Talk:Aafia Siddiqui/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Using TRT as a source

According to WP:RS/PS, "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough" end there has been no established ways that the Turkish government could have a conflict of interest regarding this case, and the fact that they posted both an Anti-Aafia Article and a Pro-Aafia Article Article on shows the lack of conflict of interest with the Turkish Government, making this a "Miscellaneous Case" and hence reliable according to the consensus reported (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

This insertion of your own personal opinions about what content is pro- or anti- a subject is precisely why you have been blocked from editing this page. You are looking at the subject as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Incidentally, your "anti-Aafia" piece is basically just a factual summary, without any clear leaning. Critically, it is also not TRT material - it has no author and if you hover your mouse over all the embedded links, you will see that it is simply a summary of statements from reliable sources - precisely the sort of sources you should yourself be referencing. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

By "Pro-Aafia" I refer to sources that include her side of the story, by "Anti-Aafia" I refer to sources that don't include her side of the story. This isn't my opinion. Now, you claimed earlier that TRT May be influenced by Erdogan's Pan-Islamism, causing them to portray her as innocent. If this was true, they would neither post nor reproduce an article that doesn't contain her side of the story. Even if it is not TRT material, it still is posted on their website, and the fact that that's the case shows that there isn't some "Government-Influenced Operation to portray her as innocent", as they reproduced an article that doesn't contain her side of the story. Unless you can demonstrate beyond conjecture that there is a conflict of interest, I maintain that TRT is not against the guidelines. I say this not to argue, but simply to point out that quoting TRT does not contradict the guidelines set forth by WP:RS/PS. (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

The world is full of convicted criminals in denial about their guilt (see WP:MANDY), a publication leaving out that denial is meaningless. FDW777 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the point still stands that there is no credible evidence that TRT's posting on this falls under a conflict of interest. Unless any reasonable evidence can be provided that it falls under a "conflict of interest" it shouldn't be treated as such. Their first article can be seen as evidence against Turkish "conflict of interest" (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Why would TRT or the Turkish gov's opinions/statements be relevant? Jim Michael (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an allegation that TRT is unreliable because someway somehow Erdogan's political opinions influenced TRT to post an article for Aafia, ignoring that they posted a previous article not containing her side of the story. There has been an accusation of a conflict of interest that has not been substantiated NerdyGenius1 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why include anything about the Turkish view of her, from any source? Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a Turkish view of her. The article quotes a researcher at the University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute as well as a Journalist who has been investigating her since her disappearance/kidnapping in 2003. You can the article to understand how it may serve as a valuable source. (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

You mean Tallha Abdulrazaq, the regular contributor to TRT? Yes, it looks like they really went far outside of their comfort zone to find an independent, neutral, third-party subject-matter export on this sensitive topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

They also quote Yvonne Ridley, but I find no evidence of her being a contributor. Regardless, even if he is, does that dispute his qualifications? Does that dispute that he is a researcher at the University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute? And how exactly does that make this Turkish Politics, which is the whole basis of this dispute? (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Yvonne Ridley is not a "he", and would appear to be a long way from neutral on this subject. Anyway, what exactly is the proposed edit? If it's just another quote along the lines of Siddiqui being innocent then no, since we don't need to add every single person that's said so. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Excuse my typo. I believe this was regarding the previous section mentioning maintaining an unbiased viewpoint retaining both sides of this, which led to a whole argument regarding TRT's reliability in this context for which I opened up a new section.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

@FDW777: Yes, Yvonne Ridley ... "Among her controversial opinions is that the Chechen terrorist leader and architect of the Beslan school massacre, Shamil Basayev, was a 'shaheed' i.e. Islamic martyr." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure every journalist has some controversial opinions... regardless, the topic is that TRT as a source does not contradict Wikipedia guidelines in this specific context.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Now you're just backpedaling because yes, this is a terrible look. No, most decent journalists don't go about in their free time praising those who plan mass killings as martyrs to their cause. I implore you to stop digging this hole of yours any deeper. Why defend TRT? Just find a less terrible source. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't backpedaling, simply questioning the relevance. Once again, I am simply imploring that you respect the guidelines set forth in WP:RS/PS, "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough" (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

This is not about Turkish politics; it's about the quality of TRT as a source. Another word for a PhD researcher at a university is a student. Better would be a security expert with some career experience. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines mentioned on WP:RS/PS regarding TRT. I would suggest crtl+Fing it. You'll find that it doesn't contradict the guidelines (Also, many online sources I found call him Dr. Tallha Abdulrazaq, meaning he got his PhD by now?) (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

You don't seem to get it. Even if TRT was considered generally reliable by Wikipedia consensus (which it isn't), we have now assessed this individual piece and found it quoting the platform's own regular contributors and a source with a history of apologetics for acts of terror. This makes the article in question useless crap regardless. In fact, this is so bad, I'm tempted to re-open the discussion on the quality of TRT as a source in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps restarting a conversation on TRT as a source in general may be beneficial. Not using them in this case is not respecting the WP:RS/PS guidelines, but if you can renegotiate those guidelines, that will bring another example. Also, as a tangent, there are those that can qualify American and Western Actions overseas as "Mass Killings", so should every journalist praising the perpetrators be condemned? Not defending what she said, but simply coming at it from a more "overseas" perspective. (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

In case it's not clear, an Islamic martyr is someone who goes to heaven, so praising somebody responsible for mass killings as a martyr is taking the stance that it was good. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In the Muslim World, they call them "martyr" and in the Western World they say "He died doing his duty" or something along those lines. In both cases, dead "soldiers" are praised. I say this with respect, but you seem to be coming in with a certain bias. (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

No, she's British and means religion and heaven. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, yes, I would ignore any and all journalists praising mass killings. I hope this clarifies some things. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you differentiating between mass killings with State-Backing (Circumstances in war, etc) as opposed to other types of mass killings? (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Basayev ordered & masterminded mass murders of civilians, which weren't on behalf of any recognised country. He wasn't a soldier, doing his duty or deserving of praise. For Ridley or anyone else to regard him a martyr is clearly praising him & his actions. Jim Michael (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was talking general press freedom/political climate in Turkey, not conspiracy theories. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You also claimed, and I quote, "major component of Erdogan's politics is his appeal to pan-Islamism" and you went on to say that talking about it was Turkish Politics in action, but, with all due respect, you have failed to provide any credible evidence of that. Of course, I have said that the other article is evidence against it, which we are discussing. However, please provide an actual manner in which using TRT in this article goes against the standards set forth by WP:RS/PS (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Selectively quoting people back at themselves isn't going to lead to agreement. I was talking about the broader climate of press freedom and censorship in Turkey. Erdogan has infused Turkey politics and the Turkish media with his corrosive brand of politics for the best part of two decades. The end result of this has been an erosion of good journalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

However, even if he has "infused the Turkish Media" as you say, the WP:RS/PS clearly shows a consensus that miscellaneous matters, which this falls under, is okay to quote. Unless you have any clear evidence that this is a conflict of interest, I recommend that we respect the guidelines in WP:RS/PS (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

You are entitled to your opinions, but it seems no one agrees. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is there a conflict of interest? Most are simply questioning the relevance. I will once again quote WP:RS/PS, "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough" (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Oh I don't know, maybe it's that it is a media platform beholden to a staunchly Islamist government writing anti-Western, Islamist apologetics pieces like a drumbeat to their Islamist base. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This comes across as a conjecture on your part. You are basically saying "Just cuz this agrees on certain talking points, this must be influenced". Is there any evidence of Erdogan or anyone in the Turkish Government speaking about Dr. Aafia Siddiqui?(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Yeah, I'm going to direct you to WP:BADGER now. Good luck. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please link the noticeboard? (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

Ironically, the supposed "Anti-Aafia" content example is quite a good example of why TRT is a terrible source, as it contains a whole bunch of totally unsourced crap. Here are two choice lines: "Siddiqui’s case has long been one of the most disputed legal proceedings in the US." - so, unsupported conjecture not backed up by a single quote from, say, a US legal expert; and, "But the Western media has long portrayed her as “Lady Al Qaeda”. - and some hopeless generalization exposing the platform's evident us versus them mentality. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TRT's position would be included under what I wrote about Siddiqui having "iconic status” in some parts of the Muslim world, especially given that it is the mouthpiece of the Erdoğan government (which has one of the worst freedom of press rankings in the world).Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RS/PS, "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough". Unless no conflict of interest can be established, using TRT in this article is respecting Wikipedia guidelines.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

I directed you to WP:RS/PS: the point of links is so that you don't keep re-posting content. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You opened the discussion with this quote, and you've now re-posted it three times. Stop spamming. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My intention was not to spam, but merely point out the quote. Unless you can renegotiate the discussion on there on TRT in general, I say this "consensus" should be respected (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

That's just the RFC summary that anyone can read for themselves on WP:RS/PS Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This does not relate to the point that I made. Additionally, I'm not so sure that TRT is a reliable source here given the conflict-of-interest given the U.S. vs Islamic world vibes relating to this issue. I would similarly be reluctant to use content from Voice of America in such a context. Finally, the content of the article seems weak, one sided, and not particularly notable - the sole sources cited are: her lawyer; a Muslim journalist who is popular in the Muslim world for her defense of it and criticism of the west; and a "researcher" I.E. PhD student by the name of Tallha Abdulrazaq. I believe this is pretty well covered by stating that she has received "iconic status” in some parts of the Muslim world. - Yaakovaryeh (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, this discussion has been brought to the attention of WP:NPOV/N. Love of Corey (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Picture

This picture from 2011 can be used in the articel as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.102.225 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

this seems like a way better picture of higher resolution and a better look at her face. can someone edit this one in instead? 2601:203:300:5D20:DD0C:B4B:C1B3:5A80 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done User4edits (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral language

I see a lot of language that ought to be edited for more neutrality of tone. Particularly the last line of the "Children" section: "Their father and his parents have not been allowed to see either child." The last sentence of the "Sentencing" section also needs attention: "In a notably gracious exchange between the bestower and recipient of an 80+ year sentence of incarceration, the judge wished her "the very best going forward", and both Siddiqui and the judge thanked each other." Sundaycarvery (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)