Talk:Aafia Siddiqui

February 2007

On 17 April 1993 she used the email address aafia@Athena.MIT.EDU 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)