The contents of the 2022 Dallas synagogue hostage crisis page were merged into Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis on 15 January 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The coordinates on the wiki are inaccurate. The correct coordinates are, 32°53'50.6"N 97°09'17.5"W . Sroth0616 ( talk) 23:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The Talk "archive" seems uncharacteristically brief here. Were there page operations [moves, deletes, transclusions] that resulted in obfuscation of the talk trail? Was also wondering why the title doesn't start with 2022? WP change on current event titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.181.235 ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: explanation of exactly how this happened: "...some remaining hostages sprinting out of the building." Did the hostages decide to make a run for it while Akram was distracted? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 20:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Around 9.15pm, the door to the Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas opened and the hostages rushed out. Seconds later, a man holding a gun and wearing a rucksack could be seen peaking his head out of the same door, before rushing back inside.[1] Times:
Then at 10pm an FBI rescue team stormed the building, with explosions and gunfire. Moments earlier two more hostages fled through a side door followed by a man with a pistol who ducked back inside.[2] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The FBI has said that there was no antisemitic motive, and that the attacker was not part of any movement - so not even
Islamic terrorism would be appropriate to add. Yes, the attacker was Muslim, yes it was an act of terror, but no, he wasn't involved with the wave of Islamic terrorism. Similarly, yes, the attack took place in a synagogue, but as far as the FBI know, no, it wasn't an attack on the Jewish people for being Jewish. And even if it was, they have said the attacker was not part of any movement, so not part of the wave of antisemitic attacks. And especially not part of an American movement, since he is not American.
This can still be true even with the witness saying the attacker was saying antisemitic and anti-Israel things on the livestream. Maybe he was an antisemitic person (and all signs so far suggest that, but it would still be pretty
WP:SYNTH-y to say so) - but if (as the FBI say) his plan was to cause a crisis purely for attention so that he could further his unrelated cause, then the attack was not antisemitic.
It is
WP:OR to assert the attacker's motive was antisemitic, but also
verifiably incorrect OR, as the FBI have said explicitly otherwise. Also, it is ridiculous to add the "Massacres against Jews" template since, besides Jews not being the target, nobody was even hurt, let alone died, let alone on the scale of a
massacre.
Now, that is all objective Wikipedia policy-based view. Before you ask, personally, I also think it is unhelpful to try to say that any Jewish-adjacent attack is antisemitic, because it diminishes the perceived effects of very real antisemitism in other things (as an extreme example, the above-mentioned template would compare this to
The Holocaust) and could lead to the issues of
crying wolf.
Kingsif (
talk) 23:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the attacker was Muslim, yes it was an act of terror, but no, he wasn't involved with the wave of Islamic terrorism. I don't think we disagree, Jim. The attacker, for descriptive purposes, was an Islamic terrorist, but, as far as the FBI and we all so far know, he wasn't part of a movement. So the "part of" infobox parameter, at the moment, should remain empty. Kingsif ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
the United States 'only cares about Jewish lives.'As in, he thinks they don't care about anyone else, and wouldn't negotiate (or at least not be as committed negotiating) to get them safe. He wanted the negotiation so that he could free Siddiqui, and if he genuinely believed the US cares more about Jews than anyone else, he would believe using them as hostages is the best way to get what he wants because the US wants them safe more than anything. Not antisemitic, practical. And no, I'm not saying it was right or clever, nor am I saying that how I read it is how he meant it, just that using it as "evidence" he planned an antisemitic terror attack is debatable at the very least. Kingsif ( talk) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It's impossible to determine at this time whether or not the perpetrator had antisemitic beliefs. It's possible that he chose a Synagogue out of convenience. There should be more time for investigators to look into what happened Brookline Fire buff ( talk) 02:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I've gone through the history to try to find what source was named "SiddiquiST", but can't seem to find it. Hopefully, whoever added/named it will be checking this talkpage and either remember what the source was, or at least be able to tell us they did it so we can look for it in their contributions. Kingsif ( talk) 23:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Related to the above; Neutrality is clearly not being neutral in continuing to remove this sourced information. For the record the text is:
Shortly after the resolution of the incident, FBI special agent-in-charge of the Dallas Field Office Matt DeSarno said there was no antisemitic motive, saying Akram was "singularly focused on one issue and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community".
This is sourced to two reliable sources, one including video of DeSarno saying it. The only reason given for removal is Neutrality
personally disagreeing that there was no antisemitic motive because the attacker
appears antisemitic based on other reports. Not a policy-based removal at all.
Further, the text does not use Wikipedia voice. It uses a direct quotation, and attributes who said it, as well as when, as well as his relationship to the incident, without commenting on what has been said. The format of "At TIME, NAMED EXPERT said DIRECT QUOTE" will never be factually inaccurate. DeSarno will have always said that thing at that time, even if it later proves to be false. As of now, it is the latest update we have from the FBI on motive, and to exclude it would be
deliberately hiding information to push the antisemitism narrative.
I say this, again policy-based, with certainty. However, if you do think there is a good reason to not include this statement - again, the most recent FBI update - feel free to make this into a full discussion.
Kingsif (
talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As of now, it is the latest update we have from the FBI on motive, and to exclude it would be deliberately hiding information to push the antisemitism narrative.Your reason for removing sourced content is "I disagree with the expert" based on your interpretation of other things. Come off it; ONUS only applies if actual reason has been given for removal, no? This is a current event, and we keep things current. If the present "facts" will prove to be wrong later, we will update later. We don't hide all information until the "truth" is known, or there wouldn't be any articles on any incidents until the inquiries were complete however many years later. Kingsif ( talk) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif, please try to respect the onus principle here. You want to include content, cited to a 5-second clip from an FBI agent who said that the "not specifically related to the Jewish community." I disagree. We're not obligated to include every statement in the reporting ( WP:NOTNEWS). Moreover, inclusion of this content is premature - and undue weight]) because (1) the investigation is ongoing (and an off-the-cuff press conference statement is not an FBI conclusion) and (2) multiple media outlets report that the attacker flew 5,000 miles to target a synagogue and claimed, while holding hostages, that the U.S. "only cares about Jewish lives." Neutrality talk 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
wait for more to be known- that will just be another press conference. You want to update with the next press conference, and presumably update again after the one after that, but you really don't want anyone to know about the latest press conference. Dude, you are contradicting yourself. The statement is a fact, and it is the latest known update. If all investigating were to stop now - which we should be considering when updating current articles - it would be the "known fact"s of the case, true or not. It would be all we know. And "all we know" about motive is so super relevant. You keep trying to minimize the importance by saying it's a
5-second vague video clip from a press conference, but, er, 1. that's how long it takes to say such a thing, 2. I don't think it's vague, 3. official press conferences are not given lightly. It is not as unimportant as you are trying to convince me, yourself, and everyone else reading, it is. Kingsif ( talk) 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
stupid debatecannot be taken in good faith. If you have an objection to discussion, say it. Otherwise, quit being WP:POINTy and make your case about WKOW of Allen Media Broadcasting, also reporting that the FBI killed Akram for the first time, having the scoop on this. GDPR-accessible link. Kingsif ( talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice job, editors. This article is informative and factual, better than most of the news reports currently available. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Some Siddiqui context has been removed. She’s not as notable for marrying who she married, though that’s fine to include I guess, but for her 9/11 connection, her being on the FBI list, her having a toxic poison with her when arrested, etc, all of which were deleted. Worthy of readding, for co text, IMho. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:98BC:3B02:F36A:8F88 ( talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
According to U.S. authorities, Siddiqui married Ammar al-Baluchi, the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the ringleader of the September 11 attacks.- this sentence mentions both, BTW. But you can add any sourced information you think is relevant. Kingsif ( talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added a commented-out sentence quoting the Washington Post's unnamed source involved in the investigation. The sentence is:
An unnamed official involved in the investigation said Akram's "motive for taking hostages appeared to be his anger over the U.S. imprisonment of Aafia Siddiqui".
WaPo says they spoke under condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Whether this is because they fear that Siddiqui/Akram supporters may target them, or because they are disclosing details of the investigation that shouldn't be public, isn't specified. Where current legal cases and similar are involved, Wikipedia treads carefully, and I can't decide if including this sentence would go too far. Usually in things like this, the debated issue is a perpetrator's name, and WP:BLPCRIME is brought up. Obviously that doesn't apply here; are there any other relevant policies when discussing this? Kingsif ( talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Which reference supports this claim? Cullen328 ( talk) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Needs added information from open source media, reference how the man in question obtained his documents to travel from "Blackburn" - "UK", hard for such illicit reasons, even before the medical issues. 82.17.104.156 ( talk) 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As well as having a lengthy criminal record, Akram was a regular visitor to Pakistan and was understood to be a member of Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic organisation banned by Saudi Arabia. It is believed he was radicalised in Blackburn in the last five years and according to locals would regularly take part in anti-Israel demonstrations and marches for the release of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.Solipsism 101 ( talk) 00:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Why do we have the antisemitism sidebar [7] when the article body does not yet include a verifiable statement that the attack was antisemitism (as of last I read it carefully)? Antisemitism is a reasonable inference and likely to prove verifiable, but we should show the "receipt" if Wikipedia is going to make the assertion. We shouldn't be adding sidebars like this one without the proof being in the article. Jehochman Talk 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Firstly, no connection between Malik Faisal Akram and Al-Qaeda has ever been established in the news, hence the speculations about Dr. Siddiqui and AQ (Which she was never charged with in court) is not relevant to the Colleyville Synagogue Hostage Crisis, but rather speculations by initial news reports. Until Malik Faisal Akram is established to have had ties with Al-Qaeda, any mention would be considered as irrelevant, especially since the narrative that Malik Faisal Anas and the Muslim world would be familiar with would never had mentioned her alleged connection to Al-Qaeda, but rather the narrative of her being an innocent political prisoner, and that brings me to my second point. Secondly, We need to include how Dr. Aafia is seen in the Muslim World, from her alleged kidnapping from 2003-2008 to the fact that the population of Pakistan and many Mainstream Muslim Groups maintain her innocence. This narrative of her innocence is what Malik Faisal Anas would have heard, and is therefore what we should include. Thirdly, Questioning the relevance of Radical Groups asking for her release when Malik Faisal Anas's connections to any of those radical groups have not yet been confirmed, this includes Dr. Aafia's Blood Diamond Allegations. How does this relate to the Synagogue or Malik Faisal Anas? Fourthly, if Dr. Aafia's behavior in court is relative when it comes to her comments described as antisemitic, then the overall bizarre behavior must be included, as well as the mental illness debates prior to the trial. The exception to this is that if there is any concrete evidence that Malik Faisal Anas was inspired by her statements, which there hasn't been. Fifthly, completely relevant to this case is Dr. Aafia's family's and representatives' condemnation of the crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Love of Corey Her Image is a composite Image. Do you agree to changing it to an actual picture of her? You can undo, but an actual image is more reliable than a composite. Will await your response for 10 minutes before I add an actual image rather than a composite — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs)
@ Love of Corey Re: "Starting to get Pro-Siddiqui" I am simply narrating both sides of the conflict. This should not be either "pro" or "anti" and you have added the irrelevant allegations like the blood diamonds and the alleged remarriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says: Akram demanded that Aafia Siddiqui, an alleged terrorist convicted of multiple felonies, be released from prison. Is she "alleged" ...? I thought she was convicted. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Someone is removing refs at the end of sentences. Perhaps moving them down to later in a paragraph. Or relying on one later in a paragraph.
While it's on the one hand fine for a ref at the end of a paragraph to cover all prior sentences, on wp its a bad idea. Especially in an article like this, with active editing, by multiple editors.
The reason is that paragraphs get split. The ref may end up in a subsequent paragraph.
And sentences and their refs get deleted - especially in this article, given the nature of the editing we are seeing.
And editors are even doing this where there are quotes in a sentence -- leaving the sentence without any refs.
I would urge that the practice stop.
(At the same time, we don't need to chop up the readability of a sentence, buy putting refs in for each clause - end of sentence is better there).
-- 2603:7000:2143:8500:D5D8:7404:2F4A:D842 ( talk) 18:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Plenty of Sources mention he thought she was framed, as reported by Paragraph 3 of the section added on 6:50 p.m. ET, January 15, 2022, As well as according to a recording Reproduced here, and in the article, as well as in the 8th paragraph of the second section here. The word "Framed" is literally used. Therefore, we should include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning both sides is important for an unbiased view, not just the official American Government Narrative but also the alternate narratives about her. We need to remember that she is also considered by many as an innocent political prisoner, causing many protests on her behalf, as reported here and here. This position is "held from Pakistan to North Texas". She has the support of an "international network of activists who say she is innocent and are demanding her release". Analysts mention that "Siddiqui's conviction in 2010 embodied the injustices of the post-9/11 US judicial system" This isn't just a Pakistani view, but a view held internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed edits that included reactions from the Muslim community have been removed, without any kind of explanation. Why is that? I believe those edits better portray the response from the mainstream Muslim community. The two references used currently portray the Muslim reaction as somehow sympathetic to the perp. Any issue if we restore those edits?-- Amineshaker ( talk) 06:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The Introduction claims that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was "a Pakistani National and Al-Qaeda Operative" the latter of which has never actually been confirmed. She was never tried in court for terrorism, and most claims about her were based upon a media shaped by Post-9/11 Hysteria. We should not consider allegations as facts. She was never convicted on terrorism charges and never confirmed to be a terrorist.( NerdyGenius1 ( talk) 03:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
The Closest you may have is a UN Report that revealed that certain charities that raised money for the Bosnians during the Bosnian Genocide were secretly also sending money to Al-Qaeda, however there is no evidence that Dr. Aafia knew about this secret. Rather, there is considerable evidence available that she was an activist raising awareness about the situation of the Bosnians.( NerdyGenius1 ( talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
Malik Faisal Akram's description in the Perpetrator section has been changed several times. Should it say he was a Muslim? Should it say that he was of Pakistani descent? Jim Michael ( talk) 14:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Akram said their parents arrived in Britain from Pakistan in the 1960s and raised their six sons here in Blackburn, a northern industrial town that has drawn Pakistani and Indian migrants since the 1950s, initially to jobs in the area’s once-thriving textile industry.and later in the same piece
Like the Akram family, they are Muslim Britons of Pakistani descent, whose parents moved here in the 1950s seeking economic opportunity, and he worries that this could reflect badly on the broader community.[8] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not a "claim" that Aafia Siddiqui was carrying handwritten notes plotting a mass casualty attack, along with explosive and poisonous substances, and a list of possible targets in New York City and methods
. Per
Aafia Siddiqui#Trial proceedings (which I assume is accurately cited in the absence of evidence to the contrary) admitted in her testimony in court that she was in possession of said documents, which were in her own handwriting.
FDW777 (
talk) 08:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the 2022 Dallas synagogue hostage crisis page were merged into Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis on 15 January 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The coordinates on the wiki are inaccurate. The correct coordinates are, 32°53'50.6"N 97°09'17.5"W . Sroth0616 ( talk) 23:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The Talk "archive" seems uncharacteristically brief here. Were there page operations [moves, deletes, transclusions] that resulted in obfuscation of the talk trail? Was also wondering why the title doesn't start with 2022? WP change on current event titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.181.235 ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: explanation of exactly how this happened: "...some remaining hostages sprinting out of the building." Did the hostages decide to make a run for it while Akram was distracted? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 20:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Around 9.15pm, the door to the Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas opened and the hostages rushed out. Seconds later, a man holding a gun and wearing a rucksack could be seen peaking his head out of the same door, before rushing back inside.[1] Times:
Then at 10pm an FBI rescue team stormed the building, with explosions and gunfire. Moments earlier two more hostages fled through a side door followed by a man with a pistol who ducked back inside.[2] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The FBI has said that there was no antisemitic motive, and that the attacker was not part of any movement - so not even
Islamic terrorism would be appropriate to add. Yes, the attacker was Muslim, yes it was an act of terror, but no, he wasn't involved with the wave of Islamic terrorism. Similarly, yes, the attack took place in a synagogue, but as far as the FBI know, no, it wasn't an attack on the Jewish people for being Jewish. And even if it was, they have said the attacker was not part of any movement, so not part of the wave of antisemitic attacks. And especially not part of an American movement, since he is not American.
This can still be true even with the witness saying the attacker was saying antisemitic and anti-Israel things on the livestream. Maybe he was an antisemitic person (and all signs so far suggest that, but it would still be pretty
WP:SYNTH-y to say so) - but if (as the FBI say) his plan was to cause a crisis purely for attention so that he could further his unrelated cause, then the attack was not antisemitic.
It is
WP:OR to assert the attacker's motive was antisemitic, but also
verifiably incorrect OR, as the FBI have said explicitly otherwise. Also, it is ridiculous to add the "Massacres against Jews" template since, besides Jews not being the target, nobody was even hurt, let alone died, let alone on the scale of a
massacre.
Now, that is all objective Wikipedia policy-based view. Before you ask, personally, I also think it is unhelpful to try to say that any Jewish-adjacent attack is antisemitic, because it diminishes the perceived effects of very real antisemitism in other things (as an extreme example, the above-mentioned template would compare this to
The Holocaust) and could lead to the issues of
crying wolf.
Kingsif (
talk) 23:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the attacker was Muslim, yes it was an act of terror, but no, he wasn't involved with the wave of Islamic terrorism. I don't think we disagree, Jim. The attacker, for descriptive purposes, was an Islamic terrorist, but, as far as the FBI and we all so far know, he wasn't part of a movement. So the "part of" infobox parameter, at the moment, should remain empty. Kingsif ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
the United States 'only cares about Jewish lives.'As in, he thinks they don't care about anyone else, and wouldn't negotiate (or at least not be as committed negotiating) to get them safe. He wanted the negotiation so that he could free Siddiqui, and if he genuinely believed the US cares more about Jews than anyone else, he would believe using them as hostages is the best way to get what he wants because the US wants them safe more than anything. Not antisemitic, practical. And no, I'm not saying it was right or clever, nor am I saying that how I read it is how he meant it, just that using it as "evidence" he planned an antisemitic terror attack is debatable at the very least. Kingsif ( talk) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It's impossible to determine at this time whether or not the perpetrator had antisemitic beliefs. It's possible that he chose a Synagogue out of convenience. There should be more time for investigators to look into what happened Brookline Fire buff ( talk) 02:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I've gone through the history to try to find what source was named "SiddiquiST", but can't seem to find it. Hopefully, whoever added/named it will be checking this talkpage and either remember what the source was, or at least be able to tell us they did it so we can look for it in their contributions. Kingsif ( talk) 23:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Related to the above; Neutrality is clearly not being neutral in continuing to remove this sourced information. For the record the text is:
Shortly after the resolution of the incident, FBI special agent-in-charge of the Dallas Field Office Matt DeSarno said there was no antisemitic motive, saying Akram was "singularly focused on one issue and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community".
This is sourced to two reliable sources, one including video of DeSarno saying it. The only reason given for removal is Neutrality
personally disagreeing that there was no antisemitic motive because the attacker
appears antisemitic based on other reports. Not a policy-based removal at all.
Further, the text does not use Wikipedia voice. It uses a direct quotation, and attributes who said it, as well as when, as well as his relationship to the incident, without commenting on what has been said. The format of "At TIME, NAMED EXPERT said DIRECT QUOTE" will never be factually inaccurate. DeSarno will have always said that thing at that time, even if it later proves to be false. As of now, it is the latest update we have from the FBI on motive, and to exclude it would be
deliberately hiding information to push the antisemitism narrative.
I say this, again policy-based, with certainty. However, if you do think there is a good reason to not include this statement - again, the most recent FBI update - feel free to make this into a full discussion.
Kingsif (
talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As of now, it is the latest update we have from the FBI on motive, and to exclude it would be deliberately hiding information to push the antisemitism narrative.Your reason for removing sourced content is "I disagree with the expert" based on your interpretation of other things. Come off it; ONUS only applies if actual reason has been given for removal, no? This is a current event, and we keep things current. If the present "facts" will prove to be wrong later, we will update later. We don't hide all information until the "truth" is known, or there wouldn't be any articles on any incidents until the inquiries were complete however many years later. Kingsif ( talk) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif, please try to respect the onus principle here. You want to include content, cited to a 5-second clip from an FBI agent who said that the "not specifically related to the Jewish community." I disagree. We're not obligated to include every statement in the reporting ( WP:NOTNEWS). Moreover, inclusion of this content is premature - and undue weight]) because (1) the investigation is ongoing (and an off-the-cuff press conference statement is not an FBI conclusion) and (2) multiple media outlets report that the attacker flew 5,000 miles to target a synagogue and claimed, while holding hostages, that the U.S. "only cares about Jewish lives." Neutrality talk 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
wait for more to be known- that will just be another press conference. You want to update with the next press conference, and presumably update again after the one after that, but you really don't want anyone to know about the latest press conference. Dude, you are contradicting yourself. The statement is a fact, and it is the latest known update. If all investigating were to stop now - which we should be considering when updating current articles - it would be the "known fact"s of the case, true or not. It would be all we know. And "all we know" about motive is so super relevant. You keep trying to minimize the importance by saying it's a
5-second vague video clip from a press conference, but, er, 1. that's how long it takes to say such a thing, 2. I don't think it's vague, 3. official press conferences are not given lightly. It is not as unimportant as you are trying to convince me, yourself, and everyone else reading, it is. Kingsif ( talk) 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
stupid debatecannot be taken in good faith. If you have an objection to discussion, say it. Otherwise, quit being WP:POINTy and make your case about WKOW of Allen Media Broadcasting, also reporting that the FBI killed Akram for the first time, having the scoop on this. GDPR-accessible link. Kingsif ( talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice job, editors. This article is informative and factual, better than most of the news reports currently available. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Some Siddiqui context has been removed. She’s not as notable for marrying who she married, though that’s fine to include I guess, but for her 9/11 connection, her being on the FBI list, her having a toxic poison with her when arrested, etc, all of which were deleted. Worthy of readding, for co text, IMho. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:98BC:3B02:F36A:8F88 ( talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
According to U.S. authorities, Siddiqui married Ammar al-Baluchi, the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the ringleader of the September 11 attacks.- this sentence mentions both, BTW. But you can add any sourced information you think is relevant. Kingsif ( talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added a commented-out sentence quoting the Washington Post's unnamed source involved in the investigation. The sentence is:
An unnamed official involved in the investigation said Akram's "motive for taking hostages appeared to be his anger over the U.S. imprisonment of Aafia Siddiqui".
WaPo says they spoke under condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Whether this is because they fear that Siddiqui/Akram supporters may target them, or because they are disclosing details of the investigation that shouldn't be public, isn't specified. Where current legal cases and similar are involved, Wikipedia treads carefully, and I can't decide if including this sentence would go too far. Usually in things like this, the debated issue is a perpetrator's name, and WP:BLPCRIME is brought up. Obviously that doesn't apply here; are there any other relevant policies when discussing this? Kingsif ( talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Which reference supports this claim? Cullen328 ( talk) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Needs added information from open source media, reference how the man in question obtained his documents to travel from "Blackburn" - "UK", hard for such illicit reasons, even before the medical issues. 82.17.104.156 ( talk) 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As well as having a lengthy criminal record, Akram was a regular visitor to Pakistan and was understood to be a member of Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic organisation banned by Saudi Arabia. It is believed he was radicalised in Blackburn in the last five years and according to locals would regularly take part in anti-Israel demonstrations and marches for the release of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.Solipsism 101 ( talk) 00:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Why do we have the antisemitism sidebar [7] when the article body does not yet include a verifiable statement that the attack was antisemitism (as of last I read it carefully)? Antisemitism is a reasonable inference and likely to prove verifiable, but we should show the "receipt" if Wikipedia is going to make the assertion. We shouldn't be adding sidebars like this one without the proof being in the article. Jehochman Talk 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Firstly, no connection between Malik Faisal Akram and Al-Qaeda has ever been established in the news, hence the speculations about Dr. Siddiqui and AQ (Which she was never charged with in court) is not relevant to the Colleyville Synagogue Hostage Crisis, but rather speculations by initial news reports. Until Malik Faisal Akram is established to have had ties with Al-Qaeda, any mention would be considered as irrelevant, especially since the narrative that Malik Faisal Anas and the Muslim world would be familiar with would never had mentioned her alleged connection to Al-Qaeda, but rather the narrative of her being an innocent political prisoner, and that brings me to my second point. Secondly, We need to include how Dr. Aafia is seen in the Muslim World, from her alleged kidnapping from 2003-2008 to the fact that the population of Pakistan and many Mainstream Muslim Groups maintain her innocence. This narrative of her innocence is what Malik Faisal Anas would have heard, and is therefore what we should include. Thirdly, Questioning the relevance of Radical Groups asking for her release when Malik Faisal Anas's connections to any of those radical groups have not yet been confirmed, this includes Dr. Aafia's Blood Diamond Allegations. How does this relate to the Synagogue or Malik Faisal Anas? Fourthly, if Dr. Aafia's behavior in court is relative when it comes to her comments described as antisemitic, then the overall bizarre behavior must be included, as well as the mental illness debates prior to the trial. The exception to this is that if there is any concrete evidence that Malik Faisal Anas was inspired by her statements, which there hasn't been. Fifthly, completely relevant to this case is Dr. Aafia's family's and representatives' condemnation of the crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Love of Corey Her Image is a composite Image. Do you agree to changing it to an actual picture of her? You can undo, but an actual image is more reliable than a composite. Will await your response for 10 minutes before I add an actual image rather than a composite — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs)
@ Love of Corey Re: "Starting to get Pro-Siddiqui" I am simply narrating both sides of the conflict. This should not be either "pro" or "anti" and you have added the irrelevant allegations like the blood diamonds and the alleged remarriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says: Akram demanded that Aafia Siddiqui, an alleged terrorist convicted of multiple felonies, be released from prison. Is she "alleged" ...? I thought she was convicted. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Someone is removing refs at the end of sentences. Perhaps moving them down to later in a paragraph. Or relying on one later in a paragraph.
While it's on the one hand fine for a ref at the end of a paragraph to cover all prior sentences, on wp its a bad idea. Especially in an article like this, with active editing, by multiple editors.
The reason is that paragraphs get split. The ref may end up in a subsequent paragraph.
And sentences and their refs get deleted - especially in this article, given the nature of the editing we are seeing.
And editors are even doing this where there are quotes in a sentence -- leaving the sentence without any refs.
I would urge that the practice stop.
(At the same time, we don't need to chop up the readability of a sentence, buy putting refs in for each clause - end of sentence is better there).
-- 2603:7000:2143:8500:D5D8:7404:2F4A:D842 ( talk) 18:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Plenty of Sources mention he thought she was framed, as reported by Paragraph 3 of the section added on 6:50 p.m. ET, January 15, 2022, As well as according to a recording Reproduced here, and in the article, as well as in the 8th paragraph of the second section here. The word "Framed" is literally used. Therefore, we should include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning both sides is important for an unbiased view, not just the official American Government Narrative but also the alternate narratives about her. We need to remember that she is also considered by many as an innocent political prisoner, causing many protests on her behalf, as reported here and here. This position is "held from Pakistan to North Texas". She has the support of an "international network of activists who say she is innocent and are demanding her release". Analysts mention that "Siddiqui's conviction in 2010 embodied the injustices of the post-9/11 US judicial system" This isn't just a Pakistani view, but a view held internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed edits that included reactions from the Muslim community have been removed, without any kind of explanation. Why is that? I believe those edits better portray the response from the mainstream Muslim community. The two references used currently portray the Muslim reaction as somehow sympathetic to the perp. Any issue if we restore those edits?-- Amineshaker ( talk) 06:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The Introduction claims that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was "a Pakistani National and Al-Qaeda Operative" the latter of which has never actually been confirmed. She was never tried in court for terrorism, and most claims about her were based upon a media shaped by Post-9/11 Hysteria. We should not consider allegations as facts. She was never convicted on terrorism charges and never confirmed to be a terrorist.( NerdyGenius1 ( talk) 03:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
The Closest you may have is a UN Report that revealed that certain charities that raised money for the Bosnians during the Bosnian Genocide were secretly also sending money to Al-Qaeda, however there is no evidence that Dr. Aafia knew about this secret. Rather, there is considerable evidence available that she was an activist raising awareness about the situation of the Bosnians.( NerdyGenius1 ( talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC))
Malik Faisal Akram's description in the Perpetrator section has been changed several times. Should it say he was a Muslim? Should it say that he was of Pakistani descent? Jim Michael ( talk) 14:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Akram said their parents arrived in Britain from Pakistan in the 1960s and raised their six sons here in Blackburn, a northern industrial town that has drawn Pakistani and Indian migrants since the 1950s, initially to jobs in the area’s once-thriving textile industry.and later in the same piece
Like the Akram family, they are Muslim Britons of Pakistani descent, whose parents moved here in the 1950s seeking economic opportunity, and he worries that this could reflect badly on the broader community.[8] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not a "claim" that Aafia Siddiqui was carrying handwritten notes plotting a mass casualty attack, along with explosive and poisonous substances, and a list of possible targets in New York City and methods
. Per
Aafia Siddiqui#Trial proceedings (which I assume is accurately cited in the absence of evidence to the contrary) admitted in her testimony in court that she was in possession of said documents, which were in her own handwriting.
FDW777 (
talk) 08:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)