Jump to content

Talk:Aafia Siddiqui

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anurag Garg (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 11 February 2010 (Undid revision 343340675 by 94.9.79.88 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Children?

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

Date of attempted murder

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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... ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

done Wikireader41 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aafia_Siddiqui&oldid=343348244"