Talk:Hassan Diab (sociologist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ottawa Citizen article, 21 Nov 2008

The Ottawa Citizen article dated November 21, 2008, notwithstanding, COURT DOCUMENTS clearly show that the passport contains absolutely no French markings. However, the passport does contain Spanish markings that bracket the date of the Rue Copernic attack. I do not see any need to perpetuate media inaccuracies. By the way, there is a significant and important difference between saying "France" or saying "Spain". It requires a more convoluted intelligence-driven theory to link the suspect to the crime when the passport markings do not show entry into the country where the attack occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf69 (talk • contribs)

This page has no merit to belong on Wikipedia. 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 (UTC)Romona Ragulokonathan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romona Ragulokonathan (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is constantly evolving, and this article must/will be kept in line with BLP, but that is no need to delete it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

recent important written reference: L'affaire Copernic

A study of the Copernic Attack in 1980 was recently published in 2009 by two leading French journalists: Jean Chichizola and Hervé Deguine.

L'affaire Copernic : les secrets d'un attentat antisémite http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8117310 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heder207 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This book is mere speculation and accusations are not qualified/worthy of publication on this page, which should not exist at all. The book can also be viewed as libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.18 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the anonymous poster that the link does not belong, not because of the way he/she characterizes the book, but because this is the English Wikipedia and the contents would not be accessible to most users. The book is in French and I can find no English-language reviews to help us determine whether it's notable. A Google translation of the publisher's blurb on amazon.fr is not helpful. These, together with Wikipedia external-link policy WP:NONENGEL, "external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia", seem to weigh toward removing the link, and I have done so. --CliffC (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained changes of 13 May 2010

I expanded and edited the article extensively between May 6 and May 9. Anyone wishing to understand the changes I made can simply follow them one-by-one by reviewing the edit summaries I left with each of the 17 edits. I followed WP:MOS style guidelines, and in particular I tried to make the article adhere more closely what the citations actually say. I have undone several of the unexplained 13 May changes by User:Soderbergh:

• restored material to the lead section to properly "summarize important aspects of the article" per WP:LEAD
• removed repetitions of the title "Dr." per WP:CREDENTIAL
• changed "several" injured back to "dozens" injured in the bombing, per citation
• restore "and former members of the group" to those naming Hassan, per citation
• restore name of the suspect group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, per citation.

I'll try to add a few more citations. Let's all cite what we write. --CliffC (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

France has changed its theory, often, and PFLP has long since been left on the cutting table. They are currently attempting to make intelligence as evidence; this is not evidence. Hence, anything that France has put forward as evidence based upon intelligence, is not evidence and will continue to be removed. Cannot interject "evidence favoring France" when this is only a theory and not proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.18 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is all about citing material from reliable published third-party sources and that's the state of the article today. You are welcome to cite reliable sources supporting what you say above, but not to remove cited material. Where you say "Cannot interject 'evidence favoring France'", you are correct; I wrote "An extradition hearing, in which France would present evidence favoring extradition of Diab to France to face trial, had been approved and scheduled to begin in January 2010" to try to explain the process, but the bolded portion of the sentence is not according to the cited source and I have removed it.

I have again undone some of your unexplained changes such as delinking "1980 Paris synagogue bombing". Again, we don't use honorifics such as "Dr." in Wikipedia, please see WP:CREDENTIAL. --CliffC (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

17 May deletion by 207.161.48.18

I have undone this deletion of cited material, which has the edit summary "Friends was NEVER mentioned in article. Blamed on Group. Prove Group, prove member of group-->enter onto page otherwise? DELETED and will continue to be; check reference article." Where you say "Friends was NEVER mentioned in article", I guess you're looking for a citation for "Based on information from foreign intelligence agencies and former members of the group, French authorities allege that Diab was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine". That statement is cited at the end of the paragraph, but I've added a copy of the citation following the word "Palestine" as well. As to the rest of your edit summary, Wikipedia isn't about "proving" things, it's about reporting what reliable sources have reported.

207.161.48.18: This "encyclopedia page" is a scandal sheet of poor reporting and innuendo. What next, the Daily World and The Enquirer as "proof" rather than reputable "proof?" You have taken it upon yourself to manufacture consent to the existence of this page; it should not exist. Wiki is not a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.18 (talk • contribs)

Take a look at policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which starts out

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

207.161.48.18: The referenced article: "Diab has by all accounts lived a quiet life in Canada.

That all changed a year ago when reports in French and Canadian newspapers said French authorities suspected Diab was the leader of the group that launched the commando-style attack on the rue Copernic synagogue.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Special Operations group was blamed for the strike, according to authorities."

See anything in there that says "and friends?" I do not, hence, it has been removed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.18 (talk • contribs)

I suggest also reading the Five pillars of Wikipedia, to better understand how this encyclopedia works.

207.161.48.18: PILLAR ONE:

Blue pillar (1: Encyclopedia) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.

~Wiki is "It is not a dictionary, newspaper. . ."

PILLAR THREE"

Yellow pillar (3: Free) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.

~I am "anyone."Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit. . ." and "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.18 (talk • contribs)

In the future, please bring any perceived problems here to the talk page for discussion, instead of deleting parts of the article wholesale, and please be more specific about what you object to. CliffC (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to above comments by 207.161.48.18

• "This "encyclopedia page" is a scandal sheet of poor reporting and innuendo. ... it should not exist. ..."

This article conforms to Wikipedia standards. You are free to nominate the article for deletion and let the Wikipedia community decide whether or not it should exist.

• "See anything in [the referenced article] that says "and friends?" I do not, hence, it has been removed again."

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here. Neither the article you reference nor the paragraph you removed here, for reference

"Based on information from foreign intelligence agencies and former members of the group, French authorities allege that Diab was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,[1] the group blamed for the bombing.[2] Evidence unsealed as part of the extradition case included police sketches made after the bombing and handwriting analysis comparing Diab's writing to that on a hotel registration card.[3][4]"

says anything about "friends", so what is your point? It may be that you simply do not like that paragraph, which describes the allegations conservatively, without repeating the many additional details recounted in the cited articles, and is necessary to an understanding of the balance of the section, which describes the defence objections to "evidence tendered by French authorities".

• "I am "anyone."Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit. . ." and "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed."

The fact that anyone can edit the encyclopedia does not give anyone the right to edit in a disruptive manner, as you have done by repeatedly removing properly cited material.

I have restored the deleted paragraph. --CliffC (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have NOW provided a link with proof that such information was published. As you stated however, printed proof is NOT TRUTH. This properly cited material will remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.18 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)