Talk:Hassan Diab (sociologist)

Termination of Teaching Contract

Diab was hired by Carleton University AND engaged in teaching a course in Introduction to Sociology when, after a terse press-release from B'nai Brith, he was terminated within hours of the press release.

Read the articles, read the press release, read the responses by CAUT and the Globe&Mail Opinion piece. The termination was a DIRECT result of the B'nai Brith press release, not the revelation that he was teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Freeze (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The B'nai Brith cause-and-effect may be implied by the sources cited, but his firing is not stated by them as a direct result as you have done above. Right now the article just paraphrases the sources and lets the reader draw his own conclusions, which conforms to the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, neutral point of view. (If there is an opinion piece among the citations, it shouldn't be.)

Also on the issue of WP:NPOV, I am starting to become concerned because the article is beginning to fill up with statements from the defence counsel and not so much from the Crown; these should be roughly balanced. --CliffC (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If the statements from the Crown were easier to insert without them appearing to be editorialized, they would be here. I, however, have a difficult time creating "objective" insertions of Crown arguments due to the methods used by the Crown and the following chastisements from the presiding judge; one cannot be given without the other. If you can discern a way to do so, have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Freeze (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The reader may draw their own conclusion as to the relevance of B'nai Brith's Press release. The fact is, it was issued related to Diab's teaching contract. The reader can draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Freeze (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional reference: article included University replaces accused professor http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1838537

Synagogue Bombing

Joanne Chianello and Andrew Seymour, Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 AFP, Getty Images Files A 1980 bomb attack on a Paris synagogue killed four people. The Ottawa university professor accused of killing four people in the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue will not be returning to work. Hassan Diab's lawyer told a court on Monday that his client had expected to resume teaching a sociology class this week at Carleton University. But in a terse statement released yesterday afternoon, the university said that a full-time faculty member "will immediately replace the current instructor, Hassan Diab." The move was being made to provide students "with a stable, productive academic environment that is conducive to learning," the statement said. It said there would be no further comment on the matter by the university. Mr. Diab, 55, had been given a contract to teach two days a week until the middle of August. B'nai Brith, the influential Jewish group, had harshly criticized the university for hiring Mr. Diab. The Toronto-based national office of B'nai Brith issued a statement condemning Carlton's actions, while an Ottawa-based member of the group telephoned the university directly to complain. "The university did the right thing," B'nai Brith's executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, said yesterday of Carleton's about-face in not allowing Mr. Diab to teach. Mr. Dimant said it was "inconceivable" that Mr. Diab, who is awaiting a Jan. 4, 2010, extradition hearing under strict bail conditions -- including wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet -- would be allowed to be in direct contact with young people. Mr. Diab, 55, was born in Lebanon, but obtained Canadian citizenship in 1993. He has led a fairly nomadic life, living in six different countries over 12 years. He has left behind a string of marriages, divorces and common-law relationships and has fathered two children over the past two decades. In 2006, Mr. Diab married Rania Tfaily in a religious ceremony that was not legally binding. Ms. Tfaily is a professor in Carleton's sociology and anthropology department, while Mr. Diab has taught at the University of Ottawa and, more recently, at Carleton. Although the couple was not living together at the time of Mr. Diab's arrest in November Mr. Diab must live with Ms. Tfaily as one of his many bail conditions. (She has told the court that, although she doesn't love him, she believes he is innocent.) Mr. Diab is accused of the 1980 bombing of the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris. In addition to killing four people, the bombing injured scores of others and led to the fortification of Jewish sites around the world. No one claimed responsibility, but the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Special Operations (PFLP-SO) was later blamed. Mr. Diab was arrested on Nov. 13, 2008, by the RCMP at the request of French authorities who allege Mr. Diab resembles police sketches of the synagogue bomber; his handwriting matches that of the bomber; he has been identified by intelligence sources and former friends as having been a member of the PFLP; and his Lebanese passport, which he reported stolen, was used to get into France at about the time of the 1980 bombing. Mr. Diab and Ms. Tfaily were in court in Ottawa on Monday to determine what items seized during RCMP raids of Ms. Tfaily's condo and her Carleton office can be sent to French officials as potential evidence in their case against Mr. Diab. Mr. Diab and Ms. Tfaily intend to argue that the RCMP searches were unlawful and the seized items should not be sent to France.

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)

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)