Talk:Shahina Siddiqui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Until you find some reliable sources (i.e. websites that aren't totally biased against CAIR; www.anti-cair-net.org doesn't sound like an unbiased source), you can't say unverifiable and libellous things about people on Wikipedia. Your username also makes it really hard to think you're unbiased. --Nucleusboy 15:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Besides which, WP:BIO declares that "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." The section you keep inserting is not neutral, poorly sourced, and contradicted by the CAIR article. WP:BIO states that "If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy." This section is derogatory and poorly sourced, so out it goes. --Nucleusboy 19:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The document you provided dates back to discussion between CAIR and the FBI dating back to 2004. In fact, the allegations of CAIR being an undicted coconspirator are much more recent in fact this past summer 2007. Therefore your source is not only incorrect but as a statement from CAIR itself is obviously completely biased. See: http://www.nysun.com/article/55778

If the CAIR is biased, then so are organizations whose sole purpose is to attack CAIR. This means that none of us have any unbiased sources. However, the current revision of the article looks much more NPOV --Nucleusboy 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All right I am learning the rules but removing two internal Wikipedia links to two thing

is really suppressing truth people need to see.

Why did you removing the link?

This article is written by Siddiqui herself and is on the CAIR-Can page. How can you call quoting the woman's own words written and posted on her organizations website factually incorrect, unverifiable or biased?

Misunderstanding: I didn't remove the links, I just put them inside the article. If the article itself already contains links like Siraj Wahaj, there's no need to also have Sirah Wahaj in the External Links section.
Also, I didn't mean to remove that link; mea culpa! --Nucleusboy 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Nucleusboy for seeing a hotheaded beginner person through to a better final product. I look forward to more of your corrections in future.

By removing the link to the CBC news report on the nature of Siddiqui's complaint to police and the name of the movie involved, important information about her position on the movie and information about the nature of her perception is removed and her activities are disguised. The link to the CBC article should remain because part of the important information contained within is the fact that police decided her complaint was without basis and the movie was not hate speech. Referring to her articles simply as being critical of editors who are "uncritical of Israelis policies" reflects a point of view that is not appropriate under the NPOV rules.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/05/29/mb-obsession-20060529.html

Siddiqui's complaint about the showing of Obsession was NOT directed solely at the Winnipeg Zionist Initiative but against all the Jewish community and religious groups that co-sponsored the film. Her complaint was also unsuccessful. The addition and deletions mask this. The comment about "uncritical" of Israeli policies is NPOV violation.

To change other Jewish Winnipeg groups and religious organizations to simply "pro-Israel" groups is ridiculous and offensive hatred towards Jews. Not everyone who belongs to a Jewish organization is proIsrael nor is every Jewish religious group is pro-Israel either. Further, not every group that sponsored "Obsession" can be characterized as "pro-Israel". The terms I used were not redundant and you not only falsely characterize all Jews as being "pro-Israel" by that change but you change the nature of the complaint Siddiqui made from a complaint against the Jewish community to one that is simply "pro-Israel" minimizing the impact her complaint had on the feelings of the entire Jewish community. Terrorists, as depicted in Obsession do not restrict their murderous activities to only "pro-Israel" Jews.

You seem to have some odd obsession yourself here. Anyhow, Shahina Siddiqui's comments are in no way directed at all Jews, which is what you seem to be trying to insinuate. She is only protesting against the actions of those who are uncritically pro-Israel/Zionist; thus is makes sense to mention that. Also, "I stand by Israel no matter what. Allah be damned! Mohammed, too!" is by definition "uncritical support of Israel", it's not what Shahina Siddiqui thinks, it's what the editor himself said. If you continue to distort the facts, I'll include this quote right in Shahina Siddiqui's wikipedia entry.

By the way, several of the people who made "Obsession" are anti-Semitic themselves. Serge Tripkovic has defended Justin Popovic, who is famous for his anti-Semitic comments. Yet I don't see you pointing that out.

What Serge Tripkovic did or did not do is irrelevant to Shahina Siddiqui's filing of an unsuccessful complaint against the groups that sponsored Obsesssion. She did not critisize specifically only "proIsrael" groups. She made her complaint against all the sponsoring groups of the movie.

As for "uncritical" editorial support of Israel, the part you quote is out of context (ignores the context of Israel having a right to defend itself against terrorism against innocent civilians in the editorial where the editor made the comment about standing by Israel (i.e. when it came to killing of the civilians by acts of terrorism and activities Israel undertakes to prevent such murders, support will be given uncritically)) and ignores all her other writings on the topic which are multitude and the article cited is only one of many. And Yes I have my own obsession about her. She presents herself as speaking for all Muslims in Canada but a whole lot of Muslims want nothing to do with her and her brand of Islam. She misrepresents Muslims, belongs to a group founded by people associated with Hamas and currently on trial for such, pushes the radicalist agenda everywhere and people, especially Muslim people, need to know what she is instead of this sanitized version you keep pushing.

Go ahead, insert the part about editors and I'll add several more of the many articles she has written proving she does not criticize ONLY editors who are uncritical of Israel but anyone who she thinks are uncritical of Israel.