Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:30, 11 May 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aafia Siddiqui article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Aafia Siddiqui is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aafia Siddiqui article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

800-pound gorilla in the bedroom

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

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

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

Occupation??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institute of Islamic Research and Teaching

I just merged the above stub here, incorporating the one fact which wasn't in this article. The organisation's notability is by virtue of its being created by Siddiqui. There is precious little to indicate that it is a notable organisation in its own right; I see no use being served by having the repetition of biographical details. I have therefore merged it per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 01:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me, Oh. Otherwise, it is just unnecessary forking. Greg L (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• I don't care either way. If there is reason to think that there is additional material on it that reflects its notability, either on-line or in print, which has not yet been reflected in the article --then it would do little harm to let it stay. But if it is believed that such material does not exist, a redirect is the better course. I don't know enough to say, and it seems a relatively trivial issue in the broad scheme of things, so I don't care either way.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2004, U.N. investigators identified her as an al-Qaeda member, and the FBI said she was a "terrorist facilitator" and listed her as one of the seven "most wanted" al-Qaeda fugitives. Changed to:

In 2004, witnesses in a UN war-crimes-tribunal meeting held in Serria Leone identified her as an al-Qaeda member.

Because:

Source article says witnesses, not "investigators," identified he as an al-Qaeda member. Also FBI did not refer to her as terrorist facilitator; article states: "Aafia Siddiqui, the witnesses seemed to be saying, wasn’t just an ‘operator and facilitator’-she was the Mata Hari of al-Qaeda." Also no where in the article does it say FBI listed her as one of the seven most wanted al-Qaeda fugitives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.178.112 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes Siddiqui notable

I find that this edit falsely claims POV-pushing while doing just that: POV-pushing. In the extreme. What is notable about Siddiqui is not properly encompassed by this first sentence:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist.

That above first sentence (she’s a neuroscientist) comes up far short of encyclopedically describing her. Just because the reader can wade through several more paragraphs to understand the totality of what she is about is no excuse for not trying to best capture her notability in the first, most important sentence. What makes her notable is far better encompassed by the following first sentence:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist who was the subject of an international, terrorism-related manhunt involving weapons of mass destruction. She was captured and ultimately was convicted of attempted murder and related charges in connection with an incident during one of her interrogations.

Just because the government could expediently try her on attempted murder charges and that is all she was convicted of is not what truly made her notable. Some lady captured in Pakistan who went ape during an interrogation and shot at her interrogators would not, by itself, garner so much worldwide attention. In fact, this revised sentence precisely captures all the pertinent facts of what makes her notable. Greg L (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's rich. Really -- looking at it, set out above, it's downright laughable. One of course surely gets the sense from that first diff that the U.S. Attorney General called her the most wanted woman in the world, an al-Qaeda facilitator who posed a clear and present danger to the U.S., and that the U.S. listed her among the seven "most wanted" al-Qaeda fugitives.

"Or ... perhaps the editor believes she is really more notable for being a neuro-scientist. Hysterical. Man, I needed a laugh today. Is Causa really back?

Clearly the first sentence can only be attributable to one of the following: an extraordinary and shameless POV, the editor being an extreme newbie, or the editor being well under the age of majority (we do allow those in, sadly). In the absence of misspellings, I tend to assume the last is not the case, but given AgF I will assume that the editor is a newbie, and suggest that such edits are not appropriate. What is most notable goes in the first sentence, not what is least notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• We’re getting closer, Ohconfucius. Thanks for stepping in and tying to middle-road here. But I think that having a first sentence rich with “MIT” and “Ph.D.” (what, no Nobel prize?) can be improved with a bit more of what really made her notable. Greg L (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the established old version

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) alumna and Brandeis University Ph.D., and mother of three, she had disappeared in March 2003. Her disappearance followed the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, alleged chief planner of the September 11 attacks and the uncle of her second husband, and the subsequent issue by the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of a global "wanted for questioning" alert for her. In 2004, witnesses in a UN war-crimes-tribunal meeting held in Serria Leone identified her as an al-Qaeda member. The charges against her stem solely from the shooting incident itself, not from any alleged act of terrorism, nor from conspiring with or giving comfort to terrorists.

What looks more balanced and less POV than any other new version from both sides. I suggest to stop POV pushing and to go back to this old version. Sure from there we can discuss and tweak some details. IQinn (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• What is less POV goes back further than that. She is not notable because she is a neuroscientist. She is not notable because she is an MIT alumna. She is not notable because she is a Brandeis Ph.D. She is not notable because she is a mother of three. And her disappearance was only notable at all because of what is not said in those first two sentences -- that the U.S. Attorney General called her the most wanted woman in the world and a clear and present danger to the U.S., and that the U.S. listed her among the seven "most wanted" al-Qaeda fugitives. Now, that's something not every mother of three has on her resume. And, of course, her other claim to notability relates to her conviction of attempted murder, etc., and the circumstances related thereto ... which not every neuroscientist can lay claim to as well. This is way beyond absurd POV-pushing.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Epeefleche. I find that Iqinn is trying to hide behind the apron strings by claiming that perfectly encyclopedic prose that truly describes the issue is POV-pushing. That tactic won’t work—not in the long run, anyway. What I remembered of Siddiqui was that she had plans for the murder of thousands of people in her purse when captured. When I first came to this article a month or so ago, I was convinced I must have been thinking about someone else. Then I did an in-page search for poison, and the truly germane bits were buried way down near the bottom of the article. Greg L (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the version of what it looked like (I believe I have the right one) before POV-pushing became an art form in these parts:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani Muslim neuroscientist, accused of being an al-Qaeda member. In February 2010, she was convicted in New York City of assault with a deadly weapon, and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who were seeking to interrogate her.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) alumna and Brandeis University Ph.D., and mother of three, she had disappeared in March 2003. Her disappearance followed the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, alleged chief planner of the September 11 attacks and the uncle of her second husband, and the subsequent issuance by the FBI of a global "wanted for questioning" alert for her. In 2004, U.N. investigators identified her as an al-Qaeda member, and the FBI said she was a "terrorist facilitator" and listed her as one of the seven "most wanted" al-Qaeda fugitives.

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. Siddiqui was charged with two counts of attempted murder, armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and three counts of assault on U.S. officers and employees. She was convicted in February 2010, in a Manhattan court, on all counts. She faces a minimum sentence of 30 years and a maximum of life in prison on the firearm charge, and could also get up to 20 years for each attempted murder and firearms charge, and up to 8 years on each of the remaining assault counts when she is sentenced on May 6, 2010.

Siddiqui's sister and mother have asserted that she does not have any connection to al-Qaeda, that the U.S. secretly detained her for five years, and that she was tortured and raped, all claims that the U.S. and Pakistan deny. After her conviction, thousands of people protested in Pakistan, and the Taliban threatened to kill a captured American soldier in retaliation.

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• The old version is balanced and includes all aspects of notability and major topics of the article.

That's the version i am speaking about.

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) alumna and Brandeis University Ph.D., and mother of three, she had disappeared in March 2003. Her disappearance followed the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, alleged chief planner of the September 11 attacks and the uncle of her second husband, and the subsequent issue by the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of a global "wanted for questioning" alert for her. In 2004, witnesses in a UN war-crimes-tribunal meeting held in Serria Leone identified her as an al-Qaeda member. The charges against her stem solely from the shooting incident itself, not from any alleged act of terrorism, nor from conspiring with or giving comfort to terrorists.

I respect your personal opinion and POV but this is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to cut out all other POV's that are present in this version and i highly suggest to go back to this version and to tweak details from there. IQinn (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Iquinn -- we've been down this road with you before. You can't just throw letters around that are inapplicable the way you use them. You're not applying NPOV. You're applying BS. What makes her notable is clearly not what you are trying to push as what made her notable. You're comments are utterly absurd.

The version I reflected above is from about a month ago. With input from a number of editors, it was still quite stable over months. I now look back at the page and see highly POV edits that are completely improper have crept in, and you as in the past make no discernible effort to explain your edits other than to claim POV. When any intelligent editor can see that NPOV requires reflecting as notable that which she was notable for. If you really think she is more notable for having three children than for her attempted murder conviction and being the U.S.'s most wanted AQ woman, we have a problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleche -- Your comment here is 100 % ad hominum and uncivil and you had better read WP:Civil ten times. To go back to and old established version after extensive POV pushing from both sides that border edit warring, that is utterly absurd? I beg your pardon but to take some of your words that i usually would not use. That has the smell of BS. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Iquinn, I find your accusations of “gross violation of WP:NPOV” to be utterly absurd. Please throttle back on your hyperbole jets and let them cool; they’re steaming right now. I find that you seem adept at using all sorts of Wiki-talk in an attempt to circumvent common sense. What made Siddiqui notable is certainly not encapsulated in this first sentence:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist.

Nor is what makes her notable properly encapsulated with this first sentence:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist educated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a Brandeis University Ph.D.

Nor this one:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist educated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a Brandeis University Ph.D. She used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, adopted stray puppies, and exhales carbon dioxide, which is good for plants.

What is clearly more encyclopedic, so far as having a lead that instantly captures that which describes her and discloses what made her notable, is this:

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist educated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a Brandeis University Ph.D. She was the subject of an international, terrorism-related manhunt involving weapons of mass destruction. Siddiqu was captured in Pakistan and ultimately convicted of attempted murder and related charges in connection with an incident during one of her interrogations.

But, what Ohconfucius just slapped up…

Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Pakistani-American neuroscientist educated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a Brandeis University Ph.D. She was the subject of an international, terrorism-related manhunt, and was named one of seven 'most wanted' by the FBI.

…works for me too. It’s a different way of accomplishing the task, in that it gives a proper, TV-murder-mystery “hook” in the first paragraph that rather reasonably describes how this isn’t your basic woman who just happen to shoot-up some interrogators. That first paragraph leads readers to the following paragraph, which quite properly discloses how she had all that stuff in her purse. That is what makes her really stand out. I can imagine no other woman who has documents for “Ebola, dirty bombs, and radiological agents, and handwritten notes referring to a ‘mass casualty attack’ ” in her purse (oh, that silly ol’ stuff!). Yes. It is highly germane and must be easy to find. Misplaced Pages is famous for its pithy, to-the-point leads. Greg L (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just your personal POV based on bogus false accusations and leaving out the opposite view. The whole article could not be more biased and has even the smell of paid propaganda. Surely a big loss for the Misplaced Pages when articles can be hijacked like this. IQinn (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference TIME1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference emma was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference indi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. "A.S. Indictedment" United States Department of Justice
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Harpers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. ^ "Aafia Siddiqui Found Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court of Attempting to Murder U.S. Nationals in Afghanistan and Six Additional Charges" (PDF). Press Release. U.S. Department of Justice. February 3, 2010. Retrieved February 14, 2010.
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference DerSpiegel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference alleg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference comp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Ed Pilkington in New York. "Pakistani scientist found guilty of attempted murder of US agents | World news". The Guardian. Retrieved April 10, 2010.
11. "Lady Al Qaeda' Aafia Siddiqui convicted of attempted murder". The New York Times. February 3, 2010. Retrieved February 4, 2010.
12. Cite error: The named reference OneIndia2010-02-05 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. "A.S. Indictedment" United States Department of Justice

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Mid-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles