Talk:Adam Hamawy

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Relationship with the Blind Sheikh

There was a story coming out in right wing media that Adam Hamawy had a relationship with the Blind Sheikh who funded the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings, and that Hamawy had testified for the defense in the Sheikh's terrorism trial. It has now risen to Politico and the Hamawy campaign has responded to it without denying. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-jersey-playbook/2026/05/05/the-history-of-hamawy-and-the-blind-sheikh-00906080 https://freebeacon.com/democrats/new-jersey-dem-congressional-candidate-testified-on-behalf-of-terror-mastermind-blind-sheikh/

I don't want to be the person who decides to add this because I am a personal friend of one of his opponents in the race, but it does seem like it should be included. njnoodler (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing your WP:COI. Per WP:BLP policy, I have concerns that including this is attempting to ascribe guilt by association when he was never suspected or charged with any wrong-doing. According to the reporting I've seen, he only briefly knew him 25 years ago, so it also feels like WP:UNDUE. If you can find a way to word it that threads all those needles (or more information comes out) then I could be convinced. Edittttor (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to draw. Reading through the transcripts linked in the articles, it seems to me that the line is drawn simply at him having known Rahman and having been present at the 1991 Detroit trip and conference. I don't think it's wrong to synthesize from these collective sources presents any issues under WP:UNDUE. Both the transcript and the articles, along with a third (https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/26/nyregion/defense-witness-says-sheik-never-urged-assassination.html) I've found all concrete confirm a relationship and that he was a defense witness. GrafBismarck (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it would be wrong for us to WP:SYNTHESIZE things that are not in sources. But even the way that you worded it in your version is implying guilt by association. 4 sentences seems like WP:UNDUE just for him knowing someone who did something bad, even if he was a character witness (which it seems like that's what he was doing from reading between the lines from the sources). Bad people don't only do bad things. There have been zero sources that say Hamawy did anything wrong. Edittttor (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a necessary assumption, that being guilt, to make simply by the presence of information. The sources all substantially support the assertion that Hamawy knew Rahman, was present for the 1991 Detroit meeting, and was present at the conference. Nothing there is in dispute or implies guilt with relation to a crime.

Regarding the charge that I suggested he did something "bad," I carefully chose language that presents events simply as actions that have occured. To make a specific point of this, the Times article uses the word "supporter," a term not used in the trial transcript so far as I can tell. I would go so far as to say that was an assumption made at the time, but one that isn't necessary to make based on available information.

You're correct, no one has implied or claimed wrongdoing. I have not done so. The presence of information that may or may not reflect negatively upon a person does not disqualify it under WP:UNDUE. If it did, countless articles would have to exclude relevant information, such as in the case here. Given Hamawy's rising public appearance, all information that can be reliably sources should be available to those who want to quickly understand who someone is. I see no reason to exclude this information. GrafBismarck (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you review the WP:BLP policy. Especially WP:BALANCE. It says Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and links to the Association fallacy and WP:COATRACK.

From you: Given Hamawy's rising public appearance, all information that can be reliably sources should be available to those who want to quickly understand who someone is.

Again, from the BLP policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

The burden is on you to explain why this other person was anything more than a minor character in the article subject's life almost 35 years ago. Edittttor (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah the fact that you are a personal friend of an opponent demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. Per WP:NPOV, this is completely unreasonable to include on the page, as it seems more like an attack than an accurate description of Adam Hamaway. This is also irrelevant to his personal history. We cannot include the relationships of every person tied to him on the page, why report on this one specifically? Orca🐋 (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There are challenges here with this article, which is written in many ways like a resume / campaign piece and can use some solid toning down of the puffery. Furthermore, many of the participants here either have extremely low edit counts and / or appear to have WP:SPA issues.

That said, it appears that Hamaway wasn't just along for the ride with Omar Abdel-Rahman, he was a central witness for the defense, as described in this contemporaneous source from The Jersey Journal, as well as the source cited above from The New York Times. When the title of the 1995 article in The Times says "Defense Witness Says Sheik Never Urged Assassination", it's about the testimony from Hamawy; he is the central focus of the article. Sure, the case got a tremendous amount of attention and Omar Abdel-Rahman was convicted in that trial of seditious conspiracy, but that was more than 30 years ago, so the question is asked "why include it in the article?"

Matt Friedman's "The history of Hamawy and The Blind Sheikh" in Politico goes a long way to directly rebutting the UNDUE claim and goes through in detail Hamaway's deep connection to Omar Abdel-Rahman that goes beyond his star defense witness role at the trial. But equally strong is The ‘Blind Sheikh’ and the Candidate Adam Hamawy was in my courtroom in 1995. Now he’s running for Congress., written by Michael Mukasey and published in The Wall Street Journal. As the presiding judge in the 1995 trial (who later served as United States Attorney General), Mukasey has unquestioned expertise and was ideally positioned to understand the role that Hamawy played in the case, and he further establishes the relevance of Hamawy's role in the 1995 trial in his Wikipedia article.

Given the totality of these four independent, in-depth reliable and verifiable sources that are all about Hamaway and his role in the trial. Furthermore, his prominent role as a witness was highlighted in 1995 and that his connection to Sheikh Abdel-Rahman went far beyond his shared presence on a trip for half a day in a van to Detroit. Thus, it appears that WP:RS is clearly satisfied and that the claims of WP:UNDUE have been rebutted. I see no reason that the material should not be reinserted with changes so that they are directly backed by these strong secondary sources to provide readers with an insight into Hamawy that is completely absent from the article and that clearly belongs there.

I see no reason not to go ahead and make those changes. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alansohn

I concur fully. I had seen the Mukasey piece in the WSJ and had refrained from using it since it was an opinion piece. However, I think on the points you made it's a relevant source, especially since he oversaw the trial.

All that being said, what are your thoughts on the original edit I made? I attempted to maintain neutrality on his participation without making any claims beyond those made and supported in the sources. Any suggestions would be welcome. GrafBismarck (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

GrafBismarck, now that I have a variety of sources, I'm reviewing your edit and making a more in-depth review of the sources before I consider editing. Alansohn (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"central witness," "deep connection," "star defene," "unquestioned expertise." Some editorializing going on here. This is clear MOS:PEACOCK.

Also, to say tbat concerns about "WP:UNDUE have been rebutted" is a nonsensical statement. As per WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. We cannot evaluate if UNDUE is addressed until some text is proposed.

As I said before, I would be open to some language that doesn't do a guilt by association or WP:COATRACK. Both of which were present in the edit that @GrafBismarck made and @Apex-nurse reverted.

As GrafBismarck said, the WSJ piece is an opinion piece, so that should be taken into account as well. Edittttor (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor

I am relatively new to editing and I am trying to apply the policies carefully. I agree that WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE require caution here. My understanding is that the remaining concern is not whether the facts are supported, but whether the wording creates an improper implication of guilt by association.

I do not think the proposed text does that. It does not state or imply that Hamawy supported Abdel-Rahman, participated in Abdel-Rahman’s crimes, was accused of wrongdoing, or was charged. It states only the documented facts: that Hamawy met Abdel-Rahman, testified about continued contact with him, appeared as a defense witness, testified to a specific point, and was not charged in connection with the proceedings.

WP:BLP warns against guilt-by-association claims. I agree with that principle. But a neutrally worded, reliably sourced account of witness testimony is not itself a guilt-by-association claim, especially where the text expressly includes the limiting fact that Hamawy was not charged.

On WP:DUE, I agree that weight can involve detail, placement, and emphasis, not only factual disputes. But here, the episode was covered by multiple reliable secondary sources and is being summarized in a concise paragraph. If there is a specific phrase that seems to imply more than the sources support, I am open to revising it. You seem open to including the information, and I hope that remains the case. I do not think DUE or BLP supports excluding the material entirely. GrafBismarck (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There are several issues with your edit.

• The most glaring is that "Hamawy testified that he remained in contact with Abdel-Rahman until the latter's arrest in June 1993" is not supported by the citation listed. According to WP:BLP policy (specifically WP:BLPRS), we must only detail as much as is in the source. Anything more is WP:SYNTHESIS. This was rightfully removed from this BLP "immediately and without discussion."
• It guilts the subject by association in the first sentence, and doesn't clarify that there were never any charges until the end of the paragraph, and the exculpation does not include any citations. This is not WP:BALANCE.
• It is too detailed about how bad the bad guy is. If we are trying to reach WP:CONSENSUS here, a link to the other individual's standalone wiki page is sufficient. Otherwise it is still WP:COATRACKing. A helpful heuristic in a BLP is that when you start describing someone who is not the subject, or detailing the actions of someone who is not the subject, you may have ventured off topic.
• This section's length would make it one of the longest sections of the article, even compared to those with dozens of reliable sources and WP:SUSTAINED coverage over the course of years. That is WP:UNDUE coverage. Though it can be argued that it is a major event in US history, it is still a minor event in the subject's life and should be written with that it mind. For example, the section about the subject's activity as a first responder on 9/11 is a single sentence. The subject's involvement over 30 years as an emergency physician in disaster zones in Sarajevo, Haiti, and Syria are all collapsed into a single sentence. You proposed 4 sentences about an activity that the subject was a side character in almost 35 years ago. That's why it is UNDUE coverage.
• UNDUE is also about prominence of placement, and the location of this in the Early Life section seems inappropriate. The Personal Life section may be more fitting. But that should be a discussion.

Edittttor (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The more I look at the article, the more clearly problematic it appears. It's clearly promotional, both in terms of his role as a plastic surgeon to the stars and as a politician. There is a gigantic problem that much of the article is a COATRACK. It's important that the article is complete, and the decisions to selectively exclude material is problematic. I will do my best to address the concerns of content and tone about Hamaway's role in the 1993 trial in the article. May I remind you that MOS:PEACOCK is relevant in articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's try to reach consensus on any further edits to this page if possible before making them since we're in discussion here per Wikipedia:Consensus Apex-nurse (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Joining in here as first an observer and would like to help reconcile the issue on this page (and talk page). I do think there is likely some thought to be given to deleting the page as a whole – however, regarding the Blind Shiekh issue, this has risen above simply a "guilt by association" attempt and is now a reported controversy by reputable new sources; there is a way to incorporate this controversy in the page while staying neutral. Here is my current recommendation (feedback and additional sources welcome).

---

During the 2026 Democratic primary campaign, Hamawy’s past testimony as a defense witness in the 1995 trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the “Blind Sheikh,” received renewed media attention following a Wall Street Journal opinion column by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey discussing his prior interactions with Abdel Rahman and courtroom testimony.[1, WSJ]

Fox News later reported on the issue as a political controversy, citing criticism from Republican figures and describing Democratic campaign responses characterizing the coverage as “guilt-by-association” attacks.[2, Fox News]

---

The goal with this is to make progress on this issue instead of going back and forth on this Talk Page. I would fit this under the Campaign section, as this reported controversy is clearly tied to the campaign/election. AdPython (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@AdPython,

I think at this point, this a good plan about how to include this information here. For the first line of your text, I would suggest also citing the 1995 NYT article since that directly connects to the original controversy. It might also be worth noting that Mukasey oversaw the 1995 trial. To @Alansohn's point, to maintain balance, it's worth including the reporting linked below from InsiderNJ, in which the subject is asked twice about this particular issue. The Washington Free Beacon also ran a piece detailing the subject's response (see here). I don't know if it's redundant to use both but the Free Beacon article has the benefit of transcription.

Additionally, and I'd like to hear other's opinions on this, I think we should still retain a brief point about the subject not being charged. Whether that's necessary or not to preserve WP:NPOV, I'm not entirely sure but it's worth considering.

GrafBismarck (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

One additional point I forgot to add about the subject's response: should there be a direct quotation from the interview or should we summarize what was said? I found his description of Abdel-Rahman as "a leader in the community" as quite notable.

GrafBismarck (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on this discussion but have gone ahead and submitted an AFD, because, if approved, it will render this discussion moot. Apex-nurse (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur with AdPython (talk · contribs) and GrafBismarck (talk · contribs) that the weight of the evidence is that the material regarding Hamawy's connection to Omar Abdel-Rahman and his testimony at Abdel-Rahman's trial at the New York City landmark bomb plot should be included here. In addition to the current sources from the Wall Street Journal and Politico cited above, there has also been coverage by NJ 101.5 (see here), Fox News (here) and several other sources. Some portion of Hamawy's response to the claims (see here) should also be included.

In the absence of specific alternate ideas of what about this should be in the article, the best next step should be to reinsert the material with additional details about the current reporting on his role at the trial and connection to the sheik, along with an appropriate section of the response from Hamawy. The campaign section is the best place to include this, along with a brief summary earlier in the article. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Which source mentions that the subject testified at the NYC bomb plot trial? I am only seeing his involvement in the assassination conspiracy trial. We do need to be careful that we are accurate.

Please note that Fox News is considered an unreliable source on the topic of politics. See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. We have other sources that are considered reliable so we should stick to those.

I've attempted to synthesize the feedback to @AdPython's excellent starting point.

---

During the 2026 Democratic primary campaign, Hamawy’s 1995 testimony as a defense witness in the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak received media attention following a Wall Street Journal opinion column by the judge on the case describing his prior interactions with Abdel-Rahman. Hamawy was never charged or accused of any wrong-doing, and he characterized the renewed coverage as partisan "guilt-by-association" attacks.[1, WSJ][2, NYT from 1995][3, Insider NJ] Edittttor (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Not bad. Possibly "Hamawy, a student at the time, was never charged..." (NYT). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Based on the version suggested by Edittttor, the material has been reinserted in the article. Alansohn (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm hoping you actually read the full WSJ piece, I haven't been able to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it's behind a fairly solid paywall, but I was able to make it past the WSJ's defenses and read the article in its entirety. As an editor, I wouldn't have it any other way. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Bann these people. Wikipedia is not for attacking good candidates. Thank you all for keeping this out. ~2026-29566-44 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Section notability

Let's discuss which sections of this article meet guidelines here: Wikipedia:Notability (people).

What is in the secondary source literature:

1. Information about the subject being detained in Gaza has coverage from multiple a number of secondary sources that meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources standards
2. Information about the subject being a surgeon in private practice does not appear to be notable. While the subject of the biography has been quoted in news articles from time to time that are about other topics, I don't see any information that their private medical practice is otherwise particularly notable.
3. Information about their political campaign in general - I'm skeptical this is notable independently, though if the article itself is notable, I could see the case for keeping it in. The secondary source coverage seems to largely be political horserace coverage but as the guidelines note, candidacies for office are not inherently notable if they do not independently meet other guidelines for notability.
4. Information about the so-called "Blind Sheikh" - this association doesn't strike me as notable given it has received no secondary source coverage for several decades now. Seems to have come up in light with the subject's candidacy for an office. Additionally, there are significant sourcing concerns and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns here
5. Information about the subject's personal life - doesn't strike me as particularly notable

Apex-nurse (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Apex-nurse, the article definitely needs work, especially on the promotional tone. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  First:

  Let's try to reach consensus on any further edits to this page if possible before making them since we're in discussion here per Wikipedia:Consensus

  Second:

  This is currently listed as a C-Class biography. I personally would be open to deletion entirely. A member of Congress themselves almost certainly meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. But the guidelines are also quite clear that a candidacy in itself does not meet those guidelines. The one thing I can find covered in secondary source literature is so-called being "trapped" in Gaza. But the secondary source literature mostly covers this because of his association with Senator Tammy Duckworth. I'd posit that if we feel this is notable enough, we can mention this event on her page, not have an entirely separate page for the subject of this biography. Apex-nurse (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  In my opinion, this article actually meets the requirements of a B-Class biography, which are suitable references, covers the topic, has a defined article structure, has prose free of grammatical errors, contains supporting materials (like an infobox), and is understandable. Anyone can upgrade it to B-Class at any time, so I do not think that is an accurate measure of quality.

  If you wish to delete the article, the appropriate process for that is to submit it as an WP:AFD. I will say that given the subject's coverage over different topics over multiple years and the number of other wiki articles that link to this already, I would be shocked if the consensus were to delete because articles with much less easily survived. You're welcome to try though. Edittttor (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Apex-nurse, I offered a concrete edit that addressed, to the best of my ability, all of the issues that have been raised here by you and by other editors. You have listed lots of concerns, but offered no suggestions of any kind as to what should be in the article. Based on your extremely limited edit history focused on this and a very small number of similar articles, I'm not sure that you understand the underlying policies you cite here, in your edit summaries and on your user page. It's simply not clear that there is actually an effort to reach a consensus here. Alansohn (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    @Alansohn let's tone down the conversation a little about what's in good faith. You've left one single, one-sentence reply to my extremely thorough comment on this talk page. You've made some edits when, respectfully, there is no consensus.

    Reminder - Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Let's respect each other as Wikipedians and the process.

    Now, to the subject matter at hand. Perhaps my note was unclear, or perhaps you didn't interpret it correctly. What I wrote is This is currently listed as a C-Class biography. I personally would be open to deletion entirely.

    My proposal here, again, is that we should start discussing whether or not this article meets Wikipedia:Notability Apex-nurse (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    @Apex-nurse,

    Since this dispute came initially regarding the addition of information about the subject and the Blind Sheikh, I will first address that point. Per WP:NTEMP, a subject need not have ongoing coverage to be notable. This was the subject of the 1995 New York Times article, a verifiable, reputable source. This doesn't resolve the higher level charge regarding WP:NOTE; considering resolving that in favor of deletion makes my previous point moot, I'll turn to that.

    There clearly exists an extant body of reputable sources about the subject, as shown by the source list for this article. You are right to point out much of these are more recent, having been published in the last six months. Interest in the subject will likely remain until the primary occurs in the NJ-12 race; interest will only grow if he becomes the nominee. As such, at minimum, this article shouldn't be deleted until after the results of that primary are known.

    In the interim, the content of this article, to @Alansohn's point, needs to be pruned and refined. The information regarding the subject's relations to the Blind Sheikh merit inclusion, especially since it's received more recent coverage. Regarding WP:NPOV, particularly with attention to the charge of guilty by association that's been raised, the sources clearly support, as Alansohn described in his now-reverted edit, that the subject knew the Sheikh for an extended period of time, that he was present during the Detroit meeting in which the Sheikh was accused of conspiring to assassinate Mubarak, and that he was called to testify as a defense witness. Disputing these facts is not supported by the sources. Whether the fact that the subject did not face charges at the beginning or end of this description is not relevant to its balance and neutrality. Sequencing is not a criterion for consideration per WP:NPOV; only the weight, balance, and sources are relevant.

    Consensus is based on shared premises of what should and shouldn't be; I think we all agree that sources are the basis of Wikipedia, and the sources all support both the inclusion of information about the Shiekh, and, at least in the interim, the continued existence of this argument.

    GrafBismarck (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    In the interim, the content of this article, to @Alansohn's point, needs to be pruned and refined.

    Feel free to WP:BEBOLD and prune and refine if you think this article needs improvement. No one has objected to that outside of the topic of the 1995 court case, which we are still discussing in the process of discussing how to include that information in the article. Speaking of which, no one has really responded to my points here. Edittttor (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    I'm going to (respectfully) suggest that we editors on this talk page don't make further edits directly to the article just yet, but instead propose an edit on the talk page and come to a shared consensus if possible, since there have already been some contentious issues raised. I'll add some thoughts on a framework to move forward in a bit Apex-nurse (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    • Apex-nurse, while my response directly to you may have been brief, I had left a few paragraphs of detailed prose above that addresses the concerns you raise. Not having a deadline is hardly a justification to omit directly relevant sourced content. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

    Please keep it WP:CIVIL here. Here's a relevant quote from that Wikipedia policy: "Be professional. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users who contribute constructively, but politely discourage non-constructive newcomers." Edittttor (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people) is about if there should be an article or not. Content in sections in such an article falls under other policies/guides, like WP:NPOV, see WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION. If you think the article fails WP:N, you can start an afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe we should keep this article. WP:POLITICIAN states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet" WP:GNG, which states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Adam Hamawy clearly fits these requirements. The page is fine as is imo. Orca🐋 (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. I had opened an AFD discussion but the clear consensus seems to be trending towards keeping the article. You're very welcome to post your opinion in that thread as well Apex-nurse (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Picture

In case Adam Hamawy or someone who knows him sees this, please consider Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Does WP:PIA apply to this article?

It would mean WP:ECR also applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No, this article is about someone running for office in the United States, it has nothing to do with WP:PIA. XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That seems to be ignoring the "Gaza" section. Fwiw, . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLP

@XavierGreen Please be more careful about sources, WP:NYPOST like you added here isn't good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

MBA edit request

I don't think this was an appropriate edit since the bar for non-controversial biographical information is lower, but I did find a source that he completed his MBA in 2018. Could someone please add?

−

+

In 2018, he obtained an [[MBA]] from [[Rutgers University–Camden|Rutgers University, Camden]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Dr. Adam Hamawy |url=https://business.camden.rutgers.edu/2019/05/17/dr-adam-hamawy/ |publisher=[[Rutgers University–Camden|Rutgers University, Camden]] |access-date=29 May 2026}}</ref>

Edittttor (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable source edit request

This edit uses a New York Post article republished via wire service to MSN. The most recent RFC on the WP:NYPOST reached a consensus that it is an unreliable source, so should not be used in a WP:BLP.

−

During the [[Bosnian War]] in 1994, Hamawy travelled to Bosnia as an intern with the [[Benevolence International Foundation]], which in 2002 was determined to be a [[front organization]] for [[Al Qaeda]]. “Dr. Adam Hamawy, as a young medical student and member of the US military, volunteered to provide medical assistance to victims of the Bosnian genocide, per the suggestion the Bosnian mission made to him on how to help via a United Nations-approved route,” according to a spokesperson for Hamawy.<ref>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/top-nj-congressional-hopeful-volunteered-with-al-qaeda-linked-group-in-1990s/ar-AA24cZDJ</ref>

+

Edittttor (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed and removed (before I saw this message, actually). Same source was removed yesterday. For the interested, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Suggest_adding_msn.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that we should not keep this on the page, and I agree with the reason given as to it being an unreliable source. Additionally, this seems like a clear violation of WP:SOURCESDIFFER and WP:NPOV, since mentioning Adam Hamaway associated with Al-Qaeda is clearly inflammatory. There was no need to mention Al-Qaeda, and bringing it up in an unrelated context will obviously cause strong emotions. This also seems like a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE since a whole massive paragraph is being dedicated to something that seems like a relatively insignificant experience. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@FlashSheridan: Please come here to discuss the addition of information on the Bosnian War before readding it. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Bosnia link from Newsweek

I accepted the removal of the link to an MSN article on Dr Hamawy’s work in Bosnia, on the grounds that it was based on reporting by the New York Post, which Wikipedia rules object to, as discussed above. That does not apply to the Newsweek article I cited in my latest addition. (For the record, I pointed out on Twitter that portions of the Post article were unfair before seeing the adding here, and added context to the original quotations.) Several opinion pieces since then have shown that concealment is not working, and “mentioned by a media organization” above suggests that censorship is imprudent.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this has been covered by several WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources generally reliable sources, including NYT, WSJ, and Free Beacon. Obviously due for inclusion. Hi! (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relationship with the Benevolence International Foundation

Current text in Medical Career> Combat physician states:

"During the Bosnian War in 1994, Hamawy travelled to Bosnia as an intern with the Benevolence International Foundation, which in 2002 was determined to be a front organization for Al Qaeda."

This language is vague and may lead readers to imply that Hamawy knowingly interned with a terrorist organization which was only discovered by the US government to be a front for Al-Qaeda years later.

For clarity, I recommend amending the language to:

"During the Bosnian War in 1994, Hamawy travelled to Bosnia as an intern with the Benevolence International Foundation, which at the time, was praised by an envoy under President Bill Clinton for its efforts to provide humanitarian relief. However, in 2002,the BFI was determined to be a front organization for Al Qaeda."

Sources: Conservative outlets have also highlighted that Hamawy volunteered in Bosnia in 1994 with a charity later shut down for providing logistical support to al-Qaida – though at the time, a US envoy under Bill Clinton had visited the organization’s leadership and praised its humanitarian relief work.

On June 15, 1994, US Ambassador Melissa F. Wells visited the BIF headquarters on an envoy from President Bill Clinton, met with Ma'moun Muhammad al-Hasan Bilou, and "praised BIF and its efforts to provide humanitarian relief". EmilyB0730 (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Copying my response from above:

I think that we should not keep this on the page, and I agree with the reason given as to it being an unreliable source. Additionally, this seems like a clear violation of WP:SOURCESDIFFER and WP:NPOV, since mentioning Adam Hamaway associated with Al-Qaeda is clearly inflammatory. There was no need to mention Al-Qaeda, and bringing it up in an unrelated context will obviously cause strong emotions. This also seems like a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE since a whole massive paragraph is being dedicated to something that seems like a relatively insignificant experience. Orca🐋 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources cited are clearly reliable, he himself stated to the Star Leger that he went to Bosinia with the group.XavierGreen (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

See above; the original addition lacked context, which I added. I also added an MSN source, which was removed due to the objection to its reliance on the NY Post. This obviously does not apply to Newsweek. WP:SOURCESDIFFER is irrelevant; not even Dr Hamawy’s spokesman disagreed on the underlying facts, only on their interpretation. As I said previously, several opinion pieces since then have shown that concealment is not working, and “mentioned by a media organization” above suggests that censorship is imprudent. This censorship is confirming the ideological criticism of Wikipedia.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with the reason given as to it being an unreliable source The comment above is correct that WP:NYPOST is generally unreliable, but the text you removed twice was not sourced to the NY Post. The first time it was sourced to The Star-Ledger and Jewish Insider, and the second time it was sourced to Newsweek. The fact that information appears in an unreliable source does not mean that all sources which mention that info are unreliable. For example, the info also appears in this Guardian article .
• this seems like a clear violation of WP:SOURCESDIFFER and WP:NPOV Which sources differ in this case? I don't see any sources which deny that the organization was an Al Qaeda front. As for WP:NPOV, it seems like a clear violation to not mention the organization's true nature. If Hamawy's Bosnia work is mentioned (you can argue that it shouldn't be), then this context needs to be included.
• This also seems like a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE since a whole massive paragraph is being dedicated to something that seems like a relatively insignificant experience The content you removed was not a "massive paragraph", but a single sentence. WP:INDISCRIMINATE addresses the inclusion of content categories like statistics, directory-style listings, song lyrics, etc. It helps prevent Wikipedia from becoming a repository of trivial information. It is not a tool for arguing to remove individual sentences.

Astaire (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been covered by several WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources generally reliable sources, including NYT, WSJ, and Free Beacon. Hi! (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request for Lead

I really don't see how this edit is not in violation of the consensus that this user agreed to here less than two weeks ago. Now they've added this info to the lead.

−

During the campaign, attention was brought to his relationship with Omar Abdel-Rahman and Hamawy's testimony at the New York City landmark bomb plot trial in 1995.

+

Edittttor (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I removed it. Orca🐋 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Without opining on whether it's WP:DUE for the lead, there has been further coverage of the relationship since that discussion. This NY Times article is devoted to Hamawy's ties to Abdel Rahman, and this Guardian article says that the issue "has followed Hamawy through his campaign". Astaire (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What additional information is there from when the consensus was reached that is not already covered in the article? We even explicitly mention that it was made into a campaign issue. Edittttor (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

We have a gigantic problem of WP:OWNERSHIP here by Orca, and particularly by Editttor. Since previous efforts to remove relevant sourced content from this article, there has been a wide series of materials published in detail in reliable and verifiable sources about Hamawy and his connections to Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Per MOS:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It appears to be an explicit violation of MOS:LEAD -- and of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV -- to exclude a mention of his involvement in the case, as that testimony and his connection to Abdel-Rahman appear to be the primary topic of widespread coverage around the country and the world.

Excluding the increasing weight of coverage here about Hamawy appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.

I would suggest that Orca self revert this edit which might help to extricate themselves from pursuit of sanctions in this matter. Alansohn (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The section already exists on the page, except currently it is framed as neutral. As you can see I did not delete the whole section. Per WP:NPOV, this is in perfect alignment. Additionally, as mentioned on my talk page:

"I am not gatekeeping I am encouraging discussion. That's why I say to discuss on the talk page. Stop being so toxic and focus on constructive discussion, as it seems like you care more about being hostile than trying to resolve this. Also, I think you should read WP:AGF"

The status quo exists with it off the page, thus until discussion is resolved, it remains off the page. You may not like that but per WP:REV those are the rules. Orca🐋 (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh also I think there is confusion as to what section I deleted. I did not delete the section listed above, it was an added inflammatory and unnecessary section by you that I deleted. Orca🐋 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Orca, I have pointed in this section to this edit, which states rather neutrally that During the campaign, attention was brought to his relationship with Omar Abdel-Rahman and Hamawy's testimony at the New York City landmark bomb plot trial in 1995. This is the edit that you removed from the lead in a rather clear violation of MOS:LEAD, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, as part of a tag team with Editttor. This isn't a content dispute and there has been no legitimate effort here to discuss alternative wording of what might be in the lead of the article; it seems that i and other editors trying to add content face a rather one-sided effort at WP:Gatekeeping and WP:Ownership to selectively exclude and remove particular content that appears to be the primary, if not only, reason that this neutral summary of what is in the article is kept out of the lead, and it is this same problem that is keeping out other relevant material that is being reported by the weight of the overwhelming number of sources in the past week or two, including in A Candidate’s Past Ties to a Militant Cleric Are Surfacing in a N.J. House Race, from The New York Times.

Orca, if you are going to claim, as you did above, that this summary in the lead was an added inflammatory and unnecessary section by you that I deleted then we have even bigger problems here than I could ever have imagined. If you cannot follow basic policy and are going to claim that a neutral summary in the lead is "inflammatory", then you should not be editing this article at all.

Orca, let me know when you plan to self revert this edit. Alansohn (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There was already a separate section on the page for that, as you can clearly see in that version. It is not appropriate to include that on the lead section, as it gives favoritism to a single subtopic, which is more fit on the main topic of the page per WP:BETTER - "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic, identifying the topic, establishing context, and explaining why the topic is notable." That piece of information is not relevant to the purpose of the lead section, which instead elaborates on a key piece of information (the NJ-12 campaign) that is involved in the validity of the article. I've already responded to the rest and am not going to repeat myself. Orca🐋 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:REV is an essay, not policy. And your consistent reverting of other people's edit is clear ownership behavior. Hi! (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Orca, you have repeated yourself, and that's the problem. You have been abundantly clear that despite recent coverage in The New York Times that had never been discussed (see again A Candidate’s Past Ties to a Militant Cleric Are Surfacing in a N.J. House Race) that you will not allow any of the details covered there to appear in the article. You have removed material from that article, which is explicitly about the NJ-12 race in this edit claiming the exact opposite and stating that you were "Removing extensive info not related to the titled section (NJ-12 campaign) per WP:INDISCRIMINATE". A fraction of the details of Hamaway's connection to Omar Abdel-Rahman is already included in the article, yet you have decided that it cannot be mentioned in the lead because it's in a separate section of the article, yet that's exactly what MOS:LEAD specifies that The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.". But in your role as gatekeeper, you've decided that there should be nothing in the lead about a controversy being actively covered in the media.

Let me know if you're not seeing the problem here and if you continue to refuse to restore the relevant sourced content you have removed. I'm happy to escalate, as you've provided ample evidence that you have no interest in remedying the problem by restoring the content. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The necessary details are currently on the page. All you are suggesting is in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is in neither of our hands now, wait for more editors to give opinions. I will start an RfC. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2026

1993 Bombing of World Trade Center: The"Blind Sheikh "Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman) was a radical Egyptian cleric who was a central spiritual and operational figure linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing In 1995, he and nine followers were indicted and convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting a larger "war of urban terrorism". Prosecutors argued this broader conspiracy included the 1993 World Trade Center attack alongside planned strikes on other New York City landmarks, such as the United Nations, bridges, and tunnels. He was sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2017was convicted of conspiracy in the Bombing. Dr.Adam Hamawy volintarily testified for the defense in that trial and did testify that he did have knowledge of the Sheikh radical teaching. https://www.investigativeproject.org/9452/the-defense-witness-who-lied https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/30/nyregion/adam-hamawy-election-nj.html https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/06/blind-sheikh-sympathizer-adam-hamawy-wins-dem-primary-in-new-jersey/ Sgtem (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Declined – This edit request does not provide a specific, verbatim description of the text you want removed and exactly what should replace it, as required by the template instructions above. Additionally, this section is already under discussion due to the inflammatory nature of it and will be resolved once discussion concludes. Until then, per WP:REV, it will remain off the page. Orca🐋 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

May I suggest you use templates from {{eep}}? They include links that can help the requesting editor understand what they need to do to improve their request. :::in this case, that could be {{subst:eep|xy}} or {{subst:eep|c}}, the former of which looks like this:

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Will do in the future, since you posted the links here I will leave mine as is, if you think that is ok. Thanks for the heads up. Orca🐋 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC on Hamawy's testimony at the New York City landmark bomb plot trial in 1995 and Bosnian War involvement

Should the article include information regarding Adam Hamawy's 1995 defense witness testimony in the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman and/or his 1994 volunteer work in Bosnia with the Benevolence International Foundation, and if so, should these be summarized in the lead section?

1. Include both topics in the body of the article (under the Campaign section) with appropriate context, and summarize the overall campaign controversy briefly in the Lead section.
2. Include both topics in the body of the article only; do not mention them in the lead section.
3. Include only the 1995 trial testimony in the body/lead, and exclude the Bosnia volunteering entirely as WP:UNDUE.
4. Exclude both topics entirely from the article under WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK.
5. Something else (please specify).

Orca🐋 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor Statement

An ongoing dispute exists regarding how to handle recent heavy media coverage (including pieces in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian) during the 2026 primary campaign detailing the subject's actions in 1994 and 1995. Editors disagree on whether inclusion violates WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE by implying guilt-by-association, or if excluding/limiting the material violates WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD given the volume of secondary source coverage. Please provide your reasoning with reference to Wikipedia policy. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Personally, I think that the page should remain as is (Option C), which excludes the extended section previously added by another user. Please read my comments in the various sections above. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Also, another thing I want to add. The framing for the Bosnia volunteering as "Hamawy travelled to Bosnia as an intern with the Benevolence International Foundation" is false. Dr. Hamawy initially reached out to the Bosnian Mission to the United States to see how he could help victims of the conflict. They subsequently connected him with the United Nations (UNHCR) and the UN connected him with an aid organization under their auspices, Benevolence International Foundation. At the time of Dr. Hamawy's volunteer medical mission, nobody knew of the connection to Al Qaeda. For example, the same year of the medical mission, the Clinton administration directly praised BIF for their humanitarian work. BIF also worked with UNICEF, WHO, and the Red Crescent.

  
  

  The no longer included paragraph relating to his Bosnia volunteering was at best misleading/inflammatory and at worse a deliberate attempt to smear Hamawy. Orca🐋 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I favor a modified version of option C, keeping that information in the body but waiting to promote it to the lead until there's a long sustained pattern of secondary source coverage that merits promotion to the lead. It's now quite clear that the subject is mired in some amount of controversy because of his recent political campaign but Wikipedia is not a place for editors to launder opposition research. If there is a sustained amount of ongoing coverage past the subject's political campaign, it's fine to go in the lead as well. Apex-nurse (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the problem though is that the way it is being brought up is specifically tied to his campaign. It seems evident that if he were not running, the controversy would not exist. For that reason it seems to me to be more of a subtopic of the NJ-12 campaign. Subsequent coverage to the primary campaign seems to be tied specifically to his victory in the primary, and he is also still continuing with his campaign, as he will advance to the general election. Orca🐋 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are news articles from the time of these events that covered them. They are well sourced events that occurred in his life. Biographical articles are supposed to cover the entire history of a person. His participation in the blind sheik trial is more notable than anything else discussed in the article. To exclude these events would violate NPOV and give the article a slant of recentism. XavierGreen (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, they were events that occurred earlier in his life, but they were not major events, and the sections currently under discussion were major sections relative to the overall. The page already mentions both, one briefly under the "Other disasters" section, and one under the NJ-12 campaign section. My problem is not with the mention of either but the extensive sections and the phrasing of each. Orca🐋 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  The trial of the Blind Sheik was a major event in American history. The fact that he participated in same is undeniably a notable event that requires inclusion in the article. XavierGreen (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Adam Hamawy was not a major figure in the trial though, and this article is specifically about him. In his life, the trial was relatively insignificant. That can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that no articles (to my knowledge) existed focusing on Hamawy's involvement in the trial prior to Hamawy running for congress. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• E. Mention briefly in the campaign section in the context of the campaign coverage. I agree with the above commenter that none of this would be news if he wasn't a candidate. I believe the only way to comply with WP:CRIME and WP:COATRACK here is to mention how it was made into a campaign issue since he was never convicted, charged, or even accused of any wrongdoing. There have been no updates in either event since 1995/2002 and this seems to be used to guilt-by-association him. The media coverage can be safely discussed though. I think something like During the campaign, media attention was given to Hamawy's 1995 testimony as a defense witness in the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman due to their interactions in 1991, and to Hamawy's medical mission to Bosnia in 1994 to support victims of the ongoing Bosnian genocide through a U.S.-based organization recommended to him by the United Nations that in 2002 was discovered to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Hamawy was never charged or accused of any wrong-doing in either event, and he characterized the renewed coverage as partisan "guilt-by-association" attacks. I really don't see the justification to putting either in the lead. That seems WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edittttor (talk • contribs)
• Option B, content cited to reliable sources should be included in the body of the article, neutrally worded. If there is a sustained significant coverage of the sub-topic of the subject of the article, then it could later be included in the lead, neutrally worded.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option D. - Exclude both per WP:BLP. It is clear that these issues are in coverage due to the current campaign, but that does not amount to lasting significance for a BLP article. Both of the proposed topics associate the subject with much more serious conduct by others and therefore fall within the territory of WP:COATRACK, there is no source that shows that subject has been charged with or culpable for these matters. Consideration needs to be paid to our policies on WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE. Besides, the issue at hand does not concern what the subject knew or did in 1994 but rather what was later alleged or found about BIF. Similarly, the trial testimony appears to be making him relevant to a terrorism case by proximity rather than by his own conduct. Campaign coverage can justify mentioning a campaign controversy elsewhere if due. Zalaraz (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  He testified at the Blind Sheik's trial. Said trial is more notable than anything else in this article, and accordingly should be mentioned. In fact, everything else in this article is obviously only here because of his campaign, such as his presence in Gaza. If his involvement in the blind sheik trial is to be excluded because of WP:BLP, than virtually the entire article would violate the same principal you are citing as well. XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Copying from above:

  Adam Hamawy was not a major figure in the trial though, and this article is specifically about him. In his life, the trial was relatively insignificant. That can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that no articles (to my knowledge) existed focusing on Hamawy's involvement in the trial prior to Hamawy running for congress. Orca🐋 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  He was called as a witness for the Defense. Witnesses are major figures in trials. People who testify as witnesses in major trials typically have said events included in their Wikipedia pages, if pages exist for them. See for example Robert Huizenga and Michael Baden, who testified at the OJ Simpson trial as a defense witness; Chris Tucker and Jay Leno. There are in fact several articles which mention Hamawy's involvement as a defense witness in the Blind Shiek trial. See [] and [] for examples.XavierGreen (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  He was not the main focus of those articles though, the focus was on the information provided by him and surrounding details of the case. These are also only two articles, which does not constitute substantial coverage. The pages you have linked are all notable for other reasons, which can clearly be seen by viewing them (I mean, you can't seriously say that Jay Leno is notable because he served on the OJ trial, he is obviously independently notable of that). Witnesses may be (but are not always as you claim) major figures in trials, but that does not make them or their role notable on its own. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your statement about Jay Leno proves my point regarding inclusion of the Blind Shiek trial on Hamaway's page. The OJ trial itself was not a major reason for Mr. Leno's notability, but it was a notable event in history that he was a part of and thus the OJ trial is referenced on his page. The trial of the Blind Shiek is clearly a notable event in American history, and thus Mr. Hamaway's involvement in it warrants inclusion on the page. XavierGreen (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option B - The incidents in question are clearly notable and received coverage by sources well prior to Mr. Hamawy running for office. If this article is to continue to exist, they must be mentioned.XavierGreen (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option B - coverage in RS both prior and during his running for office. The arguments against it don't hold water. BLP is about using RS and giving DUE weight - in this case one sentence is definitely not undue. Alaexis_¿question? 13:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option B Coverage in major news outlets means a reasonable mention in the body is definitely DUE. If coverage continues, it would justify also adding it to the lead as well. Slava570 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option B. The subject's work in Bosnia, and his testimony at Abdel-Rahman's trial, have been covered in multiple sources—both at the time they occurred ( ) and in 2026 during Hamawy's campaign ( ). The argument that "this wouldn't be news if he weren't a candidate" is not how Wikipedia works. People running for political office are obviously under greater scrutiny than private citizens; as a result, they may receive greater media attention—not all of it flattering. WP:NPOV and WP:DUE oblige us to mention these events, obviously including the caveats in both cases that Hamawy was never accused of wrongdoing. Astaire (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Should this article have a BLPCRIME editnotice?

Considering that there was previously edit warring and a current RFC over mentions of the subject as a defense witness and accusations of guilt by association, it seems appropriate to put an WP:EDITNOTICE on the page, specifically the {{BLPCRIME editnotice}}. This edit notice just reminds users of the WP:BLPCRIME policy when they attempt to edit the article, though it does not prevent any editing. You can see what the notice actually looks like here: TEMPLATE:BLPCRIME editnotice. I made a request to add this notice here, but was told that this is a controversial edit and I should seek consensus here first (even though I don't see it mentioned anywhere I can find that this is the appropriate procedure). Edittttor (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me Apex-nurse (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)