Talk:Muhamed Haneef

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

- altered $10,000 bail to $10,000 bail and $10,000 surety. The media said it and no one is going to have a $10,000 bail without surety in Australia unless we get rid of common sense.

re: change to wording of the charge regarding reckless and intentional.[edit]

the exact charge has often been reported as "recklessly, but not intentionally" provided assistance (see e.g. http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/terror-suspect-doctor-given-bail/2007/07/14/1183833812030.html).

The exact charge that AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty has detailed is s 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). It explains that the giving of aid itself has to be intentional, which seems to contradict many of the newspaper reports. The "reckless" word appears only in relation to whether the accused is aware that the organisation he has given support/resources is a terrorist organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.35.10 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

457 visa[edit]

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/ There seems not to be a page for this at WP.I'd add the link if I knew how..Feroshki 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview released[edit]

The Australian.com.au released on line July 10 the interview with police. It was leaked by his attorney. This interview seems to be unavailable on line now. I am assuming it is not the documents related to the court's determination on visa cancelation. Is this locateable?Kyle Andrew Brown 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting development, reported in the SMH. John Dalton 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) It's spreading across the media now (to the ABC). John Dalton 01:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC) The Australian John Dalton 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government trying to deport Haneef to save face[edit]

The latest news is that the government wants him deported ASAP to contain potential fallout. I would guess they are offering to drop the charges in exchange for him agreeing to drop his appeal against the visa cancellation although this isn't clear from the source. Or perhaps they're hoping he'd give up on the appeal rather then spend time in Villawood. I presume he can't actually be deported while his visa cancellation appeal is ongoing right? [1] Nil Einne 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he can. He just can't come back. BrianFG 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

False Accusations[edit]

I am not sure the accusations are actually false. The issue is that they are thoroughly absurd in a truly Kakfa-esque way.

So, for example, it is true that he gave his SIM card to his second cousin. What is absurd is characterizing this act as recklessly rendering support to a terrorist organization.

124.168.33.136 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one, not even Mohamed Haneef has AFAIK ever denied he gave the SIM card to relatives. However there have been many allegations that have either been proven or appear false including the claim it was found in the burning car, allegations he lived with the alleged perpetrators and a variety of other claims. Also, whatever the reasons the Australian police accused him of recklessly rendering support, it's still a false accusation even if some of the details are true and part of the problem is their tortured/insane reasoning. Think of this another way. If you're accused of murder and it turns out you did kill the person but it wasn't murder, the accusation of murder is false no matter how or why it was arrived at Nil Einne 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. For the accusation to be 'false' it must be proven to be so. The charges were dropped, withdrawn, rescinded - whatever term you prefer to enjoy. There was never the opportunity to prove them false as they never got to trial. Further, from another perspective, on the 2nd of July, the accusations were very real (in that they existed). You could say that the accusations were based upon false assumptions and false information but not that the accusations themselves were false. Laager 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the accusations were always false. You cannot claim an accusation which is false was EVER not false whatever assumptions or information was used to arrive at the accusations. If I accuse your of murder and you didn't murder anyone then that's a false accusation regardless of the reason I accused your of murder. For an accusation to be false, it means the person did not do what you accused them of. It doesn't mean an accusation did not exist. Clearly Mohamed Haneef was accused at one time of reckless providing support. However this accusation now for all intents and purposes appear to be false. The fact that it was ALWAYS false does not mean an accusation did not exist. Nil Einne 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it needs to be flagged there, but I do know there are strong feelings about this amongst others. I'll step aside from this one 'cos I can see both sides of this argument. 124.168.33.136 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Feroshski's edit to change the wording to avoid the contentious argument that really doesn't advance the cause of a neutral presentations of the facts which, at the end of the day, is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. And I say this as one who thinks Haneef's tribulations are travesty of justice.

124.168.43.193 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Statements By Andrews on 28 July[edit]

He refused to comment on Haneef's fairness of treatment as he informed media he was simply following anti-terror legislation implemented by the current Liberal government.

I don't like Andrews any more than the next guy, but this seems to be putting words into his mouth. If the sentence is to remain, then I ask that you provide a citation that proves he said it.

58.106.6.113 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visa cancellation hearing[edit]

I heard that this lawyers had hoped he would stay until his hearing. How does his leaving affect the hearing? Nil Einne 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

upgrade to business class[edit]

the ABC Radio reported on the w/e that Immigration had paid for an upgrade to business class to keep Dr H away from media. But today's "AUstralian" says, it was a decision by the airline (Thai)to avoid a scrum in the economy section Feroshki 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing aside.[edit]

Totally irrelivant to this discussion page, but may be of some merit in illustrating popular view on the subject; today in a packed auditorium of 1,500+ students studying public relations / journalism at the University of Western Sydney they were asked whether anyone believes he was involved in terrorism, not a hand went up. Whether they believe he was victimised. Every hand was raised. Get his visa back. Every hand. Get an apology. Every hand.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this latest alleged 'web chat' thing pans out. I wonder if it's as solid as the names of known terrorists scrawled into his diary by the federal police? News Limited have taken the liberty to 'reconstruct' what the conversation MAY have gone like. And the only sus part about it is the opening line of "They do not know anything about you. When are you leaving the country?" .. I mean seriously, what the .. ? Jachin 08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an important point which should be in the article. The media management, or spin, of the case by the government and police. The article does not mention the false claim that Haneef was photographing Gold Coast buildings, collecting intelligence for their later bombing. The AFP later ridiculed the interpretation that this was the purpose of the photos, and yet the photos and that interpretation could have only have been provided by officers of the AFP. The SIM card evidence was mis-described to the media, making it appear stronger than it was. The excerpts from the diary were misleading. The excerpts from Haneef's interrogation were misleading. The excerpts from the chat logs were misleading. In short, there was a lot of old-fashioned "verballing" by the police both to the magistrate and to the media. 150.101.246.227 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the Gold Coast plot mentioned at the bottom of the 'Other allegations' section? I guess it could be expanded.--Lester 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not so fast, Mr 150.101.246.227! Jachin did not query the photo allegations, so why set up straw men? And it is not enough to simply assert that evidence from Haneef's diary, the interrogation AND the chat logs are ALL "misleading" without telling us why. See my post "What if Haneef is not so innocent" below. Eric155 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the introduction[edit]

"Dr Haneef's ensuing detention (the longest without trial in recent Australian history) "

shouldn't that read the longest without charge ? I'm sure just about every case takes more than a few weeks to go to trial! Bramley 12:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews reveals some details on visa cancellation[edit]

Kevin Andrews revealed some of the information about his decision to cancel Haneef's visa:

There is a follow up story from Haneef's lawyer:

It is interesting to note that Andrews does not say that he made his decision based on the information released today – just that the information now known supports his decision. Seems a bit fishy ... --James 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how long?[edit]

this article states that dr mhamed haneef was arrested on july 2 and released on july 27. why then does it also state that haneef was detained for 12 days. doesnt the period between july 2 ans 27 add up to 25 days? how long was he detained??????? 203.221.68.174 22:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure really. I think he was detained for 12 days, then he was granted bail but Kevin Andrews cancelled his visa so he was detained further as an illegal immigrant. Anyone know how many days Dr. Haneef spent in detention altogether?

He was detained for 12 days WITHOUT CHARGE, the charges were brought against him after this, and the rest of the period he was detained until 27th is considered "valid"..--124.171.83.231 23:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section called 'Political Fallout'[edit]

Just reading through this article, one thing missing is a section / title about Political Fallout. Apart from the obvious ramifications to the Government in opinion polls, there is also the stance of other parties. Some Labor left politicians have been heavily criticised for supporting Howard on this issue (Reference). I'd like to see how the stance was of the major parties, eg Liberal, Labor, Greens, Democrats. I think it would be an interesting and important section. 203.158.43.178 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word 'leak' pejorative[edit]

The use of the word 'leak' to describe the release of the AFP interview transcript is pejorative. The chairman of the Queensland Law Society commented "To describe this information as a leak is to completely misdescribe it." 'Leak' suggests the release was illegal, or unethical - it appears the release was neither, therefore I suggest the more neutral term 'release' be used instead. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/19/1982169.htm Just wanted to add my opinion as to how biased this WP article is. It seems nearly every entry is written in a style that supports Dr Haneef. It is really an insult to the neutrality of WP. People have an obligation to present the facts, and all the facts, not just selecting the ones that support their view. It does not matter which side you believe is correct, the point is to present an article with complete and correct facts in a neutral and unbiased manner.

Safe your opinion for yourself. Wiki is not a place to express your gibberish. Besides, this article is neutral enough. 203.49.196.163 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.100.228.90 (talk) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

The above is a very good example of why people should sign. Either the above is one person with at least two (split) personalities or it's 2 or more people arguing something but not signing so it's not clear who's saying what Nil Einne 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'Current Event' status?[edit]

I think the tag at the start of the article stating it is a "current event" should be removed as I don't believe it is current any more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biting mammal (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is still a "current event", read The Australian today 23 August 2007 refuting Kevin "cherry picker" Andrews' claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.196.163 (talk) 00:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Biography or event?[edit]

It seems to be the trend lately that persons notable for a single event only be covered in an article on the event rather than a biography. Is such an approach appropriate here?--cj | talk 08:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its a wikipedia trend, why not follow? is there any inherent advantage to renaming/rescoping this page in this case seeing as he does have notability in and of himself, otherwise every person with one major event would be denied an article because there weren't two, and why is two events special? removing this article because there is only one event seems like a silly pedantic thing to do, but I have learnt never to put it past wikipedia to develop something extra pedantic.
Of course, I realise that the impact of the event is currently spread across many articles, including the section on Kevin Andrews which was possibly trimmed rightly considering its current impact on his career (though if he loses his seat over it then extra length may be appropriate :-) ) I would in that respect support an article which conglomerated the important information together while leaving summaries on the articles relating to the major parties to the kerfuffle. Ansell 07:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Detention visa? ...and linking to legislation[edit]

I've amended the words "residence detention visa" as there is no such visa. The correct term is Residence Determination under s197AB Migration Act. The person is still in detention (under s189 Migration Act) but is permitted to have their place of detention determined to be a particular place in the community. This is another power that can only be exercised by the Minister personally.

I'm not clear on how to link from wiki to external links. Should I link to the legislation? http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/6E4ED401C9760993CA257368007DE74A

Do I cite it as a reference? In no sense nonsense 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Evidence[edit]

More evidence has emerged regarding the Haneef case. Someone might want to add it to the article. John Dalton (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Haneef related to UK terror suspects" :
    • {{cite news|title = Haneef related to UK terror suspects |publisher = Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date = [[July 07]], [[2007]]|url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971334.htm?section=justin}}
    • {{cite news|title = Haneef related to UK terror suspects |publisher = Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date = [[July 7]], [[2007]]|url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/1971334.htm?section=justin}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been found or proven guilty?[edit]

I am not sure if I read the article properly but I could not see where it said that he is innocent or guilty. Based on my knowledge of media coverage there was intense media speculation in mid 2007 against this guy and the media tried to portray him as guilty. Then suddenly the media coverage, strangely faded and totally disappeared out of headlines. I do not know what happened after that. I think lots of politics was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz887 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his prolonged detention, no charge was ever brought for him to be innocent or guilty of. He never made it to court and never had to plead innocent or guilty. Haneef faced a massive presumption of guilt instead. The article says "vindicated" which is probably the right word given that Haneef only ever faced accusations and innuendo and not charges. I can understand your confusion as it is indeed an exceptional thing for someone to be detained like Haneef was and not to actually be charged with anything. Maybe the article need to expand on these unusual circumstances? 220.233.191.2 (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: "charge" in what I just wrote means "valid charge". The charges which were brought turned out to be a work of fiction, without any supporting evidence. They quickly collapsed, so Haneef never had to answer them. Incidentally here is a recent article that contains a lot of material that should find its way into the article. 220.233.191.2 (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu?[edit]

As mentioned in the article various translated transcripts have been released, and maybe presented to the courts, of material in the Urdu language. Now, I'm wondering if there's any evidence that Haneef knows the Urdu language. The language is not widely spoken in southern India. Have the original "Urdu" transcripts also been released? Does anyone other than the Australian authorities think they are really Urdu, or that the "translations" are correct? This detail just sounds so odd, that some backup or explanation seems necessary. 198.142.5.241 (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what if Haneef is not so innocent?[edit]

The entire article is biased towards Haneef's case. It covers evidence which supports him at extravagant length, while sidelining any that does not. If this had not been a provincial Australian affair then there would have been many posters demonstrating that it does not abide by Wikipedia's POV requirements. I am going to point this out now.

Haneef ran like a jackrabbit as soon as the Glasgow terrorist incident occurred. I for one am glad that the police were not inclined to credulously accept his feeble excuse that his daughter was sick in India. A doctor in a responsible position, he did not even advise his hospital that he was leaving. He left his flat in a squalid state, as if he had just taken off on the spur of the moment, quite possibly in panic.

I am glad that the AFP did not buy his story for having only a one-way plane ticket to India: that he did not have the money and he was going to arrange the return fare with his father. How is that a man on a doctor's salary living by himself in a modest flat does not have sufficient funds to purchase a ticket? I would myself judge that even if Haneef was not directly involved in the plot, he most probably knew about his relatives' secret program. He never seems to express shock that they turned out to be fanatics set on murdering innocent people.

And then there are the mysterious messages he got in web chats, ostensibly telling him that he is "not suspected". Doesn't anyone else find these details suggestive of there being a lot more to the story than an innocent doctor taking a very abrupt one way trip back home after he hears his daughter is ill (and we never hear of how this "gravely ill" little girl is doing) coincidentally just days after his cousins were involved in a globally reported story to bomb an airport?

And for the mysterious 150.101.246.227 23:41 who posts in material advantageous to Haneef, written in perfect English but from a WP site that has no other contributions to it, may I ask you whether you are a lawyer, and if so, whether you have some connection to the Haneef case? Currently, Haneef is in the process of suing our Government, though he seemingly has no intention of returning. As detailed above, a poster (Jachin, above) mentions some of the same concerns I have broached, and you meander off dealing at length with questions he did not ask, and slipping past the ones he did. You certainly write like a trained lawyer. It is really not enough to simply assert that the "excerpts from the diary…[the] interrogation [and]… the chat logs" were all "misleading", while giving no indication at all as to why that is so.

There is a strange tendency on behalf of Australia's "progressives" to suck up to fanatical elements who would like nothing more that to see them turned into mince meat in some subway. Haneef may well not be in that category. But as a thinking member of the public, outside of a jury room, I do not have to judge someone as guilty only if there is really no doubt at all that he is. I can judge by my wits and on the balance of probabilities. On that basis, I find that there are enough loose ends in the Haneef story for me to feel relieved that he is no longer here. Eric155 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a pal of Eric's and I know that he was wrongly identified as a vandal, and barred. As you can see from his view above, this is a man with a particularly fine mind, and he is not inclined to "vandalism". He now posts under another name. His views above were removed by a user who claimed they are "soapboxing". I can't see they soapbox any more than most of the views above. Eric raised the points that the public will judge according to their wits. His points have never been challenged. That Haneef's story that he bought a one-way ticket to India because he "did not have the money for a return ticket" simply does not stand up. I don't buy it and no rational person would. And Haneef did not even INFORM THE HOSPITAL that he worked for that he would be away. He ran like a jackrabbit, and there has been no satisfactory explanation as to why he did this. But most of us can guess why. He didn't know how much the authorities knew, he feared the worst, that they had him pinned.
So he had a sick daughter. Of course, she is never mentioned again. Turns out she was quite well. Even if she WAS ill, Haneef is a doctor. A doctor does not hear that his daughter is ill, and simply dump everything, tell no one where he is going, and then just piss off as fast as he can in a blind panic.
Well, I think the article is heavily biassed in his favour by those with their own agenda. Text from his diary is asserted by his supporters to be "misleading" but they have not, in the all the time that has elapsed, offered a cogent explanation as to why something that seems to clearly mean Haneef was involved, in fact means something else.
In any case, I am arguing that the article needs to be rewritten in a more dispassionate way. And Eric's stuff stays. So my main point, like Eric's, is too make the article more suitable for an encyclopedia, not some wacko Islamic flyer supporting Fatwahs.
I hope there are more contributors who come up against the vacuous bumfluff that Haneef's supporters are putting up here. I don't like censorship, especially when it is being done by someone obviously rooting for Haneef. If he was sincere about scrapping soapboxing, just about everything on this page would go. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decisions of the Australian courts are that the case against Haneef was extremely flimsy and not likely to bring about a conviction. That is how this article is framed. The article certainly does not need any rewrites based on your unsubstantiated personal opinion. Flanker235 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Muhamed Haneef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Muhamed Haneef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Muhamed Haneef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muhamed Haneef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Muhamed Haneef. 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) 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhamed Haneef. 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) 18:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhamed_Haneef&oldid=1205056102"