Talk:Aafia Siddiqui

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.