Talk:Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis

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)

Fixed, before I saw this. The coordinates I added go right there, despite being very slightly different from what you've found. Moncrief (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Moncrief, I checked at timestamp in signature and noticed the coordinates discrepancy has since been corrected. Hope the rest of your weekend is better. --Sroth0616 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions

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)

Presumably there were no other hostage crises at synagogues in Colleyville, as there was no other Columbine High School massacres. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't been any archiving of this talk page. There isn't much discussion because it's very recent. The article has been moved, which is shown in the article's history. We don't usually put the year in the title if there's nothing to disambiguate from. Jim Michael (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

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)

It is unclear how it happened. We know two ran out and the perpetrator, it seems, ran out with them to join them on their journey or to attempt to re-capture them, but decided to turn back. Telegraph: 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)

Don't add antisemitism (or anything at the moment) as motive, related, or template

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)

I agree with should wait. As an aside, I would note that Liz Truss (UK Foreign Sec who has an insight into foreign intelligence) said the attack was an act "of terrorism and anti-semitism".[3] Potentially a case of jumping to conclusions and in no way overrides the FBI's provisional conclusion, but worth pointing out here for this discussion. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, worth noting, but as well as potential jumping-to-conclusions and/or I-have-to-say-this, Truss's tweet looks to be responding to an American government official who also reacted early and said it was antisemitic, so she may have inherited the information, so to speak, and not bothered fact-checking a US counterpart. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not true to say that he wasn't involved in Islamic terrorism. He was a very outspoken fan of Aafia Siddiqui & many RS have described him taking hostages as a terrorist incident. Jim Michael (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's splitting hairs, but also an important distinction; I wrote 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)

We don't know whether or not Akram was part of a group/movement/wave, although he was certainly an extremist in both his views & actions. Jim Michael (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, the terrorist is on audio saying "he had targeted a synagogue because the United States 'only cares about Jewish lives.'" This is antisemitism. [4] Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Does the Washington Post describe the attacker's speech as antisemitism, or is that your view? 2. Did you actually read what I wrote above? Let me restate, the attacker could have been the next Hitler, but if his motive wasn't about harming Jews, then the attack was not antisemitic. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif, please don’t overwhelm the discussion. Let some other people comment. We know your views and they will be taken into consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Each time an editor makes a comment stating their OR as fact, I do have to point that out lest it actually be taken seriously. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to belatedly add another personal opinion, on what I think that statement means, because I didn't read it as antisemitic at all - take the context of it. He is rounding up Jewish hostages so that he can negotiate their freedom for what he really wants. He is basically explaining to them why he chose a synagogue instead of a church or a bakery or a town hall. He, likely through US media consumption as filtered to the UK, thinks that 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)

That is so stupid. “Yes the attacker was Muslim, and yes this was terrorism; but this wasn’t Islamic terrorism” it’s in the Muslim charter to eradicate all infidels. Especially the Jews. 47.187.27.253 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2023 (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)

• Can someone please quote the FBI statement alluded to above? Asserting - as stated flatly above - “there was no antisemitic motive.” I haven’t seen it - I’ve only seen a statement that is far short of that. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:98BC:3B02:F36A:8F88 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Link to video and article. I'm not going to type out the video speech since it's one click to the BBC, but the brief article below says: "A hostage situation at a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, was "not related" to the Jewish community, according to the FBI's Matt DeSarno." Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sir, I respect your argument- it's well formulated- but it seems Mr. DeSarno has come under criticism for his actions. De Sarno also stated that the motive was still unclear.This incident also seems to be connected with a broader campaign against Jewish targets and communities across the United States. Dunutubble (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  You might be right, but we should be patient for the facts to come out. This is a complex situation where the perpetrator may have been influenced by mental illness rather than ethnic hatred. The Washington Post wrote[5]:

  Akram entered Beth Israel by knocking on a glass door and pretending to be looking for shelter, he said on the live stream of the morning service.

  Akram said he liked Rabbi Charlie. “I can see they’re good guys,” he said on the live stream, apparently speaking with negotiators. “They let me in. I didn’t look nice. They let me in. I said, ‘Is this a night shelter?’ and they let me in. And they gave me a cup of tea. So I do feel bad.”

  I think Wikipedia should reserve judgement. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Dunutubble: Yes, I added some of the criticism of DeSarno (per Haaretz/The Independent) to the article previously. However, "Jewish leaders were upset that he said it might not be antisemitism" is not e.g. "the FBI said he shouldn't have said that so early"; also note that your sources (Jerusalem Post and Independent) lean Jewish - this is not to discredit them, but to say that they should be attributed inline if you add it to the article (and I encourage you to, the unusual things like this seem to be what is keeping it in the news). The question of whether there is a broader campaign of antisemitism in the United States is not something that we can determine from sources speculating patterns, especially since the attacker was British and spent less than two weeks in the US. With other sources also noting the longstanding Islamist ideology, mental illness, and bereavement, focusing on antisemitism is not only unhelpful, but can also sway public opinion to focus even more on the antisemitism. Like, the article updates seem... fine enough... except for a giant "this is part of a series on antisemitism" sidebar. Again, even if that was the whole everything, this is not a main topic in terms of antisemitism as a whole and that placement is inappropriate. @Jehochman: to also note I'm going to remove that sidebar. Discussing the FBI investigating antisemitism as a motive is fine, using wikivoice (including the sidebar, "part of" labels...) on a high traffic article to assert it is a problem. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Missing source "SiddiquiST"

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)

Now working. Perhaps it was lost and restored when some content was removed or edits were reverted. The source citation named name=SiddiquiST currently appears in the Negotiations section. It is:

Kaley Johnson, Who is Aafia Siddiqui? 'Lady al-Qaida,' in Fort Worth prison, was arrested after 9/11, Star-Telegram (January 16, 2022).

It was removed with this edit, and was put back with this edit. This is why the Preview and Change edit form options are so important to use when removing content. Also checking the references are still valid after an edit is good practice. I also think it is good practice to name the first time a citation is used and just reference subsequent citations, that way if you remove a full named citation you know subsequent citations will break. If you have to, move the citation name so it is on the first or "(a)" citation reference. Additionally, citations should be named after the author and/or publisher - in this case "KaleyJohnsonST" or "KJ-Star-Telegram" would have been better ref names. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning that the FBI said the attack did not have an antisemitic motive

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)

See my comment below. You seem to be laboring under the incorrect assumption that we need to include everything possible. Just because a "source exists" doesn't mean we must include it (WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included..."), especially when (1) the reporting is early; (2) the statement is vague; and (3) the statement is contradicted by other information. We don't have to regurgitate every early press conference statement (which, by the way, is not "the FBI").

And the WP:ONUS is on the proponent of inclusion — not the opponent — to establish consensus. It's not the job of others to persuade you that the information should be omitted. It's your job to establish a good reason why it must be included. Neutrality^talk 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My reason for inclusion is 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)

(edit conflict) Also, let's break down your list. (1) you don't like the right-after-the-end reports, but you're fine with all the reports from during the incident? The timeframe is attributed in text so this shouldn't be a problem. (2) I don't think it's vague... "it was not specifically related to the Jewish community" means, er, exactly that. We could explain what he said in our own terms, but we're much safer using a direct quote in this situation, as explained re. wikivoice concerns. Attributed in text. (3) So you say that other people saying the attacker said antisemitic things contradicts the intelligence statement that the attack did not have an antisemitic motive. Well, the fact is that whether the statement is true or not, it was said. It is attributed in text. Also, since the article mentions what the attacker said, it seems only fair to also mention this, no? But, also, no source - especially from anyone investigating - has actually connected the attacker's words to a motive: no source has said "actually it might have been antisemitic in motive", so you are making a SYNTH-y OR claim here. See above: saying antisemitic things does not mean that the attack was antisemitic, only the attacker. As far as we can tell right now, he targeted a synagogue and didn't like (his view of) the American attitude to Jews, but his plan was motivated by freeing a Muslim, not harming Jews.
Ultimately, the text is neutral and fully attributed in prose, we are presenting a statement for our readers to make up their own mind about. Many will probably see the rest of the article and go "I don't buy it" and maybe think "well, Wikipedia is telling me it was an early report", and decide to also disagree. But it's not on us to decide for them. We present the relevant information, which this is, actually neutrally, and let them make up their minds. Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-responsive to my points. Wikipedia is not a live blog, we are not a newspaper, and we don't have to repeat every single bit from a press conference just because "it's current." We make content decisions based on what's encyclopedic - and that includes how firm and specific (versus preliminary and vague) the sources are. That's not "hiding information"; it's called writing an encyclopedia. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that others are trying to "push a narrative." Neutrality^talk 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The information is relevant. I did respond, but you keep causing edit conflicts. Ahem, you are literally advocating for hiding information because you think it might be wrong based on your interpretation of the situation. That is what you are doing. And that interpretation lines up with a narrative that may or may not be true, but if we remove the information, all the readers will see are the statements that support it. I don't think you are trying to harm the article, honestly, but I do think there will be BIAS if you remove the information. I'm going to say no more: I've fully explained and if you don't get it after finally reading the replies, I don't know how much more explaining I can do. I will never agree with you on this, so let's wait for someone else to come through and have an opinion. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement that attack "didn't target Jewish community" based on vague 5-second video clip

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)

@Neutrality: What part of WP:ONUS in any way applies here? Seriously. But, and I'll assume it was an edit conflict, you missed the fact I already opened discussion. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because a statement was made doesn't mean that it needs to be repeated in a Wikipedia article. WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." I don't think it gets any clearer than that. Neutrality^talk 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If we don't include the latest statements from the people investigating, what will we put in the investigation section? No, not all verifiable information needs to be included, that principle works on WP:DUE WEIGHT. Don't include the things that are unimportant - the current known "fact"s on motive are, shockingly, important to a terrorist incident. You just don't like it. Kingsif (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty of material in the investigation section based on the known facts - who is investigating, the attacker's nationality, etc. The content you want to put in isn't a "known fact." It's a 5-second vague video clip from a press conference. Wait for more to be known, then we update. This is straightforward. Neutrality^talk 01:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You say 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)

Per Neutrality, keep this tidbit out of the article. It’s undue WP:WEIGHT. Jehochman ^Talk 01:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO it is undue weight to keep in all the claims that the attacker was saying antisemitic things without including this. Both or neither. I.e. surely it's too early to say either way, so it would be naturally deceptive to only include things that suggest antisemitism was a motive when there are sources saying otherwise. (Also note that, again, "tidbit" is language used to try to diminish the significance.) Kingsif (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• I guess it’s possible that the target - a synagogue - was simply random. And it could just as easily have been a mosque. But I have trouble reading that into the murky statement that it was "not specifically related to the Jewish community.” That suggests it could have been related to the Jewish community. But not “specifically” related to it. So .. it could have been generally related to the community? I have no idea what the murky statement is saying - and if it outweighs that man’s own statements and choice of location (didn’t he specifically say he was looking for a synagogue)?2603:7000:2143:8500:98BC:3B02:F36A:8F88 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  This person randomly targeting a synagogue is far-fetched. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree that we should withhold labeling this incident antisemitic, but there would need to be much stronger evidence before we would say that it wasn’t antisemitic. For the moment I think the best way to achieve neutrality is to simply remain silent on this question until more facts are documented in reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• If I may; I agree with Jehochman here. The IP has fallen into the trap of trying to use sources to work out what the attacker's motive was, thinking we should write the article content about it based on a determination. Even with good guesses, we don't (and probably never can) know for sure what the motive was. We can only know what sources say it was, or wasn't. As long as the article remains balanced enough when it comes to accusations related to the attacker, hopefully we can improve it. Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Can this stupid debate be put to rest now?

https://www.wkow.com/news/one-day-later-fbi-reflects-on-texas-hostage-incident/article_786f56d4-7750-11ec-aa4f-53334532e8eb.html

"During the negotiations with law enforcement, the hostage taker, Malik Faisal Akram, spoke repeatedly about a convicted terrorist who is serving an 86-year prison sentence in the United States on terrorism charges," the FBI said. "This is a terrorism-related matter, in which the Jewish community was targeted, and is being investigated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force." | MK17b | (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

…how is someone supposed to respond to that? Of course we all want to use the best recent source(!), but characterizing anything with valid arguments as a stupid debate cannot 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)

WKOW happened to be the first result that came up on Google. It is by no means the source of any scoop. Article now sources it to NBC News.

I find the idea that a five second clip from the press conference undermined the idea that the crisis was not targeted at the Jewish community to beggar belief. At the very least an org like the ADL can be a RS to speak to possible motive. | MK17b | (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the NBC source to the article. I am going to make some edits for clarity that I hope (and do believe) will be uncontroversial.
It was not a five second clip, for the record, if anyone bothered to actually visit the source rather than just buy into misleading statements made to diminish its importance. The BBC reporting on an official FBI-led press conference is a reliable source about the direction of the investigation, and I find the idea that anyone would refuse to believe that just because they personally disagree to beggar belief. Kingsif (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there given BBC is obviously a RS, but their reporting on the crisis marking 'hostage' in quotations def. raised eyebrows - https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1482458064578097152 | MK17b | (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

They are quoting the police there, but yes, that is why Wikipedia gets fussy about WP:SCAREQUOTES. Kingsif (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

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)

👍🏼 looks like more of the current events editors have given it a glance, but Wikipedia has a knack for combing RS's to get articles decent enough. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Love of Corey (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Context

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)

Anonymous source statement - include?

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)

It's been taken care of. Not sure why it was hidden in the first place. Love of Corey (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Armed with a pistol"

Which reference supports this claim? Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: This goes without saying, but if you have looked through the nearby cites and can't see the source, remove the statement. Kingsif (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I have been unable to find a reliable source that mentions a pistol, I have removed that. If a reliable source is identified that mentions a pistol, it can be added back. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Times says it was a pistol (here), quoted text here. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

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)

Assuming you mean "explain how someone was allowed to travel from England to the US to commit a crime", the answer is that it is easy to travel between the two countries and you have to assume that people probably don't tell immigration officers if their reason is illicit. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

According to The Telegraph, he was granted a tourist visa after lying about his criminal past (and presumably his intent). A US source said someone dropped the ball in granting the visa, after no "derogatory information" was found on US intelligence databases when he entered the country. He had an extensive criminal history, had been imprisoned on several occasions, and was previously thrown out of a British court building for shouting about 9/11.[6] Also 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)

If you're a British citizen with a British passport, all you need to travel to the U.S. for up to 90 days is said passport and an ESTA. No visa is required under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). He would have to obtain an ESTA online, but this is a relatively quick (no more than 72 hours) and contactless approval, unless somebody is on a watchlist or actively wanted by police. That's how he "obtained his travel documents." He was a British citizen and had a British passport, as do most British citizens. The point can clearly be made that he should have been denied an ESTA or been barred from entry by immigration officials at JFK, but the term "travel documents" implies an onerous set of documents required to travel, and that's not how it works for citizens of VWP nations. It's not the least bit "hard." Moncrief (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism sidebar

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)

Besides that, unless this event becomes so notorious to make it onto the sidebar, it's not a main topic in regards antisemitism as a whole anyway. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The FBI has updated their statement to include that this was indeed a targeted terror attack on the Jewish community. See here, here , and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.194.196 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think anyone with two or more braincells can figure out what motivated the attack based on the facts we have reported. There is no reason for Wikipedia to editorialize. When the Anti-Defamation League, or others of equivalent heft, come out with official statements, we can report what they say. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

References

"Aafia Siddiqui" section

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)

This is not a biographical article on Siddiqui, since that article already exists and the information you keep trying to include is better suitable there. There is absolutely nothing relevant about her kidnapping or blood diamonds in this article, and all of the other content you described is already mentioned further down in the article in summation form. Love of Corey (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is meant to be the background behind Dr. Aafia's case that caused the situation. Therefore, we can delete your blood diamond statement as that's not relevant. Moreover, this isn't a biography, no one is talking about her academic achievements. This article is covering The Background behind the Synagogue Hostage Situation, where the perpetrator had no confirmed relation to Dr. Aafia. In other words, the way you have it is including irrelevant information, and what I'm putting is all the narrative that The Perpetrator would be familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not notice the blood diamonds statement was a part of the original version I'm trying to restore. It's been promptly deleted. Love of Corey (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Her alleged remarriage (Which has been declared false by her family) is also irrelevant. I have deleted it. I have also included a bipartisan account on her alleged crime, so that the background is there — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Love of Corey If we are mentioning her alleged crime in 2008 we need to mention how she ended up in Afghanistan in the first place, hence I argue that we should include the kidnapping — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

All of that is a matter for her biographical article, not here. We're not going to recount her life story here at the expense of this incident. Love of Corey (talk) 04:43, 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)

I did not add the blood diamonds in the first place. Also, she is a convicted criminal; I don't understand the need to mention the possible cover-up angle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge narrative that she was falsely convicted, and a political prisoner, which is probably the narrative that the perpetrator heard — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't even know if this terrorist heard of that "narrative". Sources say he wanted her released. Nothing's been said about him saying she was framed. Love of Corey (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Love of Corey 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs)

I see no reason to remove the "Aafia Siddiqui" Section, however I do believe the summary on this page does not represent the main article in a neutral manner. The summary on this page fails to include counter arguments that would bring neutrality and balance. I've made edits to more farily represent that. Please share any comments, concerns or issues you have with my edits. Djrun (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a section on her is justified, but it's too long. Jim Michael (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Those sorts of edits are being contested over at WP:NPOVN. I've undone your edits. In the meantime, please discuss the issue over there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Love of Corey I would suggest including what he wrote at least, as it can be confirmed by many sources. Plenty of Sources mention Malik Faisal Akram 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. 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". This isn't just a Pakistani view, but a view held internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Love of Corey I find it odd to simply undo all edits, without at the very least, taking out the sections that you believe are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. If there are certain statements or references that you take opinion with, I wouldn't mind having those parts removed. Can you at the very least state what exactly you have an issue with? That way we can restore the edits that are non-controversial and then hash out the contested parts. Amineshaker (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

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)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: She was never convicted of terrorism. She was convicted of trying to shoot an interrogator (Although there was no forensic evidence brought in court that she shot the gun). She was never even charged with terrorism. She is viewed in the Muslim world at large as an innocent political prisoner, which is the narrative the Perpetrator would be familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyGenius1 (talk • contribs)

A-ha. Makes sense. Thanks for the info. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Refs

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)

Edit Suggestion: The Hostage Taker Believed that Aafia Siddiqui was "Framed"

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)

An "international network of activists" consider Dr. Aafia as innocent and wrongfully convicted

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)

More important is the UN report. Which found her to be involved in the funding of 9/11. Yet while that was mentioned, with appropriate RS refs, it was deleted. The importance of some vague "international network" with zero known knowledge of the facts of her case or the law pales in comparison. And frankly is unimportant, beyond what we already have. (Apologies if your are part of it). 2603:7000:2143:8500:BC2B:F698:850A:B4EA (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, it is completely important, due to the fact that the perpetrator also believed she was innocent. 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. It should thus be important to mention why she would be seen as innocent.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC))

RE: "UN Report" The UN report was concerning how charity organizations that were sending money to help the Bosnians during the Bosnian Genocide were also funding Al-Qaeda, however this was not public knowledge. The Charities kept their Affiliations secret. There is no evidence available that she intentionally sent them money. However, there's considerable evidence that she was raising money for the Bosnian Muslims during the Genocide, as seen from her activist work raising awareness about the Bosnians during the 90s.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC))

Hello. I agree that including verified statements from reliable sources about Aafia Siddiq's innocence or injustice are absolutely important and relevant for understanding the motive of the perp. Whether or not you believe or agree these apologists are knowledgeable of her case is irrelevant to Wikipedia's guidelines of producing a quality article and neutrality. All one needs to do is examine reputable mainstream media articles covering the case and you will see that there is at least some mention of Aafia's supporters that support her innocence. To avoid an edit war, do we need to come to a vote on this matter? I think we should agree to some kind of consensus from active editors on this article or who have some prior experience editing similar topics. Amineshaker (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest we cannot say there is any doubt about conviction or her role in 9/11. We might include the protests against her incarceration and why people feel that way, but we must stop at that. Wikivoice should reflect the official account supported by reliable sources, not fringe theories. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Her "alleged Role in 9/11"? The most you find is speculations during the early post-9/11 era, and nicknames dubbed by American Media. The allegation that she was wrongfully convicted isn't a fringe theory but a common political position held by those outside of America. "few Pakistanis believe a frail 5ft 3in, 40kg woman could disarm an American soldier; fewer still think she would be carrying bomb booklets, chemicals and target lists" as stated in the Guardian. “If she was ‘Lady Al Qaeda’, as the Western media often likes to pejoratively present her, you would think that the charge sheets would include acts of terrorism. And yet that wasn't the case,” is quoted from a researcher at the University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute. Protests calling for her freedom in America were held by "more than 20 local and national human rights and religious groups" According to Aljazeera. The Dallas Morning News has reported that her case "generated protests nationwide" and that's only in America, where not many people heard of her. A British Muslim Online Newspaper labels her as "one of the most famous Muslim prisoners in the world". And that doesn't even get to the unanimously passed Pakistani Senate Resolution calling for her repatriation. These aren't fringe theories, but commonly held positions, seen as actual facts by many around the world, from militants like the perpetrator to human rights organizations and researchers.NerdyGenius1 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If RSs believe there is reason to doubt it, then there is an issue. But if they report only that her conviction is rejected by a large number of the Pakistani populace, then that falls short. Anyway, this battle is more logically fought on her own article than this one. (I add I believe her lengthy bio is not appropriate for this page.) Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but I believe a bipartisan narrative is important in order to demonstrate why one would think she was "framed" which was literally the motivation of the attack, as per his own words.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC))

Reactions from Muslim community

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)

We have CAIR, AS’s lawyer speaking also for AS, and his Blackburn Muslim community. How many more do you want to add, and what are the proposed edits and refs? I’m not aware of what was removed.--2603:7000:2143:8500:E1F7:CDB5:8943:9B1B (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with reactions is that you can keep adding till your wee fingers get tired. The idea is to keep as few as possible. The reaction of a small community organisation in Blackburn is not the most significant. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If we're trying to trim it down, it might make more sense to skip one of the others. Obviously the reaction from the community is different than the usual condemn terror. | MK17b | (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. A trim is most definitely necessary in this case. Love of Corey (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Error in lede: Siddiqui was never confirmed as an al-Qaeda operative

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))

I'm not sure when or why that was removed in the lede. Her section still says it's alleged, so I'm re-adding it. Love of Corey (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you also add to the lede that he thought she was framed? Seems kinda important tbh (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC))

We shouldn't add crackpot theories which principally alleged a Jewish conspiracy. Seems a bit mad, no? Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a constant issue with "terrorism". Bin Laden never faced a court, the people who flew the planes were never tried because they died upon impact. We rely on conclusions of the intelligence community and what congressional reports exist. Perhaps we should always wait for a conviction for terrorism (which does not always follow where prosecution does go ahead, as it might not be a specific offence under domestic law but rather served by the law of murder or attempted murder). But if we did this, it would go against how such events are reported by reliable sources. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that Dr. Aafia DID face a court, but charges of terrorism were never brought up. So your comparison to dead people and people outside of American Custody makes no sense, because she WAS in American custody, yet terrorism charges were never brought up. Hence why it should be called alleged. Moreover, 92% of the people that American intelligence thought were terror-tied have been innocent, according to the Guardian. So I don't see how "American Intelligence" can be considered as reliable, particularly when this was the same time they were telling us about WMDs in Iraq lol (side joke). Regardless, any terrorism allegations should be considered as simply allegations. In fact, there is no evidence that Malik Faisal Akram had any links to Al-Qaeda or that he thought she did, only that he thought she was framed. Any relation to Al-Qaeda is thus irrelevant to the Colleyville situation, even if initial media sources reported it.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC))

Description of Akram

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)

Religion is relevant to his motivation. Frequent trips to Pakistan are explained by his ancestry, as is his supporting Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. A significant amount of support for her in Pakistan. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Where was it confirmed that he's of Pakistani descent? Love of Corey (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who added it, so I don't know where they got it from. But it has been confirmed in some sources, e.g. NYT: 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)

"Claim" nonsense

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)