Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aafia Siddiqui/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:58, 14 April 2010 [1].

Aafia Siddiqui[edit]

Aafia Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because:

  1. IMHO it meets FA criteria;
  2. When the subject of the article was convicted, the article received over 12K hits;
  3. Her sentencing (which will be 30 years to life) is set for May 6, and I think it would be great for the project to have it featured that day if possible, as it is likely to be of great public interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tx. Both addressed. One that was not needed, deleted. The other, replaced w/two live links.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The second link I mentioned is still in the page. Ucucha 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. Absolutely right. That one has now been replaced.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Another one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-ap-us-al-qaida-suspect-shooting,0,3232452.story appears to link to a page of search results, not the news story. Ucucha 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment External link source under "Disappearance and FBI warning" needs made as a citation. Grsz11 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi -- before I address, just want to make certain I understand. Are you suggesting that the inline of "wanted for questioning" be changed into a ref? Happy to do it, but just want to make sure I understand the comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because this BLP article contravenes policy in several ways. In particular, primary sources (court records, indictments, psychiatric/psychology/forensic evaluations, affidavits) are liberally used, often without secondary sources to support them, in direct contravention of BLP's Misuse of Primary Sources section. Also very worryingly, allegations sourced from legal documents of accusation are inappropriately presented as facts rather than attributed: the first 5 sentences of the third paragraph of the Lead are a particularly obvious example of this, but there are multiple other instances. I pointed these major problems out at length on the talkpage several weeks ago,[2] and others have given similar advice at WP:RSN [3]. No changes have been made, and unfortunately I haven't yet had the time to fix the problems myself.

There are also other reasons why the article does not meet FA standards, including problems with prose, manual of style and citation, and some very close paraphrasing of sources (cf: the WP article "She also helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that distributed Qurans and offered Islam-based advice to prison inmates" with the source "She helped establish the Dawa Resource Center, a program that operates out of Faaruuq's mosque, distributing Korans and offering Islam-based advice to prison inmates."[4]), but the sourcing and verifiability difficulties are significant enough in themselves. --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eppefleche asked me to comment on the sourcing. The article seems to depend upon good secondary newspaper sources. That the primary sources are given also is a plus, not a minus. I'm just commenting on this, not the article in general. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't given as a plus. As you say and as I have made clear on the talkpage of the article, if they supported secondary sources there would be no problem. But on no less than 28 occasions primary sources (court documents) are used as the only citations for information on a BLP. Check the occasions where references (currently) numbered 4, 6, 10, 11, 28, 72, 76 are the only source(s) used either alone or in combination. Likely the primary sources could be replaced or supported by secondary sources for some/most of the information. But this needs to happen for this to be a FA, or frankly BLP compliant. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slp is misreading the guidance. Of course, it would be nonsensical if the rule were "You can't use the indictment as a reference to reflect what the indictment says -- instead you have to rely on what Al Jazeerah (for example) said the indictment says". Or: "You can't use a NY Times editorial (the primary source) as a ref to reflect what the NY Times editorial says -- you need an Electronic Intifida article (for example; the secondary source) summarizing the NY Times editorial as your reference". That's because the guidance doesn't say that. The guideline in question, though no doubt it could have been drafted more carefully, is clearly aimed at: "personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". We don't have any of those concerns here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How unusual is Slp's reading in its application here? The article has the sentence "In April 2009, Manhattan federal judge Richard Berman held that she was competent to stand trial." The ref? The actual Court Order. Of course that should be sufficient to support that statement; any other result is non-sensical.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully reread what I wrote at the talkpage. There is a big difference between saying "X shot Y" and "According to the indictment, X shot Y". I have never suggested that "According to Al Jazeerah, the indictment said that X shot Y" was necessary.[5][6][7]. Just that any allegation be attributed to who made it.--Slp1 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said before, as a general matter I've no problem with attribution. Attribute away. And as I've also said before, one must consider the difference between: a) an accusation/indictment, and b) a conviction upon the charges in the indictment. Feel free to attribute away where appropriate; that's not a reason for this not to be an FA, or to delete the ref and accompanying text, for all the reasons stated here and in the pages linked to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That's positive. But if you want this article to be promoted then you may actually have to do the leg work yourself to make sure it meets FA and BLP criteria, compliance and expectations You cannot just devolve responsibility to others. It needs to be compliant when it is promoted.--Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fine, you don’t find the article to be FA quality, Slp1. I have zero problem with that. It would however, be exceedingly nice if you properly understood what primary sources (PSTS) is about so you aren’t misconstruing things and potentially confusing others.

    PSTS is part of Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR). In this context—and, as spelled out right in the PSTS, Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event. In many cases it clearly preferable that we not rely upon a primary source; for instance, some guy in Chevy Chase, Maryland, who purportedly received and read the contents of a letter written by Elvis in 2006. In this context, secondary sources are preferred, such as a Newsweek article that endorses the witness’ first-hand account as being credible and doesn’t mention that the witness is currently being treated by a mental health expert.

    Clearly, one would rightly call “court records, federal indictments,” etc. to be a “primary source” and that has you all sideways on the logic. Why? Because just as clearly, they are WP:Reliable sources and are not—by any stretch of the imagination—what is considered to be “original research.” In fact, court records will often take precedence over secondary sources. For instance, if Newsweek reported that a federal prosecutor had indicted a terrorist for possessing hollow-point bullets when in fact, the federal indictment papers themselves state right there in black & white that the bullets were armor-piercing, then one goes with what the indictment papers say. That doesn’t mean that the terrorist was guilty of possessing armor-piercing bullets or even possessed them; only that the federal indictment was for possessing armor-piercing bullets.

    Seeking the most authoritative sources is what I typically do; I often contact the Ph.D. authors of scientific papers and have them send me PDFs of the actual paper so I can quote straight out of the papers. Besides, corresponding with the Ph.D. saves me money because I don’t have to subscribe to the journals. Exchanging dozens of e-mails with the author of the scientific paper in question until I thoroughly understand the issue sure beats simply ralphing out some gibberish gleaned from Popular Mechanics.

    I suggest you get over the primary/secondary-source issue since it seems to have gotten you all confused and just focus on the objective: cite reliable sources, which courts and federal prosecutors are considered to be. And such sources aren’t considered to be “original research”. This all falls under the heading of WP:Common sense, or, in the rest of the world is known as a Well, DUH thing.

    It is obvious that if the article in question possesses, as you say, “liberal” citations referencing the actual court records and indictment papers, then this is a strength of the article and reflects well upon the editor, who obviously devoted great effort to cite accurate and unassailable facts. Greg L (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I fully endorse what DGG wrote, which summarizes what I was trying to say, only with far fewer words. Good job, DGG, next time I might run my posts by you for some copy editing. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think I am confused. I think if you look at WP's policies you'll find that per policy secondary sources are preferred over primary sources all the time. You'll also note that I never said that they were original research, just not appropriate sources per BLP, especially as they have not been correctly attributed as allegations not facts. You'll also note, looking at BLP policy that for BLPs, that we "Do not use .... court records or public documents" as sole sources.
Your foresight and energy in obtaining published scientific papers as sources is fantastic and a completely different matter. These are published secondary sources... the fact that you have got them from the authors' themselves does not diminish that at all. And if you get better understanding of the topic from correspondence with the authors, so much the better. But I am confused about one thing. DGG mentions being asked to comment, but no on-wiki sign of this. Since you have been agreement with Epeefleche on other matters, I am now curious to know whether there is some off-wiki email canvassing going on? --Slp1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification -- I never asked DGG to comment here. Nor did he say that. I asked him his opinion, entre nous. He chose to leave a comment here, without any encouragement to do so (and without me knowing what his view would be).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really and truly appreciate your clarification and honesty. But it would be useful to know if you contacted anybody else "entre vous" about this nomination and my objection to FA status. --Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting you, Slp1: You'll also note, looking at BLP policy that for BLPs, that we "Do not use .... court records or public documents" as sole sources. Gee, I see only one instance of “court records or public documents” in WP:BLP. And it says, right here, as follows:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.


I also see that your insertion of the … ellipsis in "Do not use .... court records or public documents" and your cute as sole sources appended outside the quotes profoundly changed the meaning of the above-quoted text. Though the paragraph is mangled, it is clear the concern is over revealing date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. I see this is hopeless and I don’t appreciate the techniques you’ve chosen to employ here. You have managed to take a strength (citing highly reliable sources), and make fallacious arguments and misquote guidelines to serve your own ends. Goodbye to you, sir, and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Mme, for what it is worth. I am not making any kind of fallacious argument. Secondary sources are preferred, and BLP policy (deleting any material between dashes) states that we must not use public records that include personal details... or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. As I have said several times, I suspect much of this material could probably be sourced to secondary sources. But this needs to be done as a start towards better article sourcing, before any FA status is given. --Slp1 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The material you deleted in your quote is the most important material, and informs us what the concern of the guideline is. That's not a concern in this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no you don’t, Slp1. I’m not going to let you off the hook so easily. The guidelines are perfectly clear to everyone else. Your misquoting might strike a reasonable person as having been intentional because of the extreme care required to surgically excise the words in your 00:28, 10 April *quote* to masquerade its true meaning. I note a curious absence in your posts of providing full, quoted wording of what guidelines and policies really say, which can be fully well explained by the fact that they don’t say what you would like us to think they say. That’s why I can do as I did above: post “the guideline, the whole guideline, and nothing but the guideline” without resorting to the misdirection and hocus-pocus. The wording there isn’t hard for the rest of us to understand. The guideline right here on BLP is saying, in effect be careful when citing public records. You wouldn’t want to use them if they contain personal information like home phone numbers or someone’s business addresses unless that information has already been released into the public domain by newspapers and magazines. You keep on repeating the same, tired old mantra of how super-reliable and authoritative primary sources like court records and indictment papers are to be eschewed in favor of secondary sources like Parade magazine (which is inane and defies logic). And, conveniently, you somehow never seem to be able to produce any evidence to buttress your allegations without mauling it beyond all comprehension to say something that is entirely different from what it really says. If you want to fire back with a “Well… I am just soooo right,” it would be exceedingly nice if you can (really really) point us to something that backs up your wild notions. Greg L (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More strawman arguments. Sigh. Take a look at how dashes used at the sentence level - ie parenthetically -, and this BLPN discussion - by others - on this section of policy. That's it for me. --Slp1 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Instead of providing a link to a guideline or policy that supports your allegations, you provide a link to a discussion thread where others misdirected the galactically clueless (although some of them, like NeilN had it figured out). Because right there was yet another editor quoting guideline fragments out of context as a fine display of one’s inability to comprehend simple, 12th-grade English (or to purposely misdirect other wikipedians). This phenomenon seems to be pandemic on Wikipedia; apparently because so many wikipedians are too lazy to actually go and—you know—read our guidelines. Why?

Because, User:Collect employed the ol’ shotgun-of-alphabet-soup trick (here, 23:31, 15 November 2009) where he/she wrote …contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP… without providing links or quoting the governing text. Apparently, everyone is supposed to think “Gee, he quoted so many acronyms and that looks like a lot to read and I don’t even know where to go find them because they are unlinked. He must be smart and is one of those types that makes Wikipedia go.”

And when User:Collect finally does quote text (∆ here), he/she did one of those Professor Marvel-style “Pay no attention to that guideline behind the curtain!” stunts and quoted only a fragment 180° out of context: To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."

For yucks & giggles to anyone new to this thread, compare the meaning of that last, green-colored quote to the entire guideline in the above quote box in my 01:09, 10 April 2010 post. Then ponder over how sad the state of things are here when some editors perceive they can get away with these stunts. (*sigh*)

Could it be that we are beating around the bush here because editors are coming to these terrorist-related articles with an agenda? I don’t have a jones one way or another about terrorist articles; my contributions tend to be stuff like fixing that profoundly lousy looking photograph in Anwar al-Awlaki that no one seemed to give a dump about as editors battle away. It seems there is one camp there trying to introduce unflattering but well-cited facts that make the dude (who has presidential and National Security Council approval to bomb him clean out of his sandals) come across as a thoroughly mean & nasty person who kicks puppies. The other camp cleverly manages to delete such information and *balance* the article with stuff like how he volunteers and swings a hammer for Habitat for Humanity on weekends.

Similarly over here, both camps, rather than having the backbone to speak up and admit to what they are really trying to do, just busy themselves with slapping up a facade of smokescreens, such as citing imaginary “guidelines” like how <Cognitive dissonance>you can’t quote a CIA transcript because quoting Readers Digest is preferred!</Cognitive dissonance> Caught in the middle is a whole bunch of regular editors really don’t give a darn, simply want germane, topical, authoritatively cited, encyclopedic facts, and long for a way to simply vote editors with agendas off this island.

(Oops, I did it again: using plain-speak, which was going out of fashion on Wikipedia there for a while, to talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom.) Greg L (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Obviously a well-done article. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aafia_Siddiqui/archive1&oldid=1138453740"