Talk:Abu Hamza al-Masri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

'Imprisonment of sons' section[edit]

The section names sons of Abu Hamza and details their criminal activities and convictions, which are unrelated to those of their father. The section was removed, with the edit summary rm section about AH's sons' crimes. AH was not implicated in any of the crimes, and a "guilt by association" section has no place in this BLP. The section has now been reinserted, with the edit summary a person's children's imprisonment affects his life, hence it's relevant enough to include. Hamza has now been convicted, so it can no longer be claimed that anyone could be influenced into thinking he's a criminal merely because some of his children are. The first sentence may be more persuasive than the second (because the guilt by association, i.e. a taint of guilt deriving from AH's relationship to convicted criminals, is not justified by his own conviction for unrelated crimes). I have no strong opinion either way. I'd be interested to hear from editors who are respected for expertise in BLPs. Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think such info about close family should be included because it is relevant to his life. There's no 'guilt by association' because Hamza is a high-profile convicted terrorist who is known for his own crimes. Such info should be included on the biography any notable person. For example, Woody Harrelson's father's criminality is stated in the Early life section of his article. Goldie's son's criminality is stated in the Personal life section of his article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I know there are precedents, and it's reasonable to take them into account. I also know precedent doesn't necessarily trump other considerations. Rather than get into detailed discussion with you I'm going to wait, as I said, for input from editors who are respected for their expertise in BLPs. Writegeist (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If the information has been published in reliable sources in connection with the subject then it is appropriate to be considered for entry in a Wikipedia article. We don't differentiate between positive and negative information on a subject, only that information is used in a neutral and balanced manner. Where we do differentiate is in the quality and amount of sources. If the sources are of dubious reliability, or if the claim comes from only one source, then we tend not to use the material, and if, in addition, the material is potentially libellous, it would not be allowed under policy. In this case the information is not libellous as it is purely factual, and it comes from two reliable sources. A quick search indicates that the topic of the sons is notable, and more details could be added to the article: Telegraph, Guardian, Standard, Standard, Express, Mirror, Hindustan Times, Sunday Times, Independent, The Sun' and not just newspapers: Countering Al-Qaeda in London By Robert Lambert, Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology By Raphael Israeli, etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarity, SilkTork. And Jim Michael for the edit. It's good to have confirmation that any (non-trivial) information relating to a BLP subject qualifies for consideration so long as it has been connected to the subject in reliable sources. Writegeist (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with the content, however, I think it might fit better under the existing family section, since there's already discussion of his son(s') arrest there. It seems a bit out of place where it is right now, and I don't know that it needs to be its own section?12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sentencing[edit]

Mainspace says he was to be sentenced 9 September 2014. Anybody know the outcome? nobs (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)