Jump to content

Talk:Moazzam Begg

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


Request for comment

[edit]

Editors recommended WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Other than the RfC initiator, the RfC participants did not discuss specific content in the article. I recommend boldly making improvements to the article and opening a new RfC if changes are disputed. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How far should unproven and untried claims of association with terrorists be included in this BLP article. Should a distinction be made between claims made during or related to Begg's detention in Guantanamo and claims made subsequent to his release? There is no dispute here, as I seem to be the only current editor, however I am unsure as to how far we should be going in repeating claims of association. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

This is a BLP article about a British subject held in Bagram and Guantanamo Bay. He has never been tried or found guilty of any offence anywhere, except a trivial incident as a youth. The claims of association made against Begg are heavily reliant on 'intelligence' claims and, at times, 'confessions'. To the best of my knowledge, 'association with known figures', is the only thing he is accused of, though he freely admits to agreeing with some aspects of Taliban (and Bosnian and Chechneyan) actions.

I have wherever possible checked claims against sources, and where necessary made modifications, however, it is in the nature of the case that claims are sometimes coming 3rd or 4th hand based on inherently unverifiable info (eg NY Times says that unnamed US officials say that unnamed UK intelligence sources say that Begg was an associate of person X, though no UK source appears to corroborate this or say how they know this), similarly, UK news sometimes echo claims of unspecified US sources.

I do not believe it would be possible to cover this subject without including info about US/UK claims against Begg, along with his rebuttals, nor would it be practical on every occasion to repeat that 'confessions' and claims against him did not arise under normal circumstances. It is stated that he claims to have been tortured and threatened and British courts have endorsed that torture was used in these prisons, though not explicitly in Begg's case.

Concerns

[edit]

Particular sections that concern me are Alleged contacts with extremists after release. It is reliably sourced that after Begg's release from Guantanamo, the Sunday Times and Daily Mail, possibly others, made claims of - a fairly marginal - association with a man who (two years after the association), attempted a terrorist bombing. Also sourced is that Begg conducted a video interview with an alleged al-Quada connected Imam, after that Imam's release from a Yemeni jail, however most journalists would probably jump at such an opportunity. Is including these two claims neutral or simply compounding 'guilt by association'?

Another section about which I am uncertain is Known and suspected contacts with extremists and suspected extremists. On the one hand I can see the value of listing these claims of association, since they form the core of why Begg was imprisoned and why he is known at all, and because it affords the opportunity to put Begg's rebuttals alongside the claims. However I would welome views as to whether this section needs amending. I have already done quite a few edits to take claims out of WP voice.Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I think per [WP:BLP] the unproven allegations and associations can only be stated as unproven allegations and associations with reliable sources. CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - closely follow WP's 3 core content policies, NPOV, V and NOR, don't attempt to justify, right great wrongs or advocate for or against, state what RS have published and use inline citations, stick to WP:UNDUE, and there shouldn't be anything for you to be concerned about. Atsme📞📧 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, thankyou for comment, I think that my framing of the RfC question, went a long way towards answering it for myself and gave me a way forward. I've made a large number of 'nip and tuck' edits and only left/am leaving the RfC open in order to invite "other eyes". Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Moazzam Begg. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moazzam_Begg&oldid=1252588677"