Talk:Aafia Siddiqui/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

February 2007

On 17 April 1993 she used the email address [email protected] in a message about Islam, at cs.utexas.edu , which is in Austin. LDH 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleared out some propaganda and brought it a little more up to date.

I figure the reason she has not been indicted is that the Americans are leaving her the option to defect and talk. IMO, she should accept.

LDH 20:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

better source

this is a better source than "most wanted hoes", I would think:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5514835&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.106.178 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "most wanted hoes" does not comply with WP:RS. It looks like a real article, but republished without any sign the original copyright holder authorized the copy. It is against policy to use links to unauthorized mirrors as references. Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Children?

What happened to the children? AmethystPhoenix (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I am also wondering what happened to the children? Allegedly 3 children were also abducted/apprehended with her in 2003 and only one of them has been recovered. Where are the other 2? The article is missing a very important detail surrounding her disappearance in 2003.

Date of attempted murder

When did the attempted murder[1] take place?--71.108.6.13 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

July 18 2008.

• "Hearing slated for today for former Boston resident suspected of Al Qaeda ties". Boston Globe. 2008-08-05. Retrieved 2008-08-07. A Pakistani neuroscientist who once lived and studied in the Boston area and was accused of belonging to a Boston-based Al Qaeda cell is slated to appear today in federal court in New York on charges that she tried to shoot Army and FBI officials who were interviewing her after her arrest in Afghanistan. Aafia Siddiqui allegedly yelled "allahu akbar" and grabbed a soldier's rifle and fired two shots before she was shot herself in the July 18 incident. She is to be arraigned this afternoon, said Janice Oh, a spokeswoman for Michael Garcia, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. mirror

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

something fishy...

She and the anaesthesist broke up because he wanted the children to have a strict upbringing in Pakistan, and she wanted them to have a liberal education in the USA. What kind of jihadist wants her children to have a liberal upbringing in the USA?

If she broke up with her husband because he was too religious how is she going to end up marrying Ammar al-Baluchi?

If Majid Khan turns out to be completely innocent the allegation that she helped him in the USA, if true, is going to establish no tie to terrorism. Geo Swan (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the unproven connection between the unidentified prisoner in the Bagram prison and Siddiqui. Yvonne Ridley was speculating it was her, not supplying real evidence. To say that Siddiqui's detention was 'exposed,' and led directly to her public arrest, is misleading and sounds conspiracy-driven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.55.47 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

Could whoever made this excision please return here and explain their reasoning? Is this excision based on a policy or guideline?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Brandeis?

A presumably Muslim, accused terrorist went to BRANDEIS? As in the prominent Jewish university? That seems an odd note.

64.132.218.4 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Captured

something in the yahoo news about her being captured by the FBI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igatszu (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper Name

I tried to make sure her last name was consistently used instead of her first. It was distracting and improperly formatted. Moreover, her first name was used extensively in sections pertaining to her health and family, suggesting an attempt to persuade the reader to accept a particular interpretation of events through emotional appeal (i.e. "Aafia's Children"). Toadiebreyer (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More likely it's because people use women's first names freely than a deliberate attempt, in any case it's better. Men never get called by their first names... ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I did notice in the Pakistani newspapers she was referred to as Dr. Aafia. In the U.S., her last name would be used in a formal publication, such as an academic book, encyclopedia entry, or newspaper. Toadiebreyer (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rape Allegations

I noted in the rape allegation entry that Siddiqui's family has not provided the source of their information. This, I believe, is a more complete representation of the information presented in the Reuter's article.Toadiebreyer (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The section "Raped & Tortured by US terrorists" is a non-NPOV duplication of the "Rape Allegations". Someone should delete the "Raped & Tortured by US terrorists" section. Sailfish2 (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I have reverted that section, and reverted the edit which changed the quote from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which said "neuroscientist and al-Qa'ida facilitator". If she is an educator and not an facilitator, the quote box should still show the actual statement from the ODNI. Sailfish2 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged al qaeda ties"? Or simply "al Qaeda ties"?

Someone removed the "alleged" before "al Qaeda ties"> I restored it. We are supposed to write from a neutral point of view. Yes, the Bush administration listed her as a serious al Qaeda threat. But, the most serious allegation I have seen is that she opened a post office box to help Majid Khan establish a U.S. identity.

I have no problem reporting the allegations against Siddiqui and Khan. But let's not write our articles as if these vague allegations have already been proven. Geo Swan (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I inserted "alleged" before Majid Khan's name again today. The USA may have a large dossier establishing that Majid Khan is an al Qaeda operative. But, if so, they haven't published any of it. There have been attempt to link him to the Jose Padilla "dirty bomb plot". But that plot seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. Those charges were dropped when Padilla was actually tried. And it now seems clear that the only evidence of it coming from Binyam Mohammed's seems to have been wrung from him during truly horrific torture.

Until some proof is offered that Majid Khan was an al Qaeda operative, let's make sure to stick an "alleged" in there. Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues with article

This article requires serious work and lot of time. More eyes are needed and it does come across as unbalanced. This is cause for concern. There appears to be some contradictory information and sources and many different parties have different vested interests, which makes all of it more strange and complicated. Also the formatting needs work. There appears to be no order or timeline of events. What must be kept in mind is that 1) Aafia Siddiqui is charged with assault on and attempted killing of US staff, not terror activities 2) such allegations need to be stated as alleged rather than matter of a fact. Work and more objective eyes needed.Fragma08 —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

I've cut out the previous wall of text - much of which was original research by synthesis; essentially an attempt to prosecute her based on a large variety of more or less related news media sources - with a brief summary. The previous version is here, and it will need looking at in more detail to see what information may be drawn from there. Much of the text is probably useless in that form though, and the priority should be finding good secondary sources that summarise the issues. The Guardian article from November 09 ([2]) is pretty good - more like that would be a basis for going forward.

To be absolutely clear: the previous version was (OR aside) overwhelming in detail, structureless, and virtually uneditable to fix those issues. It needed a major rewrite, and this is a start. Further discussion might be of what the major headings should be, before introducing lots more text (especially if it's drawn from the old version). Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the use of quote boxes is virtually never a good idea. They take up too much space, and encourage overuse of quotes. Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not cut out 2/3 of all references and information without consensus. You have been reverted for the same change already. Please get consensus for large scale removal of references and information first. I dispute that this was all original research by synthesis and your assertions about that. These information are established and all based on reliable sources. Please let's do it step for step. Could you please tell me which part is not based on WP:RS reliable sources? And where do you see the violation of synthesis? IQinn (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article is it is very poor, unreadable, excessive detail that simply stops you reading it. This article is in need of trimming as rd232 is trying to do, you would do well to just allow him to do it. Which editors are supporting the large article? Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is poor but that is no reason for the removal of 2/3 of the references and information without prior discussion and consensus. Changes should be discussed here on the page first. No reason to simply cut out whole section without giving a reason for it. Where are the violation of synthesis? Which information are not based on WP:RS. Where is to much detail? How can the article be restructured? That should be discussed first. IQinn (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed it back, it was unreadable, many people are coming to read it as it is in the news right now and a smaller more clear article a lot better to represent the wiki that an unreadable mess, there were too many quotes and all the detail just stops people reading it, discussion of removing what is clearly spoiling the article and making it unreadable doesn't really need a lot of discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes in articles should never be based on personal opinion or voting and they should never been done when there is no consensus for it. Please answer the questions that i have ask and discuss changes first discuss the arguments and try to establish consensus first. IQinn (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have clearly stated that the article is excessively long and basically unreadable with excessive quotations, your are reverting asking about consensus but you appear as the only objector to the rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not dispute that the article needs work but i do not see any reason to cut out 2/3 of all references and important information what reminded me on censorship. The changes can be done step by step. The reason that fist was given for this huge cut was original research by synthesis. So please could you tell me where and in witch section you see this violation of this policy? And in which section do you see excessive quotations? IQinn (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First, there is at present a WP:Consensus for removing the excessive and problematic content, so please stop edit warring and allow discussion to proceed in your attempt to overturn this consensus. (I could cite WP:BLP caution as an additional reason not to edit war against that consensus, given the synthesis concerns I'll address below.) Second, as can be seen from the talk page note I made above referring to the old version, the removal of the content was just one step in a process of improving the article, and it does not mean the permanent loss of all the information or sources. This discussion on whether to rewrite the article radically is actually a distraction from the discussion which should be taking place, namely what major info points to include in the article, and otherwise how to proceed. Then things can move to gradually building up the info, based on the old info and sources in the old version, as well as the new sources emerging since the subject is in the news now. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The synthesis concerns arise really from the whole thing, which by being such a mess leaves the reader with a misleading impression. The more obviously problematic sections in this regard are "Summer 2004 terror alert", "Personal views", "2001 money trail", but really it's the entire article that suffers from it. It's not intentional, it just the way in which it plonks snippets of information and uncontextualised allegations together without organising them in a sensible and understandable way (based on RS, of course). It would be a very careful and dedicated reader who came away from that mess with an understanding that there is a fundamental and key dispute about her whereabouts and activities 2003 - 2008, never mind the nature of that dispute. Rd232 ^talk 09:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there is and there was no consensus and after my first revert you did no engage in discussion at all and you just went forum shopping instead.

I would like to remind you on our editing policy WP:PRESERVE and strongly disagree with your assumption that the article left a misleading impression before your cut out important information. There where 69 references in the article and you deleted 47 of them with the related informations that show all aspects of the story.

Your excision that you have enforced by edit warring leaves us now with a misleading and censored version. This version leaves out many imported aspects like allegations of torture, rape and other human rights violations that were already covered in the article. IQinn (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If those are your priorities for adding at this point, then do so, using the old version as a source of info and references. Draft a brief summary of those issues, and go from there; it should be clear where to fit that in the present structure. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"forum shopping"? You had declined to engage with the talk page discussion, which is why I posted to WP:BLPN. It's called dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 12:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have unnecessarily cut out all this information with the promise to re-add it in a more structured better form. So please do so! Otherwise your excision will be reverted. Disputes are solved through discussion and you did not discuss you straight went to WP:BLPN forum shopping that is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I made no promise to do the rewrite myself, and others agree that the cutting down is a necessary step in the rewrite. Also from someone who reverts repeatedly without engaging in the talk page discussion on the issue, describes a post at a single WP:DR forum as "forum shopping", and threatens to revert against consensus, "disruptive" is a bit rich. Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no intention to fix the problems you have created? Also i have engaged in discussion on the talk page and it was you who reverted me without even making any attempt to discuss this large scale removal with me. IQinn (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not created problems, I've made a start on solving them. I'm not committing to finishing that solution, which is rather a large task - and this being a collaborative project, I don't see why I should. As for the revert / not talking - I can't be bothered to produce the diffs to show you're wrong. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right you can not be bothered to produce the diffs. And i know only many diffs that show i am right. I suggest we leave it here or to other forums. IQinn (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions and consensus as regards the two versions

The article has been discussed as excessively large an with excessive quoting making it difficult to read and reverting is occurring, would editors please comment as to their preference between the large version and the trimmed version that rd232 has edited . Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the trimmed version, the very large version is imo unreadable, this is a case of less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As i have said in my previous response above changes in articles are not done by voting and they should never been done when there is no consensus for it. Please answer the questions that i have ask and discuss changes first discuss the arguments and try to establish consensus first. IQinn (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, in fact they certainly can be done; and the idea was suggested by Fragma08's comment on the talk page. There is sufficient consensus now to allow it stand, so please don't talk about "establishing" consensus. Rd232 ^talk 09:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the old 55kb version again, and it's quite flabberghasting to have to explain why it's an uneditable disaster. It's full of overquoting, including quote boxes, which are rarely appropriate; it has no structure to speak of, it relies primarily on media sources directly proximate to the events and quotes described; and partly as a result it's full of excessive detail and newsy rather than encyclopedic writing. It's more like a formless blog than an encyclopedia article, and any attempt to seriously address that will involve a complete rewrite. There is absolutely no way that this can be done in one step; so the content has to be removed initially - hence the replacement with a very brief summary, pending discussion about further development. There is also the simple question of brevity. The couple of lines at the beginning of "Trial" in my version tell you the bare bones of what you need to know about the psychiatric evaluation. In the old version, this covered by an entire section, "Psychiatric evaluation", which is written in a newsy style, contains excessive detail, and (again) excessive and unnecessary quotation. Now maybe more detail is required, and how much can be discussed or discovered through collaborative editing; but since the entire article suffers from this and other problems, it starts with a rewrite. "Can't see the wood for the trees" has rarely been a more apposite phrase. Rd232 ^talk 09:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There were better ways to fix these problems in an transparent way and section by section. Your large scale excision will just deliver arguments to those who claim that there is something like censorship going on at Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've already argued, and others have agreed, that it needed a radical rewrite, and that this required a radical trim first. You're free to disagree, but I'd ask you to refrain from hyperbole like "censorship" when I've clearly said that the way forward will involve developing the article from the trimmed version, using relevant information from the old version and from new sources. I've suggested a discussion on what should be in the article, and that would be a productive thing to do, unlike railing against the clear consensus for trim+rewrite. Rd232 ^talk 14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is and there was no consensus for the large scale removal. The discussion should have been about what needed to be removed and not to remove 2/3 of all information fist and than to start a discussion about what should be re-included. And IMO this large cut could deliver arguments to those who claim that there is something like censorship going on at Wikipedia. I suggest we leave it here so people can start the work to re-included this information. IQinn (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Trial

It's normal for this sort of newsy detail to develop on articles affected by current events, but... it's best to try and resist the temptation - it just creates more work afterwards. It's doubtful that a day-by-day summary is needed anyway. What are the actual important developments that we may reasonably expect to be remembered in a year's time? The rest is detail that can be left in the sources cited, which the reader can be expected to follow if they're interested in more details. Remember: as an encyclopedia, we're summarising for history, which is quite different from recording for the present (like a newspaper). Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I support resisting the temptation to report daily on the trial, unless something extremely notable comes out it is better for the time being to resist the desire to report daily updates, it is enough to report that the trial is presently ongoing. The wikipedia should have a clear concise biography of this persons life, which includes all the notable informative detail, but that does not include excessive reported titillation that has no long term value.Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Date format

This article uses both American style dates (January 1, 2010) and the other format (1 January 2010). It would be better if it used one style exclusively, except in direct quotations. Anomalocaris (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point of view

Prisoner No. 650 Dr. Aafia Siddiqui,

A Pakistani PhD, Having many honorary degrees & certificates, In Neurology, From different institutes of the world, The only neurologist in the world have the honorary Ph.d from Harvard University.

Not even a single American matches her qualifications. She was kidnapped along with her 3 children, By the FBI from Karachi, With the Help of the Govt., alleging Connection with Al-Qaeda.

Now She is in USA prison, Having Lost Memory, Due to Physical, Psychological & sexual torture, She is Imprisoned with men.

previously added to the article by 41.224.207.158 at 19:48, 31 January 2010

I am unsure as to how this is relevant to the article or why this must be preserved in light of 80% of the content is blatant fabrication considering Aafia never went to Harvard, did not earn many honourary degrees (?? stated as 144), and the comparison with americans (??).

Left is the fact that she is in a US prison, shows symptoms of mental instability and possibly abuse. I don't know if she imprisoned with men which would surprise me.

The fact is that this is a chain mail which has been in circulation since 2008 by email, text messages and facebook and can not be considered as valid or relevant. I am unaware as to how this addresses the phlight of Aafia. Fragma08 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in text: was awarded or was not awarded the Ph.D from Brandeis

The contradiction appears almost within neighboring sentences -- it should be easy to ascertain from Brandeis if they awarded the degree and fix the text. Also, she is portrayed as "Dr." in the article. --Mareklug ^talk 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Dr. from lead sentence since it is not sure. Can you please specifically identify the conflicting sentences. Nowhere else in the article body can i find Dr. honorific. There are some in the reference titles so they cannot be changed. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss my revert here

All my edits on feb 04, 2010 are completely sourced from the citation provided at the end of that particular sentence or the next sentence. Kindly don't revert without verifying the information. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is cited does not make it a decent and worthwhile addition to an article, also if you add something to an article and someone takes it out, as it is you that is adding new content the next step is discussion, do not put it back as this is the first step in an edit war, please read and use the Wikipedia bold, revert, discuss style of editing to avoid edit wars WP:BRD Off2riorob (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is growing again

The trial section is overly long and in need of another rewrite, we are not here to report on every single issue about shell casing etc, the article is not a soap box for this issue and that issue, it is a blp about this person and the content should be about her and about her only, other issues should be added where they are better suited. Please try to consider when you think to add something that excessive detail may be interesting to you but the article is for the general public to glean information from and excessive details and opinions and commentry only puts people off reading the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Without this trial, she has no notability. But i understand that the trial section is excessively (and mostly redundant) large. Those quotes etc. need to go away. I am looking for good sources to trim it down. And this is why i tagged it for sub-sections. The information regarding the shell casings is important because the legal community is highly divided on the quality of evidence which was used by jury to reach their verdict. That may require another section, but obviously not on this page. It badly needs some update too. I am working on it but the information referred in trial section is intricately linked to the information relating to her arrest. This is why i have separated that section. I'll be very glad to address any of your concerns but kindly discuss it here before making a major revert.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with you guys, as in yes, it should be kept to a reasonable size and I have added subsections and cleaned up a bit here and there. But I also feel some of her quotes are important to illustrate her concerns of what she viewed as an unfair trial. So I don't think all quotes should go. I will not be adding anymore unless it is highly relevant. I will though work on down sizing whatever I can. Another concern there is a lot of editing going which means you often end up losing your edits and it is getting harder to keep track.Fragma08 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes agreed a little change here and a ittle change there in the end its unreadable, thanks, lets try to keep a id on it and consider removal of some of the clearly dated comments and un needed stuff that perhaps is not actually about the subject, issues about the wider story belong elsewhere. Also all this template adding does not help, just makes it worse actually. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well have removed the dates and stopped with the day to day cover ages ago. I am cutting down as much as possible, not adding. But I find it hard to keep track with the numerous edits and additions taking places, as I feel it is impossible to cover all speculation and hearsay which this already complicated case is laced with.Fragma08 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a complex article because the facts are contingent on ten others. There are two different version of events and both have to be here for NPOV. I am still adding content and i know, it is expansion of article that already requires some trimming. Also, please let the relevant tags stay because they'll indicate others the sections to work on. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all content is relevant especially when it is speculation and there are so many theories. The main issue and dispute of this article are two. Her absence from 2003-2008 and what really happened in Ghazni police station, because afterall she was on trial for murder not terrorism. Two sides, one argues she was illegally imprisoned by intelligence services and others argue she went underground to pursue terrorism. That is essentially what this article should cover. We can not possibly cover all kinds of hearsay.Fragma08 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also about the Lahore high court petition... it was rejected on the grounds that an appeal should have been filed instead of a petition because same case was already decided by Islamabad high court. Kindly look into it. That section is not of much importance to the article and the trial and can be prudently replaced by a single line. See this for leads on that petition. Thanks again. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me.Fragma08 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For the revert... please read the section from start. This is also mentioned in the guardian reference. Right besides Fowzia Siddiqui's photo, it states that Khan was release after questioning. A different reference states that during all this time, he was working with ISI which was keeping tabs on Siddiqui. The original author of sentence is this section perhaps confused the timeline. Feel free to modify, add or change this sentence. But kindly keep the part that indicates that FBI denied the capture. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But why is not possible to keep what her husband said while adding the addition? Why remove it completely?Fragma08 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, I didn't remove any material that defined his POV. Her husband account's is necessary and i completely agree. Currently, i am working on Aafia's and FBI's version of stories because of their greater importance in trial. Please feel free to add it. I am also considering to create a graphical timeline to represent all three versions of stories.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd very humbly suggest to not to remove any referenced sentences. I hate edit wars and it makes the matters worse. We can discuss everything here. That's what the talk page is for. If you want to remove any referenced material then please post it here and am checking this page after every few minutes. Alternately you can post on my talk page. It takes long to dig up a relevant reference. I am going to restore it due to following reasons. I assume that you've not read the book Enemy Combatant (book) by Moazzam Begg. There is a very detailed account of her in that book. He claims to have confirmed her presence through US guards there. These reports are necessary to mention because they give credence to siddiqui's point of view. Again, I am not trying to give weight to one side of opinion. I am trying to keep the FBI's and Aafia's version side by side. Moazzam's reference is supporting Aafia's version here. And this is not only by Moazzam, several other captives confirmed it. If i add references by all of them, then it'll be messier. I tried to dig more sources relating to FBI's version but there is nothing out there other than the denial by FBI. You can help me add something to FBI's version. You can add anything you want but please keep discussing the deletions here on talk page. Perhaps this will be my last edit today, so kindly post your comments or proposed deletion of referenced references material and we can discuss it out tomorrow. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I also dislike edit wars but I think this could be helped if you were to apply the discussion before editing both ways rather than limit to only deletions. Surely you must find that fair. You are in fact adding but not really discussing yet others should discuss before deleting. Not everything referenced is important. And I am going to assume you have not read the book but you have come across it on the internet or else it would make more sense to bring such a revelation into the article in your first edits. But you did not. I think you are reading and adding/editing along as you go. But speculation theories should be kept to a minimum. This is not addressing the main essens of the article and trial at all. Hope this makes sense as I welcome information and have been following her case intensely.Fragma08 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian said that she was prisoner 650. Not me. Not moazzam. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it is still not confirmed. Much of the other information is. I.e. the lack of forensic evidence at police station. Lack of coherence in testimonies by US personnel. She could in fact be anybody. I am not saying there are not any females illegally imprisoned in such prisons, but that she is Aafia is a speculation. This also collides with some testimonies i.e. her husband, and others who saw her in the period she was missing. Hope this makes it clear because like you I too want to keep the article neutral but to the point.Fragma08 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that what is happening, insertion of these unsupported claims ? Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have left User:Muhammad Hamza a 3RR warning regarding this article on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The husband

This is a good read from the husband and may be useful for adding a comment. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

done Wikireader41 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

the lede is not adequate. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."

The info that many people think she was a Ghost detainee and most people in Pakistan believe she was falsely convicted is an important controversy that needs to show up in the lede. ofcourse FBI version belongs also. why else is she notable?? not because she shot and missed. that way a lot petty criminals from around the world would get an article on WP. Wikireader41 (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've built it out some, so it supplies a concise overview, etc. Her being ID'd by the U.N. and FBI as al Qaeda, and by the FBI as one of the most wanted al Qaeda, are aspects of her notability and are now reflected. As to "many people" believing she was a ghost detainee, as I work on the article further, which I intend to do, I'll pay attention to RSs that discuss that, and reflect as appropriate. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

great. this source 'Lady Al Qaeda': Pakistan reacts to Aafia Siddiqui conviction in US court talks about the response in Pakistan to her conviction. another reason for her notability.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

here is another source which covers in some detail what people in Pakistan feel about her rightly or wrongly Is she a victim of the U.S. or is she 'Terror Mom'?. this needs to be given due weight in the article as well as lede.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx -- I've worked those sources into text, and expanded the lead as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

looks good. nice work Wikireader41 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice working w/you. Tx for the suggestions. BTW, the see also page looks like a pov mess to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

Please consider that some incidents are the US soldiers' version. And there are many allegations presented there as facts. Kindly phrase them accordingly. Thanks. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

When people are convicted of charges in a court of law, those "allegations" are routinely treated as facts. I don't see any reason for a POV tag, and think it should be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am removing them. Can you also explain following. Some contradicting information about her whereabouts in 2003-08 was also removed in this edit just by deeming the sources unreliable. It would've been better if a detailed explanation had been provided. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 23:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you kindly explain that removal.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The first reference was sourced at Dawn, which does not appear to be an RS (certainly not for controversial information, and certainly not as good as the other definite RSs that reported on the subject). I believe that was the only deletion where the material was not reinserted elsewhere.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DAWN news is a completely reliable source. I've never known it to have been labeled as left or right winger. If you think that it's not a reliable source then kindly discuss it on WP:RSN. I found its removal inappropriate and against the NPOV. Also if you think that that particular piece of information is unreliable, then, may i suggest, that you kindly put {{dubious}} tag on it. You still haven't commented on removing the washington post reference in that same edit. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 12:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig deeper into Dawn. As to the Washington Post ref and text, as I indicated above I had thought that Dawn deletion was the only deletion where the material was not reinserted elsewhere. As you will see from looking at the article, the Washington Post ref is (and has been) in it elsewhere, specifically at the end of the subsection entitled "Family asserts Siddiqui detained by Pakistan and the U.S." Please let me know if you have difficulty finding it.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some missing information

WHY NO MENTION THAT; "In the immediate aftermath of her disappearance (in 2003/4), Pakistan and US officials confirmed she was in their custody." BBC 15 September 08 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7616838.stm, or that "Yesterday, Afghan police in Ghazni offered another competing version of her detention, telling Reuters that the US troops had demanded she be handed over. When Afghan police refused, they were disarmed. The Americans shot at Siddiqui, thinking she was a suicide bomber" Guardian Newspaper 6th August 08 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/06/pakistan.afghanistan. RATHER IMPROTANT DON'T U THINK?. NO WONDER THIS ARTICLE IS LOCKED FOR EDITING. THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boysunny (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (sorted by —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

it has been days since i checked this article. Can anyone tell me if this subject has remained under discussion or not? —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Reuters reference to the Afghan police statement, though it is appears a close call as to whether it is wp-worthy at this point. Not only does that not match what the jury found to be the case, it was not the version of events that Siddiqui herself stated under oath. I also added the info on the April 22, 2003, announcement of her arrest (anonymously) that was recanted later that day. I can't find any other info by RSs in 2003 or 2004 of credible reports of her arrest, but pls tell me if you find such articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that her absence or disappearence is a matter of dispute. I think information from the BBC source (US officials confirming Aafia is in their custody and then denying) should be mentioned. Her former husband, Khan, also said that he was told by Aafia's family that she and the kids were in FBI custody and safe, when he asked about seeing the kids (visiting rights). I think apart from the trial, Aafia became notable when she went missing and was even placed on the missing peoples list by Amnesty in 2006. A pakistani lawyer has also submitted documents, which he says, prove Affia in US/Pakistani intelligence's custody. The first hearing was in January. Don't know the outcome or progress in that courtcase though. This does seem relevant, pas? Fragma08 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The BBC source--years later--appears to be referring to the fuller RS discussion that is in fact now mentioned concerning this, so the BBC source is redundant in that respect and less current/complete. The Pakistani lawyer discussion also appears in the article. I'll continue to look for additional RS discussion on this issue, and reflect if I can find good material (or suggest it on this page).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The fbi pic of the husband

This pic looks to me like t has BLP issues, he was not guilty of anything at least it needs to be cropped so as to remove the writing at the bottom. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. he was 'exonerated' by FBI and is not even a suspect anymore. Wikireader41 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure it's a blp issue (he was sought and located), I certainly have no problem with the removal of the bottom part of the pic.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And i cannot see why it has to be mentioned that her marriage was confirmed by a defense psychologist. His job is not to confirm marriages. Perhaps this is over emphasis.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there has been a slight misunderstanding. The marriage confirmed by the defenses psychologist, was that between Aafia and al-Baluch (since 2003), not that between Aafia and Khan (her ex-husband since 2002). So it is relevant to mention.Fragma08 (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, Off2, w/cropping the pic.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Further POV Issues

I am getting a whiff of POV. I'll appreciate if following matters can be discussed and subsequently resolved

• Why is she mentioned as a Muslim in the lead sentence that accuses her of alqaeda member? She is a convicted felon and religion nothing to do with her being a terrorist. Her muslim-ness should be mentioned in her life and education info section. The soldiers convicted of war-crimes were not mentioned as christian felons. Get my point?
• The article is overemphasizing on extreme views. I retrospectively found it even in my edits to this article. I'll appreciate if we can collectively neutralize the tone of this article.
• As mentioned by Fragma, the other side of story is worth mentioning. I'll keep adding bullets. I hope they can be resolved with concensus. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 12:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion is a major part of the story, as her religious beliefs are significant throughout it, same as the Christmas Day bomber, etc. As far as what the article reflects, it should reflect all parts of her story, as reported in RSs, which is the direction it has moved.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but the article reads an overly dramatized version of events. Some blatently obvious POVs are present there. I've corrected two. I'd appreciate if you can re-read the article and decide for yourself. Anyone else has opinion on this?—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 05:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry as well. I disagree. It is not an overly dramatized version of the events. Rather, it is (though we can always improve) a fairly good reflection of the RSs. Your first example of what you call blatant obvious POV is this. You changed the phrase "assault with a deadly weapon" to "armed assault", and then added the edit summary "negative overemphasis?" The only problem is, you made it less accurate, and if anything it was (my fault) negative under emphasis. She was indicted, in pertinent part, for having "forcibly assaulted ... using a deadly and dangerous weapon", as can plainly be seen from Count 3 of the indictment which was already indicated as a ref at the end of the text that you revised incorrectly.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second change was not at all supported by the ref you supplied. The two quote boxes were set up opposite each other to indicate how the press had characterized her differently in headlines, and was accurate as it stood before your revisions. Your ref actually indicated that the British reporter nicknamed Siddiqui with yet a third nickname, but does not support her nicknaming her as Prisoner 650 if you read the article (but rather as The Grey Lady) ... and lacked the 'we are contrasting the headlines of two different types of papers' balance that the boxes had, in any event. Of course we could also throw in the grey lady nickname, and the Mata Hari nickname to balance it, and others as well, but I think the boxes were fair and balanced and equivalent as they were.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Let me put it this way... The point of contention here is that whether the nick i.e. Prisoner 650 was given by Yvonne or by Iranian media. As far as i've searched, i cannot find any reference in which iranian press gave this nick to siddiqui. Can you provide a reference in which Iranian media which claimed her to be prisoner 650. Iranian media was not alone in reporting opinions of people claiming her as prisoner 650. Similarly US media was not alone reporting opinions in calling her an alqaeda mom either. This comparison creates unnecessary perception that this was some tussle going on between iran and US media. I know, that the weightage may be different, like most of US media may have reported her as AlQaeda mom and most of eastern media may have reported as P650. I think the situation will be better portrayed if proper wording is used. May i propose that the it should be changed to "predominantly referred as" in repected media and country names be replaced by eastern and western.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 07:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "Headline reference to Siddiqui in New York Daily News" and "Headline reference to Siddiqui in Tehran Times"?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Far Better. But specific newspaper names should be avoided. They both were not alone in these type of headline references. Eastern/Western will better portray the sentiments. What do you say? —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 08:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On a gut level I think that East/West is accurate (and from my independent research). But if we follow wp guidelines, I think we have to have a RS say East/West if we are to do use that approach. Otherwise, it is original research. I checked each by searching for them in WikiNews and then looking at what papers that used those terms used them in the headines. Tehran Times jumps out for P650 -- see here, and the NY Daily News jumps out for "Lady Al Qaeda", see here. I think it is fine to use the reference to them -- it is accurate, and let's the reader do the synthesis.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

There are a few stories about AS that are not covered in the article at this point, but I'm not sure if there is enough meat in them to make them noteworthy at this point. So that others can consider them, one is her alleged ties to Adnan El Shukrijumah, .also known as "Jaffar the pilot."[3] A second issue is that of the suspicious banking transactions, linked to Saudis who lived in her building (and even her apt).[4]--Epeefleche (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Dig deeper. you may find some connections with martians, nazis, and Chuck Norris too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.141.199 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

explanation

I was surprised by the article's current claim that Aafia was (1) involved with Jaish E Mohammed (JEM); and (2) JEM was active in Afghanistan. Exactly 6 of 572 Guantanamo captives faced the allegation that they had ties to JEM. None of those six men is alleged to have been in Afghanistan through the auspices of JEM. It was just alleged to have been part of their background.

So I checked the reference supplied for the assertion. I thought it was much weaker than our wording implied. Farah Stockman, the journalist at the Boston Globe whose article the article referenced, was quoting: "an Afghan intelligence official in the ministry of the interior who investigated Siddiqui’s case, who requested anonymity for security reasons". That official said: "The Afghan official said he believes that Siddiqui was working with Jaish-e-Mohammed, or army of God, a Pakistani military group that fights in Kashmir and Afghanistan." I added a qualification about Kashmir. Geo Swan (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Without going back and checking, my recollection of the source matches the statement -- the only reason I had not mentioned Kashmir was because it was not relevant to the article, though its activity in Afghanistan was, but if it will help unwrinkle brows to reflect both (sounds as though it will) then doing so is the better choice imho. While on the topic, I should point out that per the source I called it party of "god". another editor changed it to "party of Muhammad". I left it ... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

medical records

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to what happened in this article recently.

There is some information that was covered shortly after her capture that I don't see covered here. During her initial hearings, in the weeks after her 2008 capture, she was severely wounded. Her wounds were bleeding, in court. The judge had to order the Prosecution see that she got medical attention. I remember reading, at the time, that the DA's excuse for not providing her with medical care was that she was simply too dangerous.

Reading the psychiatric report the article references I see it has a section on her medical history. It mentions she has given birth, three times, but says nothing about her broken nose and her missing teeth. Geo Swan (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in RSs about that. And I did see other material: regarding her menstrual cycle, her refusal to take certain medication, her fighting and cursing guards who held her down for a court-approved medical exam, her commenting that she hoped that word of the incident would get out given the PR impact that it would have, why most of the docs believe she is faking her symptoms, psych reviewers of her conversations w/her brother and others believing she lied about her condition and conditions, all that I viewed as not sufficiently relevant in the scheme of things for purposes of this article. As to the stuff coming out of the non-RSs in Pakistan just in general, this is an interesting summary ... here.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some references that document the prosecution did not arrange for Siddiqui to be seen by a doctor, after her arrival in the US, even though she had life threatening wounds. Geo Swan (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Medical care for Pakistani scientist". Sydney Morning Herald. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2010-02-23. Prosecutors said Siddiqui had been provided with adequate medical care since her detention in Afghanistan. However, they were unable to confirm whether she had been seen in New York by a doctor or merely a paramedic. The judge ruled that "the defendant be examined by a medical doctor within 24 hours". The doctor will advise whether Siddiqui can remain in prison, or should be moved, as requested by her lawyers, to a hospital. "It's a complicated situation," the prosecutor said. "Two and a half weeks ago, Ms Siddiqui tried to shoot her way out ... She's a high security risk."

This says prosecutors say she was provided w/adequate medical care. And that prosecutors were "unable to confirm" whether she was seen by a doc or paramedic--I don't know that that is especially notable; the important point is the first point, and the second point here is consistent with the prosecutor not knowing the details and being unprepared for the question, which would not be especially notable in light of the first point. Most importantly -- that's not tantamount to saying the prosecution did not arrange for Siddiqui to be seen by a doctor (the phrase at the heading to this list). But since you believe this of moment, I've now reflected it in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Robin Shulman (2008-08-12). "Judge Orders Doctor For Detained Pakistani". Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-23. A judge has ordered the government to provide a doctor for a Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three who is charged with assaulting and trying to kill her American interrogators in Afghanistan... Her lawyers said that she has not seen a doctor since arriving in the United States a week ago and that her health is worsening since she sustained bullet wounds July 18 during the encounter with FBI agents and U.S. troops. They also listed other potential health problems including brain damage and loss of a kidney and said she lacked painkillers and antibiotics.

This says her lawyers (who said lots of things we don't report) say her health has worsened since she was shot (how could it have worsened from a coma?), etc. I don't see loss of kidney and brain damage problems reflected in psych reports, which include report by her chosen psychiatrist. See also other comments above. Otherwise, clearly an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• "HRCP appalled over Siddiqui treatment". The News International. 2008-08-07. Retrieved 2010-02-02. In a statement issued on Wednesday, he said that it is shocking and a matter of grave concern for the HRCP that the pictures of Siddiqui published in the electronic and print media shows a beat-up frail and fragile woman, showing her helplessness. A close look at the picture shows the years of torture, dark circles under her eyes, a badly fixed broken nose, made up teeth and crumbled lips, the statement added.

Not sure having looked at the pic that what the quoted person says is accurate, or (without looking further) who took the pic, nor that the source is an RS. See my link above about the Pakistani press and reliability.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Doctor to see Pakistani defendant". BBC News. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2010-02-23. US Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman granted the request for medical attention and said Ms Siddiqui should be seen by doctors within 24 hours. Prosecutor Christopher LaVigne said that the situation was "complicated" and that Ms Siddiqui should be considered a "high-security risk" because of her alleged attack on US personnel.

I've now reflected the first sentence. Having looked at the articles, the context of the second statement appears not to relate to a doc seeing her, but to the apparently not granted) defense request that she be moved to a hospital--I don't see that request and response which were not acted upon by the judge as being notable enough for inclusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• "U.S. judge orders medical treatment of Aafia Siddiqui". Tehran Times. 2008-08-13. Retrieved 2010-02-23. Prosecutors said Dr. Siddiqui had been provided with adequate medical care since her detention in Afghanistan. However, they were unable to confirm whether she had been seen in New York by a doctor or merely a paramedic. Prosecutor Christopher Lavigne said medical treatment was delayed because Siddiqui had refused to see a male physician since she was brought to the United States a week ago. Fink said her client was willing to be seen by a male doctor. Physician's gender was not the issue, she added. The judge ruled that "the defendant be examined by a medical doctor within 24 hours." The doctor will advise whether Dr. Siddiqui can remain in prison, or should be moved, as requested by her lawyers, to a hospital.

Comment i find it very interesting that some people believe she did not get adequate care at any point in time. she was shot and almost died ( her Glasgow coma scale was 3). most people with such a grave injury do not survive especially if it happens in Pakistan/Afghanistan. She is alive because of the high level of care she got from American physicians. Wikireader41 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for supplying these. Comments above, below each source. Note as well -- Siddiqui was clearly refusing medical examination, and had to be examined by force -- which put a whole 'nother gloss on this. But since you feel the medical exam stuff important (seems you do), I've worked at putting in some of the RS-supported material that is not simply parotting the lawyer, such as the circumstances of the judge's order and her subsequent exam.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept that she required life-saving medical intervention in Afghanistan. However, these references document that she wasn't seen by a doctor, following her arrival in the USA. A medical examination, upon her transfer to the US civilian justice system should have been routine -- even if she hadn't been critically wounded. Necessary in order to determine whether she should be put under a quarantine due to carrying a transmittable disease, and necessary in order to determine whether she had any long-standing medical conditions, like high blood pressure. Given that she had been recently been critically wounded the Prosecution's decision to withhold medical care is puzzling.

Did you read his justification for not allowing her wounds to be examined by a doctor? "It's a complicated situation. Two and a half weeks ago, Ms Siddiqui tried to shoot her way out ... She's a high security risk." In response her lawyers pointed out her wound left her confined to a wheelchair. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, the way I see it, my personal opinion as to whether her medical care was up to standard shouldn't matter. No wikipedia contributor's personal opinion on this should matter -- because the policy on verifiability says we report what the sources say, even when we don't agree. Authoritative, verifiable references document that a judge had to issue a 24 hour deadline to the prosecution, ordering them to have a doctor giver her a medical examination. Geo Swan (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah it is somewhat puzzling. she does seem to have a knack of alienating everybody around her starting with her 1st husband. I agree we should keep our personal opinions out of the article. but I have yet to find any mention of any credit being given to her doctors for saving her life in any RS and find that even more puzzling.Wikireader41 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now reflected the judge's order that a doctor give her a medical exam, the result of that exam, and some further info re her medical history (and refusal to comply w/medical exams while incarcerated). (as I discussed above, the comment re her being a high security risk seems to relate to her counsel's request that she be moved to a hospital (not to the request that a doc examine her), which appears not to have been granted, nor is there any indication that after the doc the next day examined her and found no evidence of infection that the request was pursued further).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

great job as always. here is some more info on Pakistani response Senate passes resolution on Dr Aafia’s case. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx for the kind words. I've noticed that -- was hoping to get something concrete from the gov't-influenced Associated Press of Pakistan, which has not yet been forthcoming, but I'll reflect it now. BTW, FWIW, I don't view this Senate resolution as controversial, so have no problem relying on the Pakistani press. But still have strong misgivings on controversial matters where the Pakistan press is concerned, given 1) the Boston Globe has described Pakistani reports as "sketchy", though it is not clear what it viewed as sketchy about them, and which press reports it was concerned about)[5]; 2) the distinct lack of freedom of the media in Pakistan as reflected here: "Press not free in Pakistan, says Freedom House" and here: "Map of Press Freedom"; 3) the unusual pressures on the media in Pakistan as reflected here: "Attacks on the Press 2009: Pakistan" and here: "5 journalists killed, 17 arrested, 61 injured, 27 harassed; 11 attacks on media property, 16 cases of gag orders; Annual State of Pakistan Media Report 2006-07", and 4) the aforementioned recent interesting summary of the long history and current state of questionable reporting by the Pakistani media (in general) here by TIME.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal documents at NEFA foundation

FYI, due to some concerns I have, I have asked a question at the WP:RSN about the appropriateness of using primary sources such as the legal indictments/complaints hosted at the NEFA foundation website as a source in this article.--Slp1 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you object to the use of secondary RS source reflections of what is in the indictment? And why do you think a primary source might not be appropriate?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources (books, newspaper articles etc) would be much better than the indictment, for all sorts of reasons including WP:PSTS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS. Most especially because this is a BLP, and we want to use the best, highest quality sources as much as possible. If you can replace the indictment with secondary sources that would be great. Obviously if the secondary source is attributing the info as a claim from an indictment etc that would need to be reflected. But if material from these legal documents is going to remain, as noted at the RSN it needs to be appropriately attributed in the text (using "according to so and so") rather than phrased as bald facts. --Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Secondary sources describing what is in an indictment are obviously inferior to the indictment itself, for the purpose of stating what is in an indictment. The same goes for other primary sources such as federal laws, where you seem to have similar views on other articles. This should be manifestly apparent.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:PSTS would certainly seem to support my view that secondary sources are to be preferred in articles. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully". Do you have any evidence that our policies prefer primary sources in certain situations as you suggest? I can see the logic, but it doesn't not seem to be supported by the documentation here, though perhaps I am missing something. BTW You might find interesting this answer by another editor] to a similar question involving the use of legal documents and why it is best not to use them and other primary sources.

But back to the problem, which is that large chunks of this article are sourced to these legal documents of charge without any attribution at all. They make major claims about a living person: e.g. "She resurfaced when she was arrested July 17, 2008, by the Afghan National Police. The following day, when U.S. military personnel congregated at the Afghan facility meeting-room where—without them knowing it—she was being held unsecured, she came out from behind a curtain, picked up an M-4 assault rifle at the feet of one of the soldiers, and fired two shots at them. She missed. An officer returned fire, hitting her in the torso, and she was subdued." Either these are claims by the prosecutor-types, in which case it needs to be written as such (preferably with a secondary source and the primary source as a supplemental reference); or they are accepted facts, not claims, in which case a secondary source is essential as a reference, to obviate the need for the attribution. --Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does that say they are preferable to primary sources? The policy you quoted just relates to the relative reliance on secondary sources versus tertiary sources -- the reasons for preferring primary sources are so manifestly obvious, that I can't believe you're wasting keystrokes on this discussion. How absurd would it be to say, for example, that it is preferable to have a New York Times article (the secondary source) reporting what a Wall Street Journal article said, to the Wall Street Journal article (the primary source) itself -- which is the peculiar logic that you are militating for as you follow me from article to article. And just how illogical would it be to say that what x said y said (what the courts refer to as "hearsay") is superior to knowing what y actually said? I can't tell if you're pulling my chain. You really think that it is preferable to say "Al Jazeerah said the statute says x", or "Al Jazeerah said the indictment says y", to sourcing it to the actual statute or indictment? Please tell me you're pulling my leg. As to the article specifics, that is what she was convicted of, which we generally report as having happened, plus elements of it are admitted to by her and reported in RSs -- if it needs further footnoting, feel free to fixit.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see where the problems are coming from here. I'll try to explain more clearly. First, to clarify what primary and secondary sources are:

• The NYT and the WSJ are both secondary sources; they are both a step removed from the primary sources, with a reputation for fact-checking.
• Primary sources are first hand documents, often by people directly involved in a situation. You can find a long list of examples here [6]. The indictments, complaints, trials etc fall into this category.

• With secondary sources such as the NYT/WSJ/Al Jazeerah none of the attribution you describe is required at all. In fact, with them, it would be fine to report something very directly. If they report Siddiqui's birthplace as a fact, it would be fine to say "Siddiqui was born in Timbuktu"(followed by a citation to NYT). No need to say "According to the NYT, Siddiqui was born in Timbuktu".
• Primary sources (such as the legal documents) should be used as sparingly as possible in articles (see below). If we are talking about the these indictments then it would be preferable to take our lead from how NYT/WSJ/Al Jazeerah have used the legal documents, rather than research and read the documents ourselves. In this case, we would follow what the media does in attributing information to the indictment. Absolutely no need to say "NYT said the indictment says Y shot X" per the example above. Instead, it would be very fine to write "According to the indictment, Y shot X."(followed by a citation to NYT and the original document if desired).
• Hopefully that makes things clearer. If you are still doubting that secondary sources are preferred I urge you to carefully read WP:PSTS again. As well as WP:RS, from which the following comes "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Primary sources can certainly be used, and personally I think that it is probably fine to use the legal documents here, even as solo references, as long as it is attributed as "According to the indictment..". But, yes, on WP secondary sources are preferred to primary ones, and would be the best to use, when there is a choice. If you still continue to disagree with these policies and guidelines, I suggest you take it to the WP:NOR talkpage, and get other opinions there about whether my logic is indeed peculiar or not ;-)
• Once again, the fundamental problem is that in a BLP article, sources are currently being misused, presenting allegations as facts. This is not just my opinion, but that given and accepted, including by you, at the RSN [7]. I agree that most likely some of the material sourced to the legal documents are indeed accepted facts that would be better sourced from secondary sources (e.g. when she was arrested; I can't believe that hasn't been reported directly somewhere). Yes, I will fix the problems if I need to, but I would hope that those involved with the article and other similar articles, who know the sources well and have them at their fingertips, would take their responsibilities as WP editors seriously enough to fix the problems themselves. --Slp1 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, on a number of counts. Let me clarify, as I appear not to have done so sufficiently in my above effort. First, if the NYT is reporting what the WSJ said in an article, then for that purpose the WSJ is a primary source and the NYT is a secondary source. Second, the secondary sources are reporting as to primary sources -- whether they be what newspaper articles say, what a birth certificate says, what a complaint says. It is beyond cavil that a primary source is best. For that reason, courts around the globe -- not just in U.S. and Canada -- will allow for example a birth certificate in as evidence to prove a fact, but will not allow secondary evidence (called hearsay) in to prove the same fact. This is Evidence 101, certainly in English-speaking countries, and in Quebec as well. It is completely nonsensical to suggest that it is better to say "the NYT says the Patriot Act says x" than to allude to what the Patriot Act itself says -- that is a game of telephone. I think you're completely off base, and your suggestion so challenges logic that I don't know where to begin. I refer you again to my above examples, and ask that you address them. There is no way that it is better to say "the NYT says the Patriot Act says x", than it is to say that the Patriot Act says x. None. That's wholly illogical. The same with saying "Al Jazeerah reports that the NY Times says y", versus saying "The NY Times says Y -- and referencing the NY Times article. If you can't see this, or admit this, we are so far separated in our understanding that I fear there will be little room for helpful discourse. It simply makes no sense, nor have you indicated how it would make sense.

I wrote above "You really think that it is preferable to say "Al Jazeerah said the statute says x", or "Al Jazeerah said the indictment says y", to sourcing it to the actual statute or indictment?" You didn't answer. I'll ask the same question this way as well -- "You really think that it is preferable to reference Al Jazeerah for what the statute says, rather than reference the actual statute or indictment?" I find it mildly astounding if your answer is yes.

--Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A few of things.

• You are undoubtedly correct that "Evidence 101" and courts of law prefer original primary sources. But this is not a court of law; this is Wikipedia, and like it or not, secondary sources are generally preferred here. In part this is because primary sources provide too much scope for original research and undue weight issues by editors picking and choosing the things they think important from them, rather than relying on points that independent sources have determined to be interesting, relevant and significant. That's not to say that primary sources can't be used, as I have stated, and certainly in this case they would be very useful supportive references to secondary sources, as recommended by Squidfryerchef at RSN. I can certainly see your logic about this whole issue, but the conclusion drawn ("a primary source is best") is at odds with core WP policies/guidelines. If you seek to challenge them, then you need to do it on the talkpages of the policies/guidelines concerned.
• You are also correct that it is indeed possible that in some limited circumstances a newspaper could become a primary source (mainly for information about itself) (see-[8]). In most other circumstances, however, if the WSJ quotes the NYT, then using the NYT directly would be by far the simplest and best solution. However, this does not seem to be an issue with this this article, as far as I can see.
• Regarding the requirements for attribution, I urge careful rereading my post above, since incorrect claims are being made about my points. I specifically stated that formulations such as "Al Jazeerah said the indictment says y" are NOT required. All that is required is something like "The indictment says....." followed by an inline citation to the Al Jazeerah (or whatever) source. As above, a secondary source for this is preferred, in order to avoid issues of possible undue weight, synthesis, but the actual indictment would be helpful as a citation too. As I also mentioned above, I believe that occasionally it would be acceptable to use the indictment as the sole reference - though I gather from Squidfryerchef's post at RSN, that I may be more liberal about this than others would be.[9] Once again, the key is that all the information coming from the indictment (either directly or via a secondary source) needs to be qualified in some way as an allegation... "According to the indictment...." or "It is alleged that...." or "Allegedly,.....".
• I have actually never commented about how laws/statutes (such as Patriot Act) should be referenced. It may be that you are thinking about another quite different discussion regarding copyright violations[10]? Suffice to say that I agree that if writing about a statute and its content (no interpretation at all), then a direct citation to the statute would in most cases likely be perfectly appropriate. There is still the danger of WP:UNDUE, however, and when in doubt, secondary sources describing the statute would still be preferred. Another possible danger is that of original research and synthesis, by linking the statute reference to another to make an argument. (Example: Mr. X did Y(citation to newspaper). Y is illegal(citation to statute) - implied argument, Mr. X is guilty of something). Of course, any specific sentences quoted from the law should be indicated with quotation marks. But once again, this point doesn't seem relevant for this article, as far as I can see.

I think I have done my best at these explanations and will stop now. Though I'm confident that I have correctly explained these policies and guidelines and their implications for policy-based editing, I strongly suggest that if Epeefleche has continued doubts that s/he ask other experienced editors/administrators for their input to help clear up any issues. The WP:NORN, WP:RSN, and WP:BLPN noticeboards or the talkpage of the policies/guidelines themselves would be good places to ask about whether I am completely out to lunch or not. But just to remind everyone, the way allegations (sourced to legal documents of accusation) are presented as facts in this and other articles e.g. [11][12], is clearly not appropriate. There's not that many instances to work on, since often words such as 'alleged' have already been used, but some in cases they have not and these issues need to addressed quite urgently per BLP. --Slp1 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

There are contributors who routinely edit in a style that serves as a serious trigger for edit warring. These contributors put their justifications for controversial edits in their edit summaries, instead of using the article's talk pages in attempts to engage in a real dialogue.

As a courtesy to other contributors I am going to request contributors not simply revert edits they don't agree with, putting their arguments in their edit summary.

Putting the argument for a controversial edit in the edit summary is a sure-fire trigger for edit warring -- because it represents a grave temptation to the person who made the original edit to respond in kind, and restore their original wording, with their rebuttal in their edit summary.

It is far better to have the discussion take place in one place -- usually the article's talk page is the best place. And the article's talk page is always a far better place for a discussion than the article's edit summary.

I am going to revert this particular controversy back to the initial state, and request the first reverter, as a courtesy to other contributors, to place their further arguments here on the talk page.

The issue that is triggering this current controversy is whether Aafia Siddiqui should be included in Category:Terrorism.

Something has gone very seriously wrong here, through the inflammatory practice of placing a justification for a controversial edit in the edit summary. The end result is that both parties escalated, within about 12 hours, to hinting darkly at doubts about the other party's good faith.

I am very sorry to report that I have asked the reverter, in many other discussions, to stop using their edit summaries as a substitute to engaging in civil, meaningful, collegial discussions on article's talk pages.

date/time		initial contributor	reverter
2010-03-13 16:54	1	The first edit -- placed this article in Category:Terrorism.
2010-03-13 20:29	2		The first reversion, with the edit summary "→External links: rv - POV edit", removed Category:Terrorism.
2010-03-14 01:27	3	""Siddiqiqui is charged w/being part of al qaeda by the US; also, she attacked US soldiers as Nidal did -- for see also, that is sufficient"
2010-03-14 02:08	4		"External links: i still think the link to Nidal should be removed but i give up on that...as well Siddiqui was not charged w/being part of al qaeda according to the infobox"
2010-03-14 02:12	5	"Reverted good faith edits by Iqinn; The FBI put Siddiqui on the list as one of the most wanted Al Qaeda, as her article indicates; that is enough--we didn't try the 9/11 bombers, either."
2010-03-14 02:36	6		"not charged as i said - be careful with spreading false information - I still think being on that list is not enough to add this template - the article is IMO drifting towards ridiculous propaganda"
2010-03-14 03:17	7	"Reverted good faith edits by Iqinn; I'm assuming good faith one last time, though this is bordering on vandalism--she clearly meets the title of this template, which is not that she be "charged" -- the FBI a"
2010-03-14 03:28	8		"I assume the last time good faith - please do not edit warring - Have a look at my last edit - i compromised and simply collapsed the template instead of removing it what it should be"

The person who placed Aafia Siddiqui in Category:Terrorism extended the assumption of good faith to the reverter and assumed that they weren't aware that Category:Terrorism routinely contained not only convicted terrorists, but also included notable victims of terrorism and those who WP:RS have faced wide, or official, allegations of involvement in terrorism. I am very sorry to report that the reverter has tried to remove several other individuals from Category:Terrorism, and has had Category:Terrorism's content explained to them several times before. (see below)

Our reverter is certainly entitled to argue that Category:Terrorism should not contain individuals based on allegations of involvement in terrorism. But I strongly disagree that the edit summaries of individuals placed in the category is the proper place to make that argument. Category talk:Terrorism might be a more appropriate place to discuss this issue -- or maybe WP:BLPN. Geo Swan (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This post is absolute false with diffs that have been put together in an misleading way. I have ask this User who added the post here in the past not to disrupt Wikipedia.

The diffs he has put together here in a misleading way do address several issues, most of the edits concern a link in See Also and a template not only the category. Please read the edit summaries carefully in combination with the changes that have been made each time. They are sufficient and we have worked on several topics and for all issues there have been found compromises between user Epeefleche and me. The edit summaries are clear unless they are put out of context with a false description as it has been done here on the talk page.

To collapse the template -- the edit you just reverted -- is a compromise between user Epeefleche and me. Please do not start an edit war. The collapsing of the template is not a controversial edit as you stated in your edit summary and nothing in your explanation here concerns the collapsing of the template. It is you who is edit warring and please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. IQinn (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• WRT collapsing templates -- this comment was left on my talk page. Our reverter has collapsed many templates. But I have never seen them offer any explanation for doing so.

How do the contributors who work on an article decide whether or not the templates on that article should be collapsed? I honestly don't know. But I do not agree that expecting a civilly expressed, meaningfully, policy-based explanation on the article's talk page should be described as "edit warring".

• Removing Category:Terrorism from the article was clearly controversial, by definition, because here we are disagreeing about it. I continue to believe that removing the category should have been discussed first. Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• WRT to compromises arrived at -- the record in those edit summaries does not suggest any kind of compromise. If contributors want the rest of us to go along with compromises arrived at elsewhere, I think it is reasonable for that comprise to be recorded here on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• First of all to call me "our reverter" is wrong, insulting and uncivil. Please change or strike this in your comments. I think this is a reasonable request that you could agree to.

• User Epeefleche told me that he is fine to keep the last version with the collapsed the template and i have stated this here in the discussion that he is fine with that. So it is recorded here on the talk page unless you assume i am a liar. Consensus and compromises can always change. So if you have compelling arguments the discussion can go on. But i hope that will not end up in one of this filibustering discussion we had in the past.

• Removing a category is not controversial and falls clearly under WP:BOLD. It has been reverted by user Epeefleche and i have compromised to keep it in the article after a short discussion with user Epeefleche. I have compromised and the category is in the article. I have told you in the past you do not have ownership over the Terrorism articles even if you worked a lot i this field. Only people who claim WP:ownership demand explanation for any edit in advanced. Even the removal of a category. Please stop blocking other editors from working on terrorist related articles.

• Yes i have collapsed templates on many pages over many month and there have never been a single editor who thought that this was a bad idea. You are the only editor who think so but you have not delivered a single explanation why this decreases the value of the article here. You have routinely reverted other editors in an disruptive way in the past. As user Epeefleche has agreed to the collapsing of the template i would like to ask you not disrupted Wikipedia and to come up with some good reasons for your unexplained revert. IQinn (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• As per your request I struck "reverter". I dispute that this was uncivil. But I am prepared to accommodate this request. Is there is a specific substitute appellation you prefer? Geo Swan (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am sorry but to address me in this way is wrong, insulting and uncivil. Anything is fine that is not wrong, insulting or uncivil.

• Coming back to the content issue you have not provided us with a single good reason for your unexplained revert. Could you please do so. I guess you have a good reason apart from just making a point or personal POV? So i would like to tell us the reason why you are against collapsing the template in this article here so we can start an argument based discussion. Thank you IQinn (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche's application of Category:Terrorism was very defensible, but after spending a bit more time looking into it, I am now going to suggest Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists may be a better choice. Since you unfairly characterized Epeefleche's efforts as both "POV", and "ridiculous propaganda", and since your own excisions seemed to me to be both poorly explained, and based on a damaging misinterpretation of WP:BOLD, I found I agreed that your excisions appeared to border on vandalism.

WRT civility, after five and a half years on the wikipedia it seems to me that wikipedians fall into four quadrants:

1. Wikipedians who are able to get their point across clearly, without ever being offensive, who also seem to possess the skin of a rhinoceros, and never take offense at all but the most egregious insults;
2. Wikipedians who have that skin of a rhinoceros, but who seem oblivious to the uncivil comments they spin off;
3. Wikipedians who do a pretty good job of never being offensive, but who are obviously thin-skinned, and take notice of every insult;
4. Finally there are wikipedians who are both obviously thin-skinned -- easily offended -- and yet who seem oblivious to the offensive, uncivil comments they themselves make.

I really regret that it isn't a friend of yours, spelling this out to you. It seems to me that you fall into this fourth group. This particular thread being another confirming instance, with your obliviousness of the offense you dished out with your characterization of another good faith contributor as having made "POV edits", and having drifted into "ridiculous propaganda", yet your apparent offense over a term which I regard as merely neutrally descriptive of your role.

WRT the term you said offended you -- I said I would accommodate your request, and change this term. But I am not a mind-reader. If you really want it changed you have to say what you want it changed to. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• One more post that is pure ad hominum and does not address the content issue at all. Kind of funny you do not to know the content issue? Please read my post again. Are you upset because of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Unknown_Tajiki_captive_in_Guantanamo?

• I guess you have overlooked that i have ask you regarding the content issue (collapsing of the template) and you refuse to answer my questions what is uncivil. No offence, Just in case you have overlooked it i am posting it again for you. And hope you come up with something that addresses the content issue. Thank you.

• Coming back to the content issue you have not provided us with a single good reason for your unexplained revert. Could you please do so. I guess you have a good reason apart from just making a point or personal POV? So i would like to tell us the reason why you are against collapsing the template in this article here so we can start an argument based discussion. Thank you IQinn (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will only address the parts of the comment above that are content related and are not moot. With regard to including this article in Category:Terrorism, I repeat, "after spending a bit more time looking into it, I am now going to suggest Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists may be a better choice..." The description of that category says: "This category includes people who currently are or previously were on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list." Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection with the from you suggested category.

As you do not come up with a good reason for your unexplained revert of the collapsed template after i have asked you three times i can only assume that you reverted to make a point and i can only repeat. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

I am also going to collapse the template again as you did not come up with a single good reason why it shouldn't be collapsed. IQinn (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I am not an expert on navigation templates' state variables I asked for feedback at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#When should navigation templates be collapsed? There I learned that the default state is "autocollapse" -- where the template is uncollapsed, unless the page being rendered has multiple navigation templates. The "state=collapse" is explicitly used when the decision has been explicitly made to over-ride the default, or on short articles, to prevent them being overwhelmed by long templates. Otherwise the advice there was to stick with the default. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No i think you misinterpret the discussion there and i would like to ask you to work towards consensus and to compromise from time to time. There is no rule that prohibits the collapsing of a template with "state=collapse" when it makes sense and i would like to ask you not to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The template is POV and violates WP:NPOV the collapsing of the template would bring it in line with WP:NPOV and that increases the quality of the article. IQinn (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/Geo.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I know you share the same POV like Geo. But could you please address the given arguments The template is POV and violates WP:NPOV the collapsing of the template would bring it in line with WP:NPOV and that increases the quality of the article. So we can make progress. IQinn (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• My POV is that you are failing to respect consensus both here and on the template page. That is a violation of wikipedia policy. If you respect consensus, I don't anticipate a problem on this issue. If you continue to fail to do so, filibuster, and call "black" -- "white" -- as you have done here and on that page, I anticipate that we will need to raise the discussion to a higher level. That would be a waste of the time of all, so I'm hoping it does not come to that.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• If somebody is filibustering than it is you by refusing to discuss the arguments concerning to content issue. I also hope that we do not need to raise this topic at another place like BLP noticeboard to address the wide spread violation of WP:NPOV that borders propaganda. To claim there is consensus when there is no consensus falls under Wikipedia:Gaming the system. So i ask you to once again to address the given argument. IQinn (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

All in all, there is some truth in what all have said here. And in some instances something that falls a bit short of full disclosure. Some reactions. First, I appreciate Geo's comments here. I do feel that controversial changes were made without reasonable rationale presented. That should be clear from my edit summaries. Second, I do think that the reverts were on the whole in the nature of edit warring. Third, I do think that Iquinn, though I found the means of discussion less than satisfying, and the failure to respond to my last inquire as suggestive of something less than what I would have hoped for from him, did make compromises along the way -- though he did not come all the way towards what I thought was the most reasonable/appropriate position. But he does deserve credit for, though blood was spilled in the process, moving much of the way off his original position. Fourth, Geo is correct that using edit summaries only when matters get controversial is not necessarily the preferred way to communicate -- but I am somewhat at fault in this area as well, and so am poorly positioned to take anyone else to task. When the point is a short one, I generally use the edit summary for the sake of expedience, though where the editor completely perplexes me (as in the string above) or where the conversation is opened at the talk page, I do avail myself of the talk page. At the same time, I certainly can't disagree with Geo's comment here, and thank him for making it. Fifth, what Geo has not seen (and the same goes for most editors watching only the edit summaries and this talk page), is comment I left on Iqinn's talk page shortly after his last comment. It can be found here. As you can see, I note the late hour, the proximity of the edits to 3RR (I wanted a resolution, and not to embroil Iqinn in a 3RR complaint), I acknowledge that the article was "close to how I think it should be", and I say so at least "for now" I'm happy to leave it as he revised it. But I then severely question his conclusions that led to his actions, and ask for a more fulsome explanation. I note that he did not provide me with one. Those are my thoughts. Again, I appreciate Geo's comments and found them completely on-target, I appreciate Iqinn coming around largely, and I still think the extent that he did not come around (collapsing the template without articulating a rationale that I found credible) could have been better, and of course matters could have been better if there had not been the reverts in the first place as IMHO they were not warranted. Anyway, thanks to Geo, and -- to the extent that Iqinn was flexible, thanks to him. I hope that we can avoid such instances in the future. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Acknowledgment of error --- if we are going to ask for the assumption of good faith I think it is important to openly acknowledge when we realize we have made mistakes. I wrote above that User:Iqinn had been told, many times, that Category:Terrorism includes articles related to victims of terrorism, and articles related to individuals that WP:RS link to terrorism. I now think I was remembering discussions like this one. But it concerned {{WikiProject Terrorism}} not Category:Terrorism. Apologies to everyone. I didn't intend to write something misleading. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

May 6

FYI -- That will be her sentencing date. It will be great if we can get this up to FA by then.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

800-pound gorilla in the bedroom

Just how in the world could it be that this germane point got left out of the lead? I didn’t check the history to see if it had been there at one point and taken out, or never was there. But I had a vague recollection about this fine lady and did an in-page search for “nuclear” but didn’t find anything. So I did some more research and clicked on some links, and stumbled across “biological”. Back to the article I go. Ahhh… there it is; she majored in Biochemical and Biophysical Studies. Moreover…

“ During her July 17, 2008 arrest, a police search of her her handbag produced a number of documents written in Urdu and English describing the creation of explosives, chemical weapons, Ebola, dirty bombs, and radiological agents (which discussed mortality rates of certain of the weapons), and handwritten notes referring to a "mass casualty attack". ”

(Oh… just that silly ol’ stuff; I keep the same sort of materials in my own wallet.) I find it amazing that this was not in the lead. I’d hate to learn that it had been there once before and was removed for “POV-pushing.” This information is central to understanding why this lady was the subject of an intense manhunt (womanhunt) and why this topic is so notable. I prefer to believe that the omission was a simple oversight. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I failed to add it to the lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Occupation??

I see that Siddiqui majored in Biochemical and Biophysical Studies at MIT, she graduated in 1995 with a BS in Biology and that She received a Ph.D. degree in 2001 for her dissertation, entitled "Separating the Components of Imitation." I assume the latter is a related to neuroscience. Unless there is some current Wikipedia guideline stating that someone’s career aspirations count as an “occupation”, that we use WP:COMMONSENSE and require some citable evidence that she was ever once employed as a neuroscientist. Otherwise, I suggest we limit what is claimed about her in the article to just her education: “Education: B.S. in Biology, Ph.D. in Neuroscience” (that is, if someone can confirm that her dissertation paper was for a neuroscience degree).

As it stands, when I do an in-page search for “employed”, I come up blank. And when I search for “employ” (a word fragment), all I come up with is seven matches for “employees” in the context of shooting up U.S. government employees as they are working, trying to do their job. Greg L (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still sifting through the sources - she doesn't seem like she ever had a job. Researcher is the only valid 'occupation' label that springs to mind. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• For what its worth, this article describes her in its first sentence as a neuroscientist.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Without evidence of her ever having been employed as a neuroscientist (but having a degree in it), that’s a bit like someone who has worked at Starbucks for three straight years since getting out of college with a degree in history and saying “Occupation: Historian.” It is clearly proper to say “Education: Masters degree in History”; that’s a fact. And, to be precise, it would only be correct to say “Occupation: Barista”.

  I would also suggest that Time magazine didn’t really say that was her “occupation”; it reads that she is “an MIT-educated neuroscientist”, which is more a homage to education than to real and actual employment. Our highly specific infoboxes make a clear distinction between education and occupation.

  I am merely suggesting that any mention of “occupation” be omitted unless there is citable evidence she had ever been hired and paid as a neuroscientist—even if it wasn’t her last job. Short of citable evidence to the contrary, one would normally look towards what is in the article for a clue as to what her jobs were, here at Postgraduate, work and marriage. And there, her last known occupation would be “Prison counselor”. Given the paucity of employment information (and the absurdity of “prison counselor” given her education), I advance that it is better to be silent on this point until we know more. Greg L (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's a fair question. First off, my bottom line -- I don't care what is done w/the infobox in this regard. Beyond that, here are some thoughts. She is described as a neuroscientist in close to 300 articles -- see here and here. I don't recall having read any articles mentioning her actual employment, though I read articles that indicated that she was having difficulty finding in Pakistan appropriate employment for her background, and that she said (though the validity of her claim was questioned) that she interviewed for positions with U.S. universities. If neuroscientist is an occupation, then one could take the position that: a) an RS said she was one, and b) as an RS, it has a rep for fact-checking, and c) there is no requirement that it give its source or say who her employer was for us to reflect the RS fact. At the same time, I accept that she may never have possibly never been employed as such, and still called a neuroscientist. Certainly, if a U.S. person were admitted to the bar of a U.S. state I would call them a lawyer, even if they never worked as a lawyer. At the end of the day, I think its fair to delete it if you like in the infobox, and keep it in the article, for the aforesaid reasons.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fine. I think your “lawyer” analogy trumps my “barista” analogy. Added to that is the fact that it is “300 articles.” Go with the flow, I guess. Greg L (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I suspect that many of those sources would have gone through the same though process initially. The later ones, however, probably copied what everyone else was writing. A postgraduate degree and the research work done certainly confer a certain legitimacy to 'neuroscientist' as her professional label. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, copying. Probably. When I originally came to Wikipedia, I wasn’t as careful as I am now and had pure crap a couple of times on a certain scientific subject. I was aghast to find that so many other Web sites simply parroted what I had written. Even though educators caution against using Wikipedia while doing homework, it’s easy to go elsewhere and find the same garbage being regurgitated in various forms. What was nice was my fixing some decades-old folklore about the origins of the Celsius scale (quoting from the alma mater of Carl Linnaeus, who really invented the scale as we know it). In short order, the true story started propagating across the digital landscape. I hate writing stuff that isn’t correct; much prefer silence if in doubt. Greg L (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here is something. "Powers wrote that Siddiqui has told the FBI that she worked at the Karachi Institute of Technology in 2005". So, that gives an employer, though not the nature of the job.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing the Picture of Aafia Siddiqui

In Islam the hair must be covered, so showing photos of her hair uncovered is not good. Here are 2 photos with her hair covered:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/23/1258999094920/Aafia-Siddiqui-001.jpg

http://misskelly.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/13/siddiqui.jpg

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj973660 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The current photo is public domain; the images you linked are not. Also, see WP:CENSOR for why the best and free-est image will be used regardless of local customs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know of any public domain photos of her hair covered on the net. Also, I understand the WP:CENSOR policy, but it's better than saying nothing...So I'm going to say something about this one last time and I hope you guys re-consider this situation. If we can't find any public domain images of her with her hair covered, then I suggest we don't put a picture at all. Kiwix 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The photos reflect her at specific times in her life. To change those around would be to change her history in order to line up with your version of Islam. That's why we have guidelines such as WP:CENSOR. Or if that doesn't satisfy, Wikipedia usually does not placate people for a very good reason. Say we go to the Wikipedia article on the headscarf, and I note that one of the verses from the Koran used to defend the headscarf says it's for the woman's protection since men are undisciplined dogs, summing up. I find that offensive, so I call for that verse to be removed, then call for the article to be removed for lack of citations. Satisfying everyone is not possible, so refer to the guidelines for appropriate usage and try not to alter history in order to suit your own personal preference. 124.170.22.217 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The qur'an does not say men are undisciplined dogs. We are all from Adam and Eve and among us are disbelievers, believers, and hypocrites. Overall it is better for a woman to have a headscarf and that IS Islam. I'm not going to say anything further; I just wanted to point this out. I tried and God is a witness to that. Kiwix 07:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely false to imply that Islam requires the usage of an hijab for women. Muslims differ on it.Shabeki (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's show her with her hair covered, after we've stretch her neck with a rope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.212.44 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bigoted trolls like yourself have no place here.Shabeki (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar note

In the Family and Early Life section it states "She belongs to Urdu speaking community of karachi". It says Urdu speaking so I'm assuming it means a community that speaks the language, but is it "a Urdu speaking community", "the Urdu speaking community". At the moment it's almost better being deleted since it doesn't really say anything and can't be rephrased to include the information without further knowledge. 124.170.22.217 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the references documenting her citizenship?

Where is the references documenting her citizenship? The only references made say nothing nada! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.243.7 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Combined two references to the same Der Spiegel article

I combined two references to the same Der Spiegel article. The article was on three pages. I substituted the URL to the print version, which combines all three page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to start working on a general cleanup and copy-edit of the article. There's a fair amount of coatracking here, especially in the biography section and definite POV pushing (both pro and con) that should not be here. After I get the cleanup done, I want to work on cutting down the referencing. Unless something is really controversial, we don't need two or three refs that say the same thing - that's just piling on. So, we'll see how this goes. Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are saying you are going to remove perfectly valid references. You may think references say the same thing. But even when references are based on the same Associated Press or other wire service source those individual newspapers may leave in or leave out different details.

Finding good references is a lot of work. And the older a reference is the harder it is to hunt them up later. Web search engines don`t work so well on older references. Older references for 404, but they are still valid, if the reference lists the publisher, author, date -- details a determine reader could use to hunt up the dead tree version.

I really don`t feel comfortable with the referencectomy you promise unless you are also promise to be cautious. Could you please list any references you remove from the article here on the talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth

Guys, User:Codetruth is still vandalizing this page. Why am I the only one noticing this? I don't have the time or knowhow to pursue action against him. Can somebody please pay attention to this? Linkminer (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm past my 3RR limit.--Auric talk 01:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm... What? 3RR applies per article per 24-hour period. You have not reverted anything on this article in the last 24 hours. Linkminer (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Guess I was mistaken then. Thanks for clearing that up.--Auric talk 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"fled"?

I changed "fled" to "returned" in a recent edit. In 2002, when she and her husband returned to Pakistan, they were foreign students, who, having completed their studies, used their legitimate travel documents to return to their country of birth. I question whether this should be described as having "fled". Geo Swan (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

Another contributor made this edit, that excised 9,000 bytes, with the brief explanation in their edit summary -- ″Article is not consistent with the references cited.″

As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries? Big controversial edits, explained only in the talk page, represent a big temptation to engage in edit-warring behavior. Geo Swan (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Newsworthy but not noteworthy comments by lawyer?

Bbb23 has removed comments I added by Siddiqui's lawyer, calling them "not noteworthy." They were apparently newsworthy, and her lawyer was quoted often in American papers following her extradition. Some of the comments expressed skepticism regarding the many government press leaks alleging terrorist plots; in the text I added, they were skeptical of those allegations without a related charge. The lawyer's statements directly contradict those of the Hoffman. Bbb23 is not obliged to find them personally compelling, but the comments are clearly noteworthy. -Darouet (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23. the statements may be in the news but are not noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. lawyers will make such statements in favor of their clients and speculate to sway public opinion. that is their job. its easy to see why government may not be interested in pursuing other charges against a 38 year old woman to get her a sentence longer than 86 years.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

hi i m haroon i want to see picture of dr.afia siddiqui . and i want to know the reason which base caught by f.b.i in 2003 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.179.64.250 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Interpreter

Why was there an "interpreter"? She was supposed to have studied in the U.S. This is baffling... --Vitilsky (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Can this be rewritten to include why she is notable in the first sentence? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed or Ahmad?

Could someone, please, research and correct Siddiqui son's name. It appears in the article as both Ahmed and Ahmad. This complicates unambiguous searches.

Mirek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.189.223 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

Siddiqui is an American citizen. She should be identified as such in the lede, or at least as a Pakistani-American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.163.241 (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

[13] seems to indicate she is not a US citizen, but was in the US on a visa during her time there. One of the sources in the article calls her "a Pakistani citizen educated in the United States". Is there any reliable source that says she was given US citizenship? Thundermaker (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aafia Siddiqui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101031235441/http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/04/top7.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/04/top7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aafia Siddiqui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011133058/http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/16/top6.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2003/04/16/top6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110628195412/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-19/pakistani-woman-ejected-from-trial-over-afghan-attack-update2-.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-19/pakistani-woman-ejected-from-trial-over-afghan-attack-update2-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aafia Siddiqui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121018201703/http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pakistan+dismayed+guilty+verdict/2518558/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pakistan+dismayed+guilty+verdict/2518558/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection.

I think it is best to at least semi-protect the page. Too many edits based on allegations without authentic sources by numerous unknown IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldandhistory (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

On Her Coursework

Somebody wrote that:

Siddiqui's dissertation adviser was a Brandeis psychology professor who recalled that she wore a head scarf and thanked Allah when an experiment was successful.[13]

Many Muslim women do this, it's a normal thing for them. Why is this relevant to this article? It reeks of Islamophobia to put it here, as if suggesting anyone who wear headscarf and thank Allah could be a terrorist suspect.210.19.13.194 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Defo got a point Jameel78619 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If the source article says so it might be used as signs of increasing religious belief on her part. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Protest

There had been a protest about Siddiqui:

• "Protesters again call for proof that doctor is alive in west Fort Worth prison " (Archive). Fort Worth Star-Telegram. March 30, 2016.

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aafia Siddiqui. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100728/us-al-qaida-suspect-shooting/diff_D9H8CP880_D9H8CP880.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/05/talibandemands-release-of-pak-terror-suspect-aafiathrea.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug23/0,4670,AlQaidaSuspectShooting,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606113421/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-3-2003_pg7_56 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-3-2003_pg7_56
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606175147/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C04%5C11%5Cstory_11-4-2010_pg7_22 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\11\story_11-4-2010_pg7_22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125035540/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=116600&sectionid=351020401 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116600&sectionid=351020401
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128041326/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=116896&sectionid=351020401 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116896&sectionid=351020401
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100225113148/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/848-pakistanis-in-indian-jails,-senate-informed-010 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/848-pakistanis-in-indian-jails,-senate-informed-010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aafia Siddiqui. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nLKvx1mG?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenews.com.pk%2Ftop_story_detail.asp%3FId%3D27072 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27072

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Lady Al Qaeda

The cited source makes it clear that the name "Lady Al Qaeda" is not a name used by Aafia herself but by "counterterrorism circles". It is a smear, which violates WP:NPOV. I am going to remove it. Thundermaker (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing says that "other names" have to be names subscribed to by the subject. Particularly with criminals and other very controversial figures, other names is used for monikers that the subject is known by. The infobox person template describes "other-names" as "Other notable names for the person". That's spot-on in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But it's not a name, it's a derogatory nickname. A line in an infobox doesn't have room for an explanation of who applied that nickname to her and why, just an abbreviated statement of fact: other names = X. Thundermaker (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Aafia Siddiqui. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314163611/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/FBI_Seeking_Info_Siddiqui.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/FBI_Seeking_Info_Siddiqui.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216055927/http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February10/siddiquiaafiaverdictpr.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February10/siddiquiaafiaverdictpr.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100728/us-al-qaida-suspect-shooting/diff_D9H8CP880_D9H8CP880.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/05/talibandemands-release-of-pak-terror-suspect-aafiathrea.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C408922%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug23/0%2C4670%2CAlQaidaSuspectShooting%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0%2C1518%2Cdruck-593195%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527165219/http://www.dni.gov/announcements/content/DetaineeBiographies.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/announcements/content/DetaineeBiographies.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1954598%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/alqaida/story/0%2C12469%2C906442%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116600&sectionid=351020401
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116896&sectionid=351020401
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27072
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/848-pakistanis-in-indian-jails%2C-senate-informed-010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aafia Siddiqui. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100728/us-al-qaida-suspect-shooting/diff_D9H8CP880_D9H8CP880.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/05/talibandemands-release-of-pak-terror-suspect-aafiathrea.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125070210/http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/whos_afraid_of_aafia_siddiqui to http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/whos_afraid_of_aafia_siddiqui
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug23/0%2C4670%2CAlQaidaSuspectShooting%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329142838/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/AafiaSiddiqui_SierraLeoneProfile.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/AafiaSiddiqui_SierraLeoneProfile.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329142838/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/AafiaSiddiqui_SierraLeoneProfile.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/AafiaSiddiqui_SierraLeoneProfile.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920021238/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/us-requested-to-hand-over-aafia-990 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/us-requested-to-hand-over-aafia-990
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211170602/http://www.freeaafia.org/ to http://www.freeaafia.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aafia Siddiqui. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug23/0,4670,AlQaidaSuspectShooting,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413133923/http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/terror_trial_israel.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/terror_trial_israel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413223044/http://www.daylife.com/photo/02pNcSwaJF9pm to http://www.daylife.com/photo/02pNcSwaJF9pm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede

User:Mar4d, I changed the sequence in the lede to make it understandable to the general public. It should be given as events occured, her birth, arrest, conviction, reaction. The previous was a complete jumble. 2Joules (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mar4d what exactly do you mean by saying "These views should all be at one place for sequence, otherwise it is out of place". Which views? You also said that "Source only mentions disappearance in this manner" while the exact words "around the time she suddenly vanished along with her children from her hometown of Karachi." used by the source support my version. 2Joules (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: you said that the use of word Lady Al Qaeeda was a vague descriptor. This has a large number of GHITS and I included three sources. How many sources are required? 2Joules (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the views in the U.S., and those in Pakistan. They should be in one place for consistency rather than jumbled here and there. I've made some copyedits in relation to this. As for your second question, the exact circumstances of her disappearance remain mysterious as various sources note and as written in much detail in this section. In line with this, stating "she and her three children disappeared in Pakistan" is subtly more accurate than "she disappeared from Pakistan with her three children". The latter implies she disappeared 'from' Pakistan which is inaccurate of course, as part of this 'disappearance' was actually spent in Pakistan (the circumstances of which also are murky). I've searched for 'Lady al-Qaeda' and yes, I agree there seem to be a number of sources that appear to use the term. It would be unpractical to over-reference, but since that can be verified, I'll agree to amend that edit. Mar4d (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

A new paragraph maybe added under the section "Attacks, threats and exchange offers". This paragraph should mention the proposed plan by Yvonne Redley to exchange Siddiqui for Bowe Bergdahl. The plan was blocked by Pakistani Intelligence services. The reference for the above information is this article: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180529-pakistani-intelligence-blocked-a-prisoner-swap-to-release-dr-aafia-siddiqui/ Daniyalyasin93 (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Vogue as a source

Vogue magazine is used as a source in 30 instances. Vogue mag is a celebrity mag, which should not be utilized this much in a political, terror related article like this. What are the thoughts of other users 2Joules (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)?

There is no reason to exclude the Vogue piece on the basis of the magazine's "celebrity" appearance. The citations are to a single article, and the article should be judged on its own merits, not based on some misguided idea that serious journalism cannot be found in magazines that talk about popular culture. So your "should not be utilized" statement is unsupported and not convincing or compelling. Also, it's 30 citations to a single article, which isn't what many people would interpret "used as a source in 30 instances" to mean. jhawkinson (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Jhawkinson, and note 2Joules was a sockpuppet. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationality: Pakistani/American

Pakkhan123 (talk · contribs) added American in the nationality column in this edit. The first source says she was a Pakistani citizen while the second source, Jihad Incorporated by Steven Emerson says "Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani citizen and US visa holder". I think Pakkhan's change isn't supported by reliable sources and have reverted it. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

ISIS reference in lede section

The ISIS reference in the lede section should be removed because it is not a prominent fact about the subject per Wikipedia guidelines. As you can see in the article, the ISIS reference does not have it's own subsection and is only mentioned in three sentences throughout the entire article. --Djrun (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis

This is not yet something that can be added to the article but as of right now today there is a hostage situation at a Texas synagogue which, supposedly, is by her brother or a relative of hers demanding her release in exchange for hostages. That said Muslims will often refer to eachother as brother and sister but not mean you know ... like literally brother and sister. So if any information regarding that comes to light it should be verifiable and conform to WP:BLP. We need to know who he is, that he is the brother of her in the common sense that is meant, her actual sibling, etc. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

News reports are out now confirming this. Ex --> https://abc11.com/colleyville-tx-synagogue-texas-hostage-situation-congregation-beth-israel-dallas/11472712/ 50.111.34.214 (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant detail in lead that may be misleading to readers

"despite her defense noting that the nine government witnesses offered conflicting accounts of how many people were in the room, where they were positioned and how many shots were fired.[19]" This is true of just about every shooting and similar event so noting this in the lead as if it dramatically undermines the prosecution is misleading. If there's any dispute in the 9 witness accounts as to whether she actually grabbed the gun and shot the person then that's obviously worthy of inclusion. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Several wiki syntax errors are displayed as partial code

such as follows:

<https...

efn|

}} /ref>.}}

I was not able to sort out via my mobile edit what's the reasons were. --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴^⍨talk 18:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mkouklis(2), thanks for spotting this! It was a single closing curly brace that was the problem. There some extensive editing happening and this was probably just overlooked in those changes. Appreciate you calling this out, the problem should be fixed now and the quote with the explanatory note displaying properly. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

A clearer image from her graduation should be used in order to provide an unbiased account for the readers, who can take in all sides in order to come to their conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The previous image was from when she was 35 instead of the image you replaced it with, where she is only 21 years old. Neither of them are clear, one is in color but that doesn't add much. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to include the a mid-life free image in the profile instead of one from youth. In this case she's also a convicted criminal from the time shortly after the previous image, but decades after the one you replaced it with. Omnibus (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In this instance there is a starker difference n image quality than just colour. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting the colour image has been part of the stable version since 2014. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The more recent B&W image of her has been the profile photograph since September 2021. Omnibus (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was changed then without discussion, and I personally don't see any merit in the change given the poor quality of the replacement image. It is pixelated almost to the point of becoming just a generic face, when the point of such an image is to identify the individual. Any replacement should be similar or better quality. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

They're both about equally pixelated on my monitor, but I'm willing to see what others think. It's as important to use a recent image (if available) as the highest possible quality one (and neither here is great quality). Omnibus (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations

I noticed this even before, but a copvios report confirmed an over dependence on a vogue source (among others) that, upon closer inspection, turns out to be a review of a book by Deborah Scroggins - far from an ideal source. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Terror enhancement

@Iskandar323: The case has been commented on in so many articles since 2010. Only few articles from the last 2 days, probably quoting each other, say the words "terror enhancement", no article from since her conviction mentions it.

Being older than two days is not part of the reliability criteria for sources. NBC is reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Here are various articles from the mentioning lack of terrorism charges and lack of "terror" being mentioned in the court, these are all sources that were detailing on the case, not written later. On 3 February 2010, Siddiqui was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder, armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and three counts of assault on US officers and employees.

References

So NBC uses the phrase "terror enhancement", which does not refer to specific charges, but sentencing enhancements. If NBC is using that word, we can only assume that the word was there in the sentencing notes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

However, the WRMEA Article mentions "Federal Charges that made no sense" and if no source said "terrorist enhancements" until the wake of the Colleyville Hostage Crisis, then we can assume that it was an assumption by the authors. Don't forget, similarly, these same sources have been calling her a "convicted terrorist" despite lack of any terrorism charge, let alone any article calling her that until the wake of the Colleyville crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Short description dispute

@NerdyGenius1: With regards to the short description, convicted felon is the main outcome of this whole story, so that is the most obvious, factual component of the short description. The suspicion of terrorism is meanwhile more or less the entire point of this whole story. The suggestion of her being a political prisoner is mentioned only once in the entire article, and that is only in the lead, which it is arguably undue on that basis, as the lead should only summarize. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your comments about terrorism suspicions not being brought to trial, this does not mean the suspicions have gone away. The trial was specifically for the assault/attempted murder, which was completely unrelated. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@NerdyGenius1: Actually, I must correct myself. This NBC news piece notes that "her sentencing included a terror enhancement", which i suppose might explain the 86 years, while the Washington Post states: "Siddiqui was convicted on terrorism charges in 2010". So actually she IS a convicted terrorist. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 The statements found in the article has been criticized by her lawyer, who has publicly released a video that she was never charged with terrorism. It seems that many recent news articles were sloppy in trying to get viewings that they failed to error check. For example, that NBC article calls her a "convicted terrorist" when none of the more established sources of information call her that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post also calls her a convicted terrorist. That's two reliable sources. Her lawyer would disagree: that's his job and the ultimate point of view perspective. He is meant to be arguing HER case!!! Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: The only sources calling her a "convicted terrorist" are from the last 2 days. I have yet to find any earlier source calling her a "convicted terrorist"

@Iskandar323: By that logic, we would have to put "terror suspect" on anyone who was suspected in the past. Moazzam Begg, etc. However, while terrorism suspicions were mentioned during her kidnapping/disappearance, the fact that they weren't notable enough for her to be charged with perhaps is indicative that it's not notable enough to be mentioned in the short description. Furthermore, prior to 9/11, she was known in the American Muslim Community for her education and activism, and she did have a neuroscience career where she'd present research. Also, her being an "alleged political prisoner" is why there's a lot of controversy around her name, so I believe it should be mentioned at least, but I'll let you respond to see if you agree.

@NerdyGenius1: See above and my recent edit. "Suspect" no longer. Convicted also. "Political prisoner" falls under the issue of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and are all point of view to some degree. But events like being placed on international lists of wanted terrorists are more concrete facts than claims of politically motivated sentencing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@NerdyGenius1 You are not entitled to remove reliably sourced material just because you take issue with it. If you want to overturn the NBC and WP as sources, your only way is to find a better source to the contrary. In addition, the NBC news piece is quite clear in noting a "terror enhancement" to the sentencing - indicating that they have quite clearly looked at the details of the case. So a reliable, secondary source that makes absolutely clear that it is referring specifically to the sentencing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Please see my contention below. It's not taking them as sources that I have an issue with, but rather that what they're saying has not been quoted by any article since her sentencing in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not my job to explain this. Perhaps pertinent court documents have later been released. Speculating on why the news stories specify the nature of these charges now but did not then is not our role. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What are currently the best 2010 sources reporting on the case? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see the 2010 NYT article, which says there were seven charges, but does not list them or mention any enhancements, and also specifically calls her a "terror suspect". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WRMEA simply described it in 2010 as "federal enhancements that didn't make sense" in their Article from December 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean "Mauri' Saalakhan", a board director of the "Aafia Foundation", who said in that piece that Aafia was "the embodiment of faith and grace"? Definitely reliable. Not. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe this was before he joined the organization, although writing the article may have caused him to join. I'm willing to be corrected, do you know when he joined? Because it seems to be after the article was written — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not the point, the WRMEA is a dubious source at best, and the article in question is an opinion piece by an advocate. This is not reliable, secondary reporting. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The only way this could be cited would be prefacing it by saying: "Human rights advocate Mauri' Saalakhan said ...", not attributing it to WRMEA. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll do that then. On that end, I think it's populating the first paragraph too much so we should probably take it to the paragraph about convictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: See my above edit, only articles (sloppily released) in the last 2 days have called her a convicted terrorist. There have been no earlier articles calling her that. There are so many articles, mentioned in this page itself. None of them mention it. Also, her advocates see her as an innocent political prisoner who never committed the crime she was accused, which is why they are advocating for her in the first place.

@NerdyGenius1 You are overstepping your remit as a Wikipedia editor. It is not your place to judge whether you think articles are "sloppy" or not, only to report what the reliable sources (both of which these are) say. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@NerdyGenius1: A couple more Wikipedia pointers. First, don't add more sources than necessary: if you have reliable, secondary sources, you don't need to reference weaker sources, such as that WRMEA piece. This is just overcitation (WP:OVERCITE). Where you have a choice, just stick to the reliable sources. Secondly, it is not Wikipedia style to use titles such as "Dr" throughout a page. They should only be used once, if at all, at the beginning of an article. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Thank you, I will try to remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've just added the NPOV tag, as recent edits in the last 24-48 hours have made this page read like talking points of her defense lawyers. There's a lot of quoting the convicted felon herself, her family, and generally her point of view. Her ability to carry out "sophisticated attacks" and such have all been deleted here under dubious circumstances (fear of "copyright violations" from a Vogue book review without adding back the quotes from the book itself). All in all, the article is in a bad state and needs to be repaired by third-party editors before the tag can be removed. Omnibus (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the most neutral perspective is by including both sides of the argument, so that the readers can make their own decisions. Her status as a "Convicted felon" should not be the only narrative, as per America's history of wrongful convictions, which millions of people are claiming this to be. I believe in order to be truly neutral, we need to consider wrongful convictions as a possibility.

@Omnibus: According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the guidelines are: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. which means that since the conviction has been maintained by multiple groups as mentioned by reliable sources as a wrongful, we need to keep the conviction as an opinion and the accusation of wrongful conviction as an opposing opinion, as both are mentioned in reliable sources. Also mentioned is Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views which is why I'm providing both views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree there are significant undue weight issues with the amount of fawning over this person, the majority of which appears to have been added by a single editor. FDW777 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

On "whitewashing"

There has been no whitewashing whatsoever. Conditions to maintain neutrality include "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" which this article does adequately by providing both the American Narrative and the Narratives of Pakistan and the Muslim World. This can all be found on Wikipedia:POV that keeps these 2 as the conditions. In order to remain neutral, we must avoid bias, whether it's Pro-Pakistan or Pro-American. As Wikipedia Editors, we must be as unbiased as possible, giving all perspectives, being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

At least 5 editors have said that you are whitewashing what was a stable page. There's clearly an issue with your edits.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As in the section above, there are significant undue weight issues with this article, with the viewpoint protesting her supposed innocence being given far too much promincence in the lead, and repeatedly so. The entire lead needs to be stripped of the many quotes that don't appear in the main body for starters. FDW777 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777 However, her innocence claims are the reason behind current affairs and what makes her considered as important. This page would be considered as stable regardless. We as editors are giving undue weight to the American Sources and not enough to the Pakistani Sources and other sources giving alternative narratives. We must make sure our biases don't become obstacles. Bipartisan Narratives aren't whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: I understand, I will strip off as many quotes as possible, while still maintaining a pattern of giving the neeutral account both sides agree on, followed by the Government Narrative then the Pakistani/Muslim/Pro-Aafia Narrative. Because we need to be as bipartisan as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: Mentioning both sides of the story isn't "whitewashing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Love of Corey The Editors and I have all had a discussion on what constitutes unbiased narrative, and we have discussed that I am to trim all the quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That was a bare minimum starting point, it certainly was not the totality of the problems with your edits. FDW777 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot has been added to the lead that isn't in the body of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

She is considered innocent by an "international network of activists" so include that narrative

Mentioning both sides is important for an unbiased view, not just the official American Government Narrative but also the alternate narratives about her. We need to remember that she is also considered by many as an innocent political prisoner, causing many protests on her behalf, as reported here and here. This position is "held from Pakistan to North Texas". She has the support of an "international network of activists who say she is innocent and are demanding her release". This isn't just a Pakistani view, but a view held internationally. Malik Faisal Akram thought she was framed, as reported by Paragraph 3 of the section added on 6:50 p.m. ET, January 15, 2022, As well as according to a recording Reproduced here, and in the article, as well as in the 8th paragraph of the second section here. The word "Framed" is literally used. Analysts mention that "Siddiqui's conviction in 2010 embodied the injustices of the post-9/11 US judicial system" Therefore, we should include that.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

The Pakistani position is covered in the last 2 paragraphs of the lead and has an entire section. The "many protests" cited seem to be neither many, large, significant, widely covered, etc. ("Dozens of protesters" is nothing). The opinion of Malik Faisal Akram is not mentioned due to lack of notability; however, the Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis (which he caused) is mentioned in the last paragraph of the "Attacks, threats, and exchange offers" section. TRT World does not seem to be a very reliable source.

However, after looking into this at length, it does seem that significant support may extend beyond Pakistan and militant organizations into some of the Islamic world in general. For example, it has been reported that the Council on American-Islamic Relations supports her release; and a number of sources refer to her as having “iconic status” in some parts of the Muslim world.

- Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything that can't be covered by the addition of a few words to an existing sentence. I wholly object to the addition of lots of quotes claiming innocence, when the net effect is to completely unbalance the article. FDW777 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: Re: "TRT World" One of the analysts quoted in the TRT World Article is "a researcher at the University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute" as well as "British Journalists Yvonne Ridley" so even if you consider TRT unreliable as a Turkish State-Backed Source, this article itself has nothing to do with Turkish Politics. In fact, American Corporate Media has been criticized by Academics and Analysts as "the news media have been active participants in propagating the framing" referring to the manufactured consent behind Bush's foreign policy around the same time they reported on Dr. Aafia. Furthermore, what makes the State-Backed TRT World any less reliable than the Qatari-backed Al Jazeera, British-backed BBC News, French-backed France 24, or German-backed Deutsche Welle? The criticisms I can find are from MEMRI's executive director.NerdyGenius1 (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking why Turkish state-backed media is less reliable than the Western European press? In short, because most Western European countries to some degree uphold the principle of the freedom of the press. Turkey does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Firstly, regardless of this, I see no reason why Turkey would have a role in this situation regarding a matter concerning a Pakistani Citizen in America, particularly when TRT has reported both sides of the issue, with an Anti-Aafia Article as well as a Pro-Aafia Article

There is a difference between culturally biased media (universal) and state-censored media. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: of what value is the difference when Academics in the University of Texas have pointed out that many Post-9/11 articles of Corporate American News Media as "active participants in propagating the framing" to justify Bush's Post-9/11 Policies, especially when some of these articles, alleging Dr. Aafia as "Lady Al-Qaeda" have been criticized by an Expert from the University of St Andrews in the UK as "narratives were rooted in a gendered form of neo-Orientalism that informed and structured the War on Terror" and how these corporate media narratives "reveal the uncertainties within the War on Terror, particularly those related to American exceptionalism." I say this with utmost confidence, but a foreign Article, even an Political-Islamist Based Source, may be as reliable or even more reliable than the Post-9/11 Allegations of her being "Lady Al-Qaeda" which were never brought to court, particularly considering how many of these false allegations exist, considering that "most guantanamo detainies have been innocent" according to this source and others (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Stop wasting time here and just familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on sources. There is a lack of consensus that TRT World is reliable at WP:RS/PS, especially for subjects where it might have a conflict of interest. This could well include subjects pertaining to the interaction between Islam and the West. Just find a less contentious source. Something GREEN on the list. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RS/PS, "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough" end there has been no established ways that the Turkish government could have a conflict of interest regarding this case, and the fact that they posted both a Pro-Aafia and Anti-Aafia Article on shows the lack of conflict of interest with the Turkish Government, making this a "Miscellaneous Case"(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

A major component of Erdogan's politics is his appeal to pan-Islamism, so when you see Turkish media trumpeting the cause of a convicted felon under the premise that a Western superpower is locking up innocent muslims, that is Turkish politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: TRT literally also posted a previous article echoing Western Sentiments. This is another article by the same source. On the former Article, TRT takes a rather Anti-Aafia Stance. On the Latter, TRT takes a Pro-Aafia Stance. So which one of these 2 TRT articles is Turkish Politics? Pro-Aafia or Anti-Aafia? Which is Turkish politics? TRT posted both(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

The problem is that TRT is not the most reliable. Just find a better source. Simple. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I have opened a new section to discuss this topic (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

The article should say what proportion of Pakistanis think she's innocent, as well as which prominent/powerful people say she is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No poll (which is the only method available) could reliably establish a proportion like this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolution 399 of the Pakistani Senate was Unanimously passed, which disapproves of Dr. Aafia being held in America and recommends her return to Pakistan at the earliest. This, along with how numerous politicians have made it a campaign promise, shows how widespread the alternative perspective is in Pakistan, at both the Political and Populational Level (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Ok, that's great. Now find a reliable, secondary source reporting this as notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Repatriation is the process whereby a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment in one country may be able to serve the balance of their sentence in their country of origin. Nothing necessarily to do with whether someone is innocent or not, it's common practice for countries to want their citizens to serve a prison sentence in their own country rather than a foreign country. FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Background section

Why does the section at Aafia Siddiqui#Background exist? It's effectively a second lead, right after the first lead. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a summary of the below content. I've seen it on occasion. Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue that FDW777 is raising is that it is redundant, what's the purpose?Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it seems to be a summary of the below content and I've seen it before, so I believe there might be a purpose behind it. But you're free to remove it if you think it's really not that needed; I'm neutral to the whole thing. Love of Corey (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I know it's a summary of the content below, but that's what the lead is supposed to be. I'll be removing it unless there are any objections, if anyone thinks any of the content from there needs to be added to the lead they are welcome to do so. FDW777 (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd just be careful to check that you don't accidentally removed any facts that are only mentioned there. There shouldn't be any of these, as it is clearly intended as a summary, but this article is so badly structured, that's not the reality. For instance, the parts about a thumb drive seems to only be mentioned there. Stuff like this should probably be moved to where it's relevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed completely, should anyone wish to salvage anything from the section it can be seen here. Regarding the thumb drive, one reference was behind a paywall, the New York Times didn't mention it, and Bloomberg say she was carrying papers relating to various incriminating subjects, then followed it up with She also carried a computer thumb drive but without saying what was allegedly on it. So I was hesitant about adding to the sentence In a bag she was carrying, the police found a number of documents in English and Urdu since it wasn't verifiable that the thumb drive contained similar material to the paper documents. FDW777 (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ... the bit about four British Lords protesting it appears to have been unique to that section too ... not sure how all the most interesting details are missing from the rest of the page. It's simultaneously the most overwritten and most underwritten biography I think I've seen. There are subjects of actual importance with a fraction of the bytes. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I believe the thumb drive is covered later, just not by that term. I believe a one-gigabyte digital media storage device that contained over 500 electronic documents (including correspondence referring to attacks by "cells", describing the US as an enemy, and discussing recruitment of jihadists and training) covers it? FDW777 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 2023/06/02