa is hardly relevant to whether it is fair and accurate to state that Haqqani has connections to neoconservatives (which it seems he does). So I have not bothered to reinstate this either.
I think that's the lot. --Bob Burton 04:41, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
- There was one sentence I missed. I'm inclined to reinstate this but the two citations are to truncated teasers to The New Republic articles and it is a little hard to get the full sense of what Haqqani argues. I suspect that given the extensive list of articles at there are probably better references to articles that are fully available to support those points.
HD had added:
I think that's the lot now. --Bob Burton 05:05, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
