Talk:Hassan Diab (sociologist)

POV in reverted edit reporting one day's testimony

One example

• Cited source: "The evidence of two previous experts was withdrawn following defence criticism."
• Edit: "France disavowed two previous analyzes when the defence demonstrated their unreliability."

Other problems with the edit are WP:UNDUEWEIGHT given to the defense case. Finally, Wikipedia is not a newspaper meant to record the daily blow-by-blow of testimony. --CliffC (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding undue weight. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The reports are as they stand. Chris Cobb, the reporter has covered both sides, this is material is as reported and is QUOTED.

The point that Wikipedia is NOT A NEWSPAPER has been addressed by another previously: "This page has no merit to belong on Wikidpedia. This page is constantly being changed as newpaper articles are released. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This page is in violation of the rules/standards of "Biographies of Living Persons." Please refer to it. Romona 16:24, 7 September 2009" This has done nothing to stop the vandalism begun, and continuing, from the Computer Center of Room 200, Burnside Hall, McGill University, Montreal. The page became a newspaper report the moment is was started and has continued to be one throughout it's duration. Should opposing/diametric viewpoints be published, you will find them added; until then? The page is as it stands and I will continue to return the material to that which is reported by the court reporters for acknowledged publications such as Chris Cobb of the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Freeze (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

Hi, "dual citizenship" could mean "Canadian and Lebanese citizenship". Could equally well mean "Canadian and USA citizenship". The ambiguity should be removed. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Done in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassan_Diab_(sociologist)&diff=prev&oldid=1257370931. Sources that I can find make it clear that he's a Lebanese and Canadian citizen. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Page name change

Because he's been convicted (regardless of what anyone might think of it) and because his notability stems from the charges of which he has now been convicted (not his being a sociologist), it may be time to consider moving the disambiguation term from "sociologist" to "criminal", "bomber", or "terrorist", etc. Whatever is consistent with other such cases. If the conviction is ever overturned, it can always be moved back. Alternately, the page could be disambiguated by adding his middle name. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added the term 'terrorist' to the first sentence because it's what people will expect when they're figuring out whether they've landed on the right page, similar to how Ted Kaczynski is described as a "domestic terrorist and former mathematics professor." Lukys1 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason only reason we are using a descriptor at all is to distinguish between Hassan Diab (the Lebanese Minister). In normal situations, a conviction allows for some of the usual WP:BLP precautions or using "alleged", "accussed" etc to fall away. Here where he is maintaining his claims of innocence, Amnesty International is calling the conviction baseless, and judges in Canada and France called the case weak or called for him to be released earlier on. After all that he was convicted in absentia. This is not a normal straightforward case, so I am not so sure we should change the title to either "terrorist" or "wrongfully convicted". There are two opposing ways he is viewed, either as a criminal/terrorist or as a victim of French injustice, a wrongfully convicted person. We can include information from both perspectives in the article as is expressed in WP:RS, but I don't think we can or should take a position. So maybe it is just best to leave it as sociologist in the title and address the rest in the lead and article.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think random Wikipedia editors are really in a position to second-guess a French court. Surely there has to be some kind of objective standard for determining whether or not to (tentatively) label someone a "terrorist". A conviction in a (Western) court certainly seems like it should qualify. It can always be changed back if the ruling is overturned or if there is some kind of further official hearing that determines that he's actually innocent. But shouldn't we be acting on objective legal standards rather than gut feelings? Bueller 007 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I take your point that random Wikipedia editors shouldn't second-guess a French court. My point is that the French court effectively did so itself, when it previously released him due to lack of evidence. As did a Canadian court earlier, in saying the case was "weak" on extradition. Then we also have Amnesty International calling the conviction baseless. It is notable that he was convicted in absentia, and without the French applying for extradition a second time. We have WP:RS saying that now (after the conviction in absentia) this is likely to end up before Canadian courts again for a second set of extradition proceedings, where his guilt/innocence and the past conduct of French and Canadian courts will go under the microscope again. In 2018, we have the PM of Canada Justin Trudeau saying I think for Hassan Diab, we have to recognize, first of all, that what happened to him never should have happened when speaking of the extradition and his detention in France for years without charges.[1] So this just isn't a straightforward conviction, it is one that has been second guessed by judges, NGOs, and PMs. I am not sure we should brush that aside to say he did it just because a French court decided so without him there for the trial. I think due weight requires us to note that he has been convicted, he maintains his innocence and to point to the complex nature of the case. The RS don't seem to be writing this as he did this, instead noting that he was convicted and noting all of the complexities and the fact that the legal process is ongoing. Why should we say in our voice that he did? Shouldn't we follow what RS are saying, not just take the word of a "Western" court as the arbiter of truth?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

But I don't think there's any sense in which "due weight" requires that we avoid clearly labelling him as a terrorist. A court--looking at the evidence--determined that there was weight enough that he must be sentenced to prison for life. Surely, when assessing the balance of evidence in what we should call him, that should weigh the heaviest by far. In comparison, why should we weigh Amnesty International's opinion anywhere near as seriously as a conviction? There's no country where Amnesty determines who is or isn't guilty, and their role--kind like a defense lawyer--is to push against what they see as injustice wherever they can. We wouldn't take the word of a defense attorney over the word of the court. A statement by Trudeau in 2018 (before the conviction) is also not particularly meaningful. What he said after this conviction was "We will look carefully at next steps". It seems like the only way to justify calling him a "sociologist" over a "terrorist" is to disregard what we would normally consider to be pretty determinitive standards based on the fact that it makes us uncomfortable. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue that he was convicted. The question is whether he did it, and whether Wikipedia should say so in our voice. Several courts (not just one) looked at the evidence. As I have said, on extradition (Part 1), the judge called the evidence weak, saying "I found the French expert report convoluted, very confusing, with conclusions that are suspect" when relying on handwriting evidence that was later discredited.[2] Later the original French investigative judges ruled he should be released (after three years of detention without charges) due to lack of evidence. Following which, the Department of Justice (Canada) did a review of its extradition procedures, and Trudeau made his comments that this never should have happened. Then the French convicted him in absentia, instead of extraditing him to face trial in person. Now with the conviction in absentia, they will seek extradition again (Part 2), and Canadian courts will have a further opportunity to examine the evidence, consider the judicial history and the validity of the conviction and decide whether to extradite Diab for the second time and for the same alleged crime. It is instructive that the victim's lawyer said "Let’s not delude ourselves, Mr. Diab will never be extradited from Canada" following the French conviction.[3] We need to say Diab was convicted, because that is true and reflected in reliable sources. But it would be offside of WP:DUE for us to ignore the complexities and weaknesses of the case also reported in those sources, including the complicated judicial history in both Canada and France, Diab's continuing claims of innocence, Prime Ministerial statements that the extradition "never should have happened", Amnesty International calling the charges baseless, the New Democratic Party saying the "trial has been a sham",[4], the victim's lawyer saying Diab won't be extradited, and the fact that the judicial proceedings are ongoing (as extradition proceedings will begin anew). I agree that using the "sociologist" descriptor is imperfect. It would be preferable to just use his name, but Hassan Diab is already taken by the Lebanese politician and former PM of that name. Changing the descriptor to "criminal", "terrorist", "wrongly convicted", "accused criminal" etc. are not appropriate in the circumstances. We shouldn't be picking a side between the two narratives reflected in reliable sources. "Sociologist" is imperfect, but more neutral than the others. Do you have another suggestion?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the need for a differentiator. But "murderer" or "terrorist" is more appropriate than "sociologist."

This Mr. Diab is not generally notable for being a sociologist. He merits inclusion in an encyclopedia in the first place because of his criminal history - whether or not you think he's guilty.

Other famous murderers who are dually notable get both descriptors. OJ Simpson really was separately notable as an elite athlete. Mr. Diab is not separately notable for simply being a sociology lecturer. Are we going to have articles on every person with an advanced degree? Tom Smith, Juris Doctor?

Further, the article itself is almost entirely devoted to the man's criminal history and controversies related to that. If a more significant portion of this article were devoted to Mr. Diab's academic achievements, I might see a case for identifying him as a "sociologist."

The fact of the matter is this is not an article about a sociologist - because it doesn't talk about the subject's work in sociology. It is an article about a convicted murderer. 1MathematicalGuy (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency of Canadian citizenship date

In its current form, the article states that he became a Canadian citizen in 1993.

Nearly all of the articles that reference this appear to be based on Wikipedia itself, but this 2009 article from the National Post does include 1993 as the year he became a Canadian citizen: https://swap.stanford.edu/was/20090819101309/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1838537

However, a recent 2024 National Post article (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/why-a-convicted-synagogue-bomber-is-teaching-at-carleton-university) simply states that Diab "came to Canada in 1993."

It seems very unlikely that he could have become a Canadian citizen in 1993, given that he was studied for his PhD at Syracuse University in the USA at that time. According to https://web.archive.org/web/20240529201340/https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/diab-case-time-review-canadas-extradition-act-scott-newark-inside-policy, he was studying at Syracuse University from 1987, received his Master's degree in 1992, and his PhD in 1995, and that article further states that he did not become a Canadian citizen until 2006. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)