Talk:Mubin Shaikh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Was he paid by CSIS?

The July 15 CBC article is not clear on whether he was a PAID informant. - Mcasey666 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since he claims he is still owed backpay, yes he was clearly being paid for his work. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was a paid agent. MS

[edit] eMail address

Similar to the case of Zaynab Khadr, I'm not sure how to go about with the wikiformalities of when the subject of an article seems to want to include their contact details in the body of the article. Perhaps we should create a template for talk pages stating "The subject of the article, 'subject, has indicated that they are open to receiving communication from interested parties, at the following method of communication"? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this. Contact me: peacebeuntoyou@rogers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.61.77 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informant/Agent

Every source I've seen identifies Shaikh as having acted as a paid informant, including his own interview and self-outing. I think it's duplicitous to start referring to him as an "agent" halfway through the article. Changed to be consistent. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agent is a particular status, versus informant (former requiring court testimony, latter not) MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.61.77 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - would you agree that your status would be "informant" rather than "agent"? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Details

  • He says he drove the group around in his (wired) van[1], did none of the others have a driversLicense/car? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert edits by SHaikh

I'm sorry to be such a stickler, but I'm reverting Shaikh's most recent edits. You changed "several times he phoned an ambulance to attend to him after an overdose" to "once he phoned an ambulance to attend to him after an accelerated heart rate", even though the cited MacLeans article quotes you saying "There were a couple of times...". Now, it's possibly you were misquoted, or that the reporter is trying to smear you - but ultimately we have to assume that MacLeans magazine is less likely to be subjective than you are yourself - and that you did indeed tell them it happened "a couple of times". You also removed the fact that your rehabilitation costs were covered by the RCMP - even though it is a referenced fact. Again, while I know the media is certainly capable of error - you can understand why we can't accept the subject of an article changing facts without evidence. You added the statement "This would leave intact the evidence obtained while working however." which I'm not sure I understand, while working where? And who says it would remain intact? (It's the subject of a publication ban, I know - but without revealing what evidence, there should still be a lawyer referenced explaining why "evidence" will remain admissable). You also changed the verbatim quote of Moon in his article, despite it being taken straight from this National Post story. You simply cannot rewrite past quotes, especially ones that aren't even your own, to fit your view of the facts. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


No wonder Wikipedia is such a poor source: the simple fact that something has been verbalized or written is enough for you to cite as some kind of fact. Rather than it simply being my view of things - I have first hand information which you do not - the publication ban makes it harder for me to prove my point however. Looking forward to seeing your changes when these issues are brought up in court. Validation is one helluva feeling.
As to your methodology: you think MacLeans would be less likely to be subjective than me?! They have a vested interest in putting forward a "story" whereas I do not. They did not even confirm from the RCMP about paid rehab visits (there were zero), nor did you confirm with Shaukat Sheri's lawyers about the point of my testimony being disputed at appeal - you simply regurtitate unconfirmed information. I have already had this material tested in the preliminary hearings so I can certainly wait until you see for yourself.
Peace.
eMailed Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)