Talk:Aafia Siddiqui

brilliant prose

I came here to comment this article is clear, balanced and very well written. How beautiful is wikipedians' work, a gift to humanity! --200.19.175.4 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory citizenship claims

Is she a U.S. citizen or Pakistani? Both claims are in the article now. I'm going to remove them both because they are unreferenced. Feel free to put one back if you can find a WP:RS. Thundermaker (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search on gnews and gbooks yields harmonious results. Pakistani. U.S. visa.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed overlinking from lead

I removed a few overlinks from the lead - either because they did not support the statements they followed or because they were simply not necessary - e.g. to support non controversial statements such as the fact she faced life in prison or that she got a sentence of 86 years. There are multiple other such overlinks, which I will check later. KeptSouth (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP

I remove the image from the infobox because it violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG. Another editor did not take this BLP concerns serious and reverted the inappropriate image back with an edit summary that does not address the concern and does not make much sense.

"This is being used"

Please explain and discuss. IQinn (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Iquinn hopped from another dispute, a few minutes ago, over to starting this one. He removed this long-standing image—writing as his edit summary "remove as per WP:MUG".

As he presumably knows, since he cited to it, wp:mug says in pertinent part: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light."

I restored the image, w/the edit summary "This is being used". The words "... in context, as her criminal charges, penalties, and status also appear in the infobox" appear to have been truncated; apologies for that computer glitch.

Iquinn seems to think that, at least when people accused of being terrorists and convicted of crimes are concerned (that's where we seem to meet), wp:mug requires that no mug shots or composite wanted images be used. He is incorrect. wp:mug clearly applies to images being used "out of context". This, in contrast, is used in context.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

* I agree with Epeefleche. The image serves to illustrate the subject in question, is the product of the FBI and is therefore free use, and there is no reasonable expectation that another free picture can be used. Merely stating that the use of the photo to illustrate the individual by citing because it violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG is no good at all; how does the use of a photo violate Wikipedia’s policies? I assume IQinn is referring specifically to the WP:MUG section of WP:BLP. However, it states as follows:

“ Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy. ”

That is intended to cover unflattering booking photos like this James Brown booking photo or this one of Lindsay Lohan. To use unflattering photos of such celebrities when there are lots of free-use alternatives in those articles (see our Lindsay Lohan article) is to unnecessarily besmirch their reputation. In the case of Aafia Siddiqui, she has no reputation to besmirch because she is notable only for her infamy. Were it not that she was on the FBI’s Most Wanted list and were it not for the fact that she shot up some soldiers, there would be no article on her.

And finally, the argument that this picture “casts her in an unflattering light” is specious and doesn’t hold water. It looks like a passport photo and, although the image was used as part of an FBI Most Wanted poster, this image is not of the poster with its “MOST WANTED” text (which would be unnecessarily inflammatory) but shows only the photo itself.

Bottom line, the objection of IQinn has been noted and has been soundly rejected as unsupportable on the facts and on Wikipedia policy. There is now a consensus to undo his deletion of the picture and I will do so in a moment. I caution IQinn, who has a long and distinguished record of editing articles in favor of Islamic extremists [I’ve looked at iQuinn’s pattern of edits before and—just pardon me all over the place for noting here what my opinion is—but it appears to me he has a pattern of editing articles in favor of Islamic extremists. I caution him] to not follow his own threat in his edit summary (∆ edit, here), which read (BLP removed as per WP:MUG see talk and do not reinsert until the dispute is resolved). The dispute doesn’t have to be resolved to IQinn’s satisfaction, it need only be resolved by consensus. Now resolved per consensus. IQinn has sorely misapplied what WP:MUG is about and his bias in this regard is palpable.

If IQinn wants this photo deleted because he somehow finds it “casts her in an unflattering light”, he can first go find a more flattering one of her to replace it. Greg L (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

completely agree with Epeefleche and Greg L. she is a convicted felon and a suspected al-qaeda terrorist.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche it would be helpful not to put words in my mouth i never said or thought and Greg and Wikireader41 it would be helpful not to agree to something i have never said.

This image in the infobox reduced the individual of this biography to a FBI created Facial composite and presents her in a false light. It is not an image of her, it is an artificial facial composite created by the FBI. It shows how the FBI thought she might look like and does not represent the individual of this biography. And no matter what you personally think about Dr. Siddiqui WP:BLP, WP:MUG does apply to her equally as to all other individuals on Wikipedia with no exception. We take BLP very serious. Here are a few images of Dr. Siddiqui. [1], [2], [3] - IQinn (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• P.S. Good for you. Now go contact the editors of those papers and get them to put their images into the public domain so they can be used here. You can find the procedures for doing so starting at our main page. Perhaps you can find one of her when she was 16 years old, had pony tails in her hair, and was washing the feet of orphans. I’m not sure that would best illustrate the individual given what made her notable, but that would sure be more flattering. The trouble is, the only question is whether this one is unnecessarily unflattering. It isn’t; I’ve seen more unflattering passport photos. And it’s free and in the public domain. When I went back to undo IQinn’s POV-pushing, I found that another editor, User:Wikireader41 undid IQinn (∆ edit, here). I caution IQinn (again) to not edit against consensus. The consensus is clear and he is overruled. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

right now this picture is the best we have. If we can find a better picture in public domain i would have no problems replacing it. IMO it looks exactly like her & is not a composite. please do not add tags just to make a point and Iquinn get over your problem with accepting consensus. this is not the first time you have indulgesd in such pointy behaviour. --Wikireader41 (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove POV tags until the dispute has been solved and all involved editor agree to do so. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

please do not place unnnecessay tags before discussing here and building consensus. we know you are upset at being over ruled about the picture here. please read WP:POINT and desist from putting tags that are not warranted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Wiki (for the most part--and most certainly w/his removal of Iqinn's remarkably POINTy tag) and w/Greg here, and stand on what we all said above. And agree that Iqinn's tagging of the article, when every single editor who commented on this point disagreed w/him, was tendentious and disruptive. We don't tag-bomb articles to mar them, simply because we have a non-consensus view. I would ask him politely to avoid disruptive/tendentious editing in the future. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

False accusations that do not address the content issue. If you constantly remove the POV tag you can be sure you are in a dispute and the tag should stay until the conditions for removal, listed below are met. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the content issue

Wikireader41 in reply to your last content focused reply. 1) You do not address all arguments i gave. 2) That we to not have another image is no justification to use one that shows the individual in a false light. 3) The image is a doubtless a Facial composite. IQinn (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• We’re done. The consensus is clear. Stop harping because no one is required now to respond to you. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Greg L first of all as you think that i am editing articles in a islamic terrorism manner i suggest you stay out of this debate. It is clear that you are not interested in discussing the relevant points. 2) My arguments have been shown that the image shows the individual in a false light and that it violates WP:BLP and needs to be removed. Discussions are not decided based on possible meatpuppet votes and edit warring (just to mention for the newbies) rather they are decided on valuating the given arguments. Valid counter arguments have not been provided so that we have to assume that i am right and the image needs to be removed. IQinn (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is iQuin’s {IDONTLIKEIT} tag necessary?

I note the {IDONTLIKEIT} tag at the top of the article, which iQuin put there just minutes after being overruled on the inclusion of a picture (∆ edit, here). Terrorism-related articles often have those. This is a high-profile article that has had the benefit of vigorous tug of war by both sides of the camp and is amply cited. I don’t see the need for the tag one bit. Note that the litmus test for whether the tag stays there is not whether there is an editor who is dissatisfied with the tenor of the article and wants to be a hold-out, but whether there is a consensus to have the tag or not. Ergo…

• Delete tag As I stated above, this is a high-profile article that has had the benefit of vigorous tug of war by both sides of the camp and is amply cited. I don’t see the need for the tag one bit. It was put there by IQuin minutes ago after he didn’t get his way with a photo. That is disruptive editing and is just editwarring by different means on the same issue. This sort of disruption may be met with sanctions if he persists. (This just after he whines at my talk page about my alleging he has a history of POV-pushing.) (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete tag completely unwarranted as he is upset about the picture and unwilling to accept consensus against removing it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete tag. Per above discussion. Iqinn -- please desist w/your disruptive, against consensus, POINTy edit-warring. I note that Iqinn has been blocked for edit-warring about tags in the past, and would request that he stop doing so here, so as to avoid a possible similar result. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I try not to weigh in on these terrorism-related articles because one has to jump through so many hoops and red tape to deal with tendentious editors because they are so profoundly motivated. If he does much more of this sort of thing (editwarring via {IDONTLIKEIT} tags after a consensus does not go his way, someone give me a holler and we will see about dealing with the root of the problem. Greg L (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment False accusations that do not address or solve the content issue. IQinn (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a POV and there is no consensus needed to add the tag. What is needed according to our rules is listed here:

When to remove:

1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.

None of this is given so i re-add the tag. And i suggest you stop edit warring about the tag as this is just a proof that this tag is needed until these criteria have been met. Thank you very much. IQinn (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

the consensus is overwhelming that the article has no problems as it is and it does not need a tag. It would be impossible to get ALL editors to agree with anything on WP. this place works by consensus. please remove the tag yourself and submit to the consensus.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, what is wrong with you today, IQuinn? Right in the tag is text that reads “Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” And when you follow that link, you are taken to Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute?. And what does it say? This: …you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. That is the only applicable standard. The consensus is clear to delete the tag. So it will be deleted again. If you put it back, you are editwarring against consensus. Your allegation that “all editors involved in the article have to agree to remove it” is utter nonsense. Please don’t do that again. I wish you well with your other edits. Greg L (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And Iquin read Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Constructive tagging. I quote "Especially in the case of a tag such as NPOV, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed." you never started a discussion about NPOV on this talk page and indulged in drive by tagging to make a point.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted you the rules for the POV tag above. If you want to change policies than that is not the right place here. None of the criteria for removal are given and your edit warring about a POV tag is a waste of time. Better you stop removing it and let's come back to the content issue. IQinn (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Provide a link to these rules. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

and have you even tried to read the section the link to which I have provided. please also provide a link to where you got these rules that you are talking about so that we can get them fixed. you are the one edit warring here nobody else. glad you now think it is a waste of time.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Iqinn left out some relevant points.

First , Template:POV usage notes say "This template should not be used as a badge of shame." Given that we already had discussion about the issue that is the crux of this matter, and consensus was against Iqinn, and then he decided to tag it, we have a bit of quacking going on that suggests that what the template tells Iqinn to avoid is precisely what he did. He should not have applied the tag in the first place.

Second, the usage notes say: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view.". That is not the case here, as demonstrated by the above discussion, and therefore the template should not have been applied in the first place.

Third, the template tells us that placing the tag on an article may be tendentious. That is certainly the case here. Iqinn should understand that this tag is not a carte blanche for him to mar an article with a badge of shame, simply because he is upset that every single editor (i.e., consensus) disagrees with his suggestion that there is any POV issue at all here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Edit warring Greg again deleted the POV tag against our rules. He engages himself in ridiculous edit warring over a POV tag what simply shows that he is in an dispute where the tag is needed. Against our rules for the tag: (from the Wikipedia POV tag page)

When to remove:

1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.

None of this is given IQinn (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn’t provide a link. I seriously doubt anything on Wikipedia says “All editors involved have to agree to remove it.” That sounds like horse pucky. As I wrote above, the only controlling policy is provided right in the tag and it says there must only be a consensus to remove the tag. And finally, quoting IQuinn: Better you stop removing it and let's come back to the content issue.. No This is a tactic that tendentious editors are fond of. They loose a consensus on an issue and then resort to {IDONTLIKEIT} tags in a vain hope to force protracted discussion until they get satisfaction. Tags may not be used that way. The consensus is clear. The issue is done. If IQuinn continues to edit against consensus and editwar via varying tactics, he may not like the outcome one bit. BTW Don’t change the title of this section again. I started it as “Is iQuin’s {IDONTLIKEIT} tag necessary?” and it stays that way. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn -- as demonstrated above, in this string, you failed to meet the criteria for applying the tag in the first place. As such, it was properly removed. The template is not a carte blanch for you to mar an article -- even for a few days -- where you are simply reacting to the fact that editors unanimously disagree with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

His Back to the content issue subsection, above, shows that he is accustomed to using editwarring tactics like this to force others to deal with him until the heat death of the universe. It doesn’t work that way. The consensus is that the picture of Siddiqui stays. Loosing that one, he then resorted to an {IDONTLIKEIT} tag. The consensus was to get rid of the tag, which right in the tag was the link showing that the tag is to be removed when there is a consensus to do so. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)