Talk:Huma Abedin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

Please cease removing sourced rebuttal material that rejects the conspiracy theories about Huma Abedin. We cannot give undue weight to fringe theories, and Wikipedia must reflect the clearly-identified mainstream consensus that the claims about Abedin are nothing more than politically-motivated smears. Policy says Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. The claims about Abedin are clearly those of a small minority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section, because it is clear, based on an assessment of the reliable sources available, that the claims made about Abedin are specious, unfounded, politically-motivated smears without a shred of support from any reliable, well-respected source. They are fringe theories advanced only by a tiny minority of radical right-wing politicians and have no place in this article.

We have a much, much longer article on George W. Bush and, appropriately, that article nowhere mentions the fringe lunatic conspiracy theories that George W. Bush was responsible for orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They do not deserve such credence. Neither do the attacks on Abedin deserve a full paragraph in an article of less than 20,000 characters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree here with the removal of the section. This was a pretty widely covered incident. I do support strong language unequivocally describing it as a conspiracy theory. If we're going to cut down or remove anything because of UNDUE, it should be the long paragraph on the Grassley letter. Gamaliel (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The coverage of Bachmann's allegations and the response has WP:UNDUE weight given Huma's career, achievements, and speed at which this issue was dispatched. I suggest editing it for brevity. (a) Most of the sources write Bachmann and four other congressmen, let's do the same as it appears that Bachmann is treated as the leader and spokesman. (b) remove the Center for Policy Studies as this is a WP:SYN on our part. Let reduce the Republican defenders with "Republicans led by John McCain ..." How's that for a start? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, but I have reinserted the section referring to them as a conspiracy theory and appropriately wiki-linking to the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the veracity or lack thereof present in the allegations, it is my belief that it falls within Wikipedia's remit to provide the reader with the basic facts of the allegations made by the congressmen. Note that the edit you objected to did not attempt to argue that the allegations levelled against Mrs. Abedin were anything other than a conspiracy theory. Rather, it attempted to further explain what the allegations actually were, in a way that the general reader could understand them. On a personal note, I fully understand that your objections stemmed from wanting to avoid rejected conspiracy theories being peddled as verifiable fact. Nevertheless, I still feel that, from a scholarly point of view, which is the raison d'etre of Wikipedia, the issue demands further attention.

As the article currently stands, there is no information about what Bachmann et. al. actually accused Mrs Abedin of in the section under discussion (only referenced as a citation). Even if it is merely a conspiracy theory, the theory was spread widely enough that details of it deserve to be mentioned in an article purporting to be thorough. Besides the 5 members of Congress other researchers and publicists and bloggers brought proofs to support the allegations among them being Andrew Bostom, Andrew McCarthy, Ben Barrack, Barry Rubin and Tarek Fatah to mention a few. Of these, several do not accuse Mrs Abedin of any wrongdoing personally, merely calling for an investigation into the alleged connections to be carried out.

Again, I do not wish to come down on any one side of this, to do so would be to violate Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikipedia has covered plenty of other conspiracy theories in full detail, including the Assassination of JFK (indeed, there is an entire page about the rifle used) the 9/11 conspiracy theories and the Moon Landing theories. Although less widespread and less high profile than those theories just mentioned, the allegations made concerning Mrs. Abedin have a broad-based following in certain circles and deserve coverage to be thorough. The information in Wikipedia on the scandal, conspiracy or whatever you want to call it, as it is currently presented, is, in this author's opinion, vague and incomplete. If you, or anyone, have other ideas about how to better present that information I would be very happy to hear them.Starburst2000 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

None of that "evidence" has any credence among mainstream media - it is a offensive fringe theory which deserves absolutely no credence in her biography. All of your "sources" are from the fringe right-wing echo chamber, all of them fail the reliable sources policy and we are not going to pollute Abedin's biography with their garbage. Wikipedia is not a place to mindlessly repeat long-debunked and deeply-offensive partisan attacks on a living person. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"PJ Media" fails WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate greatly your taking the time to share your views with me. As I said before, the edit made no attempt describe the allegations made against Mrs. Abedin as either true or not true, merely to clarify a controversy by providing further information. Completely disregarding the views of five elected congressmen of the United States government, however "fringe" you may regard them seems very un-academic. You seem to display an inclination towards a certain political position that is blocking your ability to be objective. In order for the average Wikipedia reader to able to say that these allegations are just slander, they have to know what the allegations actually were. I am confident that my sources do not violate the reliable sources policy. Is there an appeals process so that I can take this to the next level? Starburst2000 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This portion of the article has serious issues. As currently framed, it says that Bachmann has alleged that Abedin has three family members who have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. That fact is either true or untrue, but it does not constitute an allegation of a conspiracy. There is not an allegation that Abedin is in some nefarious cabal; rather, the truth (or untruth) of those statements goes to the question of whether Abedin has more *sympathy* for the Muslim Brotherhood than your average state department official. As currently written, it massively fails NPOV - will change it to something that more accurately reflects what Bachmann, McCarthy et al. have questions about. WillMagic101 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. The reliable sources on this matter are unanimous in describing these allegations as scurrilous, unfounded conspiracy theories. We are required to give prominence to the point of view most widely held by reliable sources, and fringe theories lacking any mainstream credibility do not belong in the pages of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is no unanimity among RSs in describing the allegations as conspiracy theories, or scurrilous, or unfounded. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There pretty much is, as the cited sources indicate. The existence of the false, scurrilous conspiracy theory allegations may be notable, but we are required to describe them as such, because that's how reliable sources describe them. We already provide them significantly more space in Abedin's biography than George W. Bush's biography grants to the equally-ridiculous and insane conspiracy theories that he knew about or planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I note that even The Daily Caller, well-known as a publisher of right-wing partisan viewpoints, published a strongly-worded rejection of the claims about Abedin and asked conservatives to "stop the crazy Huma Abedin conspiracies". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Washington Times: "Her emails are of particular interest insofar as Ms. Abedin has extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood." Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Frank Gaffney, a noted conspiracy theorist as per the 8 reliable sources cited in his biography's lede in support of the label "conspiracy theorist," is proof merely that his claims are actually widely viewed as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would ask that you stop edit-warring out the well-supported description of the claims as a "conspiracy theory," which has been stable in the article for several years, and that you respect the consensus reached on this page that it's appropriate to label them as such. Consensus can change, but edit-warring is not a path to consensus-building. I have requested further input on this matter at the BLP Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trying to push the POV that this is NOT a conspiracy. It is very clearly and widely sourced as being described that way. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Strangely, only one of the sources applies the dismissive term "conspiracy theory" to the information in the 5 congressmen's letters, and that source was written by Anthony Weiner. So, there appears to be a general disconnect between what the sources say and what some of us are thinking they say. "unfounded" yes "condemned" yes "baseless" yes...but "conspiracy theory" no. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Is The National Review a Reliable Source re: This Matter ?

I ask because they have an article specifically on this sub-topic. I realise the right wing nature of the publication, but last I recall, political leanings of publications do not disqualify article content, even with BLPs. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The National Review is a partisan right-wing house organ, and while its opinions may be interesting or notable, they must be taken in that context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it considered a Reliable Source for Wikipedia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Moreover, the weight assigned to various sources depends on how their viewpoints align with mainstream viewpoints. We are an encyclopedia that reflects mainstream thought. Mainstream thought depicts the claims as little more than fringe conspiracy theories. That you disagree with that is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegations By 5 Members of Congress

What about this (directly above) as a heading for this topic?Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No. The claims are widely and consistently referred to as conspiracy theories by mainstream sources. The claims are fringe theories advanced only by a small group of right-wing partisans, and must be treated as such, particularly given their scurrilous and highly-defamatory nature toward a living person.

As per the Fringe theories guideline, We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine.

It is trivial to demonstrate that the claims about Abedin depart significantly from prevailing mainstream views and are widely held to be conspiracy theories by mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fringe is fringe, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote WP:FRINGE theories. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no theory, thus there can be no fringe theory. 1+1=2 Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the guideline. "Fringe theory" refers to any idea which departs significantly from prevailing or mainstream views in a given field. As the article discusses, it is trivial to demonstrate that the claims about Abedin being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood depart significantly from prevailing and mainstream viewpoints and have been overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream sources as being unfounded, conspiratorial politically-motivated lies. Thus, we will describe them as such in this biographical article. Policy directs that we weight competing viewpoints based upon the credence given them in reliable sources, and the weight of the sources here is indisputable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the RS weight is indisputable; I found the Newt and Cantor pro-Bachmann statements without too much effort. Perhaps there has been 100% attention to the knee-jerk political correctness opinionated response by some liberal media outlets in an immediate dismissive reaction to the letter. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To say anything other than that the accusations are discredited is giving the fringe too much credibility. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pushing a POV. It's giving weight to the accusations by citing the number and the source, without mentioning that they are entirely discredited. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Back to the definition, what is the "idea" that "departs etc?".

Newt is correct, this was all about a letter "asking a question" regarding Abedin's security clearance process. The question is neither an idea or a theory so I can not agree that it fits into our fringe theory policy in any way other than trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "idea" is that she is in any way connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is a highly-defamatory implication and claim, and has been widely rejected and condemned in reliable sources. It must and will be depicted as such in this article. If you continue to edit against consensus to depict this biographical subject in a negative light, I think it'll be time to request that you be topic-banned under discretionary sanctions. You have done nothing here but try to smear this living person, and that's not what we as encyclopedia editors are here to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Newt can ask whatever questions he wants, since he's not burdened by WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, etc. We follow WP:BLP and are not pushing this conspiracy theory. The coverage it has is more than it should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem here is one of misunderstanding. You two are under the illusion that the letter is implying that the Subject is connected to the muslim brotherhood. Why do you have that opinion? Likely because of the letter's reference to that group. But hear this. People can be and have been denied security clearance in the USA simply because of the associations of their relatives, even if they themselves have no such associations. Your opinion that the letter by Bachmann etc. is suggesting that Abedin herself is, as you say, "connected to the Muslim Brotherhood" is a completely unsubstantiated opinion based upon an illusion. I suggest you read the letter that Bachman wrote before assigning inaccurate aspersions to it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the reliable sources which universally declare the claims to be baseless, scurrilous partisan personal attacks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You have an issue with staying on topic. You said our FringeTheory applies because an idea is being put forward in Bachman's letter that Abedin is connected to the muslim brotherhood. I repeat for the fourth time, There is no such idea or theory thus our FringeTheory policy does not apply. The hysterical off-topic reaction by some is simply creating a Straw man; don't be sucked in to that obvious distraction. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources disagree with you, and the reliable sources are what our article content is based upon. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

I suggest that the size of this section places undue weight on fringe, discredited claims which have been out of the news for years. At most, this should be one short paragraph mentioning these fringe right-wing claims and that they have been discredited and widely condemned by mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles Written By Anthony Weiner As Reliable Sources?

I can't see using them on controversial aspects of his wife's bio. I just came upon and removed this one.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is not written by Anthony Weiner. It was written by Elissa Strauss. What you're seeing is a categorization tag. I agree the CMS design is confusing, but note that the names are separated by a design element, the hyperlink in the word goes to a categorization system rather than an author page and the word "by" is not next to Weiner's name. There is no evidence that Weiner is a writer for The Forward or The Sisterhood. Claiming that he co-wrote the article is without foundation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note other articles on The Sisterhood, such as this one, which has the word "Feminism" in the same location as the Huma Abedin article has "Anthony Weiner". Surely you would not argue that "Feminism" is an author of this linked article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

He's right. It's a topic tag, not an author credit. If you click on it, it takes you to http://forward.com/sisterhood/tag/anthony-weiner/, not an author bio. Gamaliel (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for correction. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Even given that Anthony Weiner was the subject not author of the article in question, why are we even using it as a Reliable Source? The Forward is fine, albeit quite decidedly leftist, but 'The Sisterhood' is merely a blog hosted on The Forward's website. We know it's a blog because it says so, multiple times, all over the page. Its own "About the Blog" page describes itself as "a digital incarnation of the traditional place women came together to share, debate, learn and lead" and a "lively community connecting Jewish women across generations." No word of editorial control or policy. We don't need it to support the 'conspiracy theory' wording, since we already have the Washington Post editorial board (in the very first sentence of their article, no less). Unless someone has a compelling reason why this source is necessary, let alone relevant, I'm going to go ahead and remove it file an edit request. PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The source is useful and the blog is clearly under the newspaper's editorial controls. The writer is a regular contributor to the publication. I don't see a good reason to remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2015: HuffPo & Obama

Later in the same paragraph as the above edit request, there is a sentence: "President Barack Obama referred to Abedin as Republican Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina similarly condemned the letter." Besides being ungrammatical, the Huffington Post article cited for this statement does not contain any reference to Obama. I suspect this is a sentence fragment from an earlier draft of the page. I'd request that we remove the words "President Barack Obama referred to Abedin as". PublicolaMinor (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2015: 'The Sisterhood'

I saw this on AE, but didn't realize the page was fully protected. My specific request relates to the use of 'The Sisterhood' as a reliable source for the statement "The claims in the letter... were sometimes labeled as conspiracy theories." The Forward would be fine as a newspaper, but 'The Sisterhood' is merely a blog hosted by The Forward's website. Its own "About the Blog" page describes itself as "a digital incarnation of the traditional place women came together to share, debate, learn and lead" and a "lively community connecting Jewish women across generations." No word of editorial control or policy. We don't even need it to support the 'conspiracy theory' wording, since we already have the WaPo editorial board. Can we get someone to remove it? PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per WP:NEWSBLOG, the article is a reliable source given its publication on a blog hosted by a reliable news organization, and the writer is a regular contributor to the publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would further note that were we to remove this source, the same logic would apply to the National Review article used as a source in support of the claims, as it is also published not on the magazine's main website, but on "The Corner", the outlet's newsblog. If The Sisterhood is not acceptable as a source, neither should be The Corner. I believe both are acceptable sources, however NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

National Review is a conservative-leaning organization, and cited as "The conservative National Review supported...." That fits pretty squarely with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. The Forward is a socialist-leaning organization (per its own page), but we don't cite it as "The progressive newspaper The Forward opposed the claim, calling it a 'conspiracy theory'." Rather, we use a blogpost as a source for "The claims were widely rejected," and place it alongside sources like the Washington Post, Seattle Times, and Salon. Per the policy you yourself cite, "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer." How is that reflected in the article? PublicolaMinor (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Forward has full editorial control, see [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So clearly this edit request isn't going anywhere since it would need to be uncontroversial or supported by consensus. Still, your link only shows that there is an editor who oversees 'The Sisterhood.' Given that the blog is hosted on the same webpage, this could simply mean that there is a staffperson overseeing the blog to ensure that nothing is published for which the paper would be held legally liable. That sort of oversight is fairly common among news blogs, as far as I've seen, but such veto power isn't at all the same as the "full editorial control" you speak of. Is there anything that explicitly confirms the degree of oversight? PublicolaMinor (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support- Its great to see some new Editor trying to improve the BLP. PublicolaMinor (talk makes a strong argument, which has not been overcome in the least, thus far. Hopefully you won't give up so quickly in the face of off topic, red herring and weak opposition. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Labelling or implying living congresspersons are conspiracy theorists or promote conspiracy theories requires the highest possible sourcing. 'The Sisterhood' falls short. D.Creish (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its so obvious The Sisterhood is not a RS as exemplified by this part of the same article "Gloria Steinem wonders if their child is keeping her by his dirty-text sending side. On CNN.com, Pepper Schwartz suggests that it is her "insane ambition," and Jennifer Senior at New York magazine sees Abedin as a woman in love with a narcissist. "Like [Hillary Clinton], she fell in love with a narcissist, someone who looms one-hundred-feet high in his own imagination, and like her boss, she has elected to participate in his delusions." Its Doublethink on steroids to suggest this article is a R.S. I will remove it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pleas don't and allow WP:DR to run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral section title: Discredited partisan attacks

Commenters on the Arbitration page expressed concerns with neutrality. I echo their concerns. This section title strikes me as particularly non-neutral, specifically WRT WP:LABEL. The majority of reliable non-opinion pieces do not describe the letter as a "partisan attack." Such wording would be inappropriate, unattributed, in the body of the section and doubly so in the title.
I hope to avoid a repeat of the earlier edit wars and establish consensus here before any controversial edits. D.Creish (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "Allegations by Republican politicians", which is what this section is about. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I endorse Cwobeel's phrasing: Allegations by Republican politicians. It's entirely neutral and well supported by sources. I'm also inclined to include "Republican" in the section heading as sources suggest (reasonably IMHO) the allegation may be politically motivated. D.Creish (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC) D.Creish (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added the note that they are discredited, in keeping with the overwhelming mainstream view of the claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I will also endorse Cwobeel's phrasing.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I support "Discredited allegations by Republican politicians" (or, if it would be better, "discredited allegations against family members") as well. I reject "questions about Abedin's security clearance process" which fails to capture the objectively false nature of the insinuations made. Neutrality^talk 04:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel our sources support "discredited." McCain, one of the harshest critics uses "unsubstantiated" [2] "Discredited" would require an official response. D.Creish (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Discredited is a final judgment whereas unsubstantiated is a temporary opinion which may later change to substantiated. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

D.Creish: Fair enough. I would support "Unsubstantiated allegations" or even just "allegations..." My main concern is that we not have the absurd "questions about..." phrasing, which seems to suggest that a genuine question exists (this would be like putting "questions about veracity of the moon landing" on the Apollo 11 article). Neutrality^talk 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor true to their name, haha. Good point re: "questions", I hadn't considered that. I think we have reasonable consensus for the "Allegations" wording. D.Creish (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wish we could avoid adding our own individual judgmental language to the discussion such as "absurd", as there really is a genuine question that exists according to Newt Ginrich, an opinion I share. I have to wonder how many editors have read the letter from the 5 congressmen. Neutrality, have you? Its great to reach compromise wording of edits, but that can be done, I think, without using judgmental language regarding the veracity of the issue at hand. This isn't some sort of committee where we all have to accept quietly another's statement of opinion as if its a fact, if we disagree with that assertion, in order to have consensual edits..is it? Why don't we all just stop expressing our opinions and conclusions as if they are scientific fact? At least, that would facilitate peaceful communication, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

RS Content Removed?

What is the reasoning for removing this content? Editors have commented that the BLP is too brief so maybe this will help.

I'm trying to AGF but it seems to me like some Editors here just want to keep this BLP brief and sanitized. Its not our fault if the only RS content about this Subject has to do with things like her calling her boss "often confused" which is certainly important considering her boss is likely to be a President.....unless of course that's the norm:).

In November, 2015, Senators Reid and Grassley publicly "battled" over Abedin's emails and special employment status. Reid claimed that Grassley was blocking almost two dozen State Department nominees over work done by Abedin while Grassley expressed concerns that Abedin may have been overpaid while on maternity leave and also insisted that questions remain about Abedin’s status and work as a "special government employee". In addition, a newly released email, wherein Abedin told a colleague that her boss, Hillary Clinton, was "often confused", attracted more news articles and publicity. [3][4].Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary was fairly clear: rv to version at 06:35, 18 November 2015: this is a BLP (biography) not a political score card with breaking news; "may have been BAD THING" belongs on a blog People wanting to add text like this should not simply announce their intention on this talk page. Instead, please offer some reasons for why it should be included—obviously not every "RS Content" item is inserted into an article. Problems with the proposed text include WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. The text says more about other people than the subject of this biography. If an independent investigation reached a conclusion saying that someone had been overpaid, the matter might be considered suitable for a biography. However, even then there would need to be more of a story—is the allegation that it is the subject's fault that (if true) she was overpaid? Why wouldn't that tidbit be material for some article? At Wikipedia, editors must assume AGF, not just post "trying to AGF". Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That two politicians argued about someone isn't necessarily fodder for a biography; I further note that we already discuss the employment status issue extensively and merely repeating that again in a slightly different format in a different place is unnecessary and undue weight, besides just not being very good writing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This large addition: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I would request that ProfessorJR stop edit-warring contentious, unduly-weighted and duplicative negative material into this biography and engage in talk page discussion, as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR modus operandi seems to be to make contentious edits, slow edit war over a period of days, and never discuss anything. I'd argue that if that continues, a trip to WP:AN/I may be due.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR - Please respect WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and engage in a discussion to seek consensus for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Professor JR, the content is obviously important given its coverage by TheHill and other RSs as singular articles, the objections to the content thus far have been shallow and strawmanish to say the least. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Four editors have objected to the material, and that means there is clearly no consensus for its inclusion. You need to discuss and gain consensus, not edit-war. You have not addressed any of the reasons for the objections. Most notably, we already have an entire paragraph discussing and including Grassley's claims about Abedin's employment; there is no need for another entire paragraph talking about the exact same issue. That's bad writing and undue weight besides. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I've seen no arguments against including Abedin's front page references to Clinton as "often confused". I'd like to hear why anyone feels that is prohibited from inclusion, as I doubt that even falls under the BLP limitations? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this in an encyclopedic biography of Abedin? Could you explain what additional light is added to our biographical sketch of Abedin by adding one line she wrote about someone else in a single e-mail that a partisan conservative organization is attempting to make hay from? Given that it's a description of Clinton, if anywhere, it might belong in Clinton's biography, though I personally doubt you'd get consensus for that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Abedin's only reason for even having a BLP is her relationship with Clinton, so obviously her views of Clinton are a part of that relationship,thus fair content for her BLP, it seems to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand how we write biographies. Abedin's reason for having a biography on Wikipedia is the notable things she has done. That they have often been in relationship to Clinton is interesting, but not dispositive of anything in particular. You are advocating that we include an out-of-context snippet of a two-year-old internal staff e-mail that was briefly peddled around by a conservative advocacy organization for... what reason, may I ask? How do you know that this one-liner taken from a random staff e-mail is "her views on Clinton" in any substantive manner? Are there any sources other than Judicial Watch that consider this e-mail snippet to be of substantive interest? Do you realize how ridiculous this is? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is becoming tedious to explain again and again why such material is really not useful for the BLP of Abedin. A good case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should chime in with my two cents, which is that I agree with Cwobeel and all of this is ridiculous. OMG "OFTEN CONFUSED"! Health speculation! She must have dementia! Jeez. One comment in an email is blown out of proportion and some feel the need to breathlessly promote it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: North "Abedin's reason for having a biography on Wikipedia is the notable things she has done". What is the most notable thing she has done, in your opinion? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have an actionable proposal for improving the article, please rephrase it in terms that do not conflict with WP:NOTFORUM. Our opinions on the subject do not matter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2015 (UC)

Let me try this in simple chronology:

1: I'm just following the discussion point made by North above when I issue the "what's notable" challenge above.

2. I am trying my damnest to improve the article by adding content from the Front Pages of TheHill wherein Abedin is in the headlines.

3. I am being told my RS content is not relepolitician vant because it relates to Clinton

4. I respond that the only reason Abedin has a BLP is because of her working relationships with Clinton

5. Then North says "Abedin's reason for having a biography on Wikipedia is the notable things she has done"

6. Then I say "name one"

7. Then 2 hours later you come in because obviously none of you can name 1 thing Abedin has done that is notable which is not connected to her relationship with Clinton.

The obvious conclusion is that some editors here think they OWN this BLP and wish to arbitrarily select and include only the most benign and least negative aspects of the working relationship between Clinton and Abedin. I assume good faith so you must simply believe that all BLPs should only include benign and positive reports regarding the Subjects. But as I say, that is not what Wikipedia is all about. You guys are simply out of line, I think. And I'm not alone. You just got through threatening Professor JR with running to some Administrators Noticeboard and wasting everybody's time again. Please try to be more constructive and ADD something to this BLP rather than just keeping RS content out.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written and edited based upon consensus. It is evident that a consensus of editors disagrees with your assertion that this trivial partisan nonsense has any place in Abedin's biography. That's really all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You said that this BLP exists because of the "notable things she has done". If true, then your arguments for excluding so many things realted to HRC is more valid. But, you nor other editors seem to be able to come up with even 1 notable thing she has done that is not tangential to her relationship with HRC or her scandalized husband. Why can you not come up with 1 notable thing? Because if there is no independent notability for Abedin, if she is just a secretary or another wife of a politician who misbehaved sexually, then maybe there should not even be a BLP? I am only trying here to follow through on your and some others' logic as to how you can push to exclude so much universally accepted RS content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete This Blp

I am making this proposal because as it currently sits, this BLP is largely a positive spin on negative news re:Subject. This BLP's content,discussion and edit wars relate to only 4 things:

1: Subject's tangential relation to her boss, Hillary Clinton 2: Subject's tangential relation to her husband Anthony Weiner 3: A letter written by 5 Republican Congressmen related to Subject's alleged familiaral ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which most editors here wish to dismiss and diminish as a smear and "conspiracy theory". 4: Abedin's emails made public as a result of Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Subject's emails on Clinton's computer which most editors here feel are non-notable.

Rather than have a BLP which is skewed away from "anything negative" about the Subject, I think Wikipedia and our Readers are better served by not having a BLP on this Subject at all. On the other hand, other, perhaps most, Editors here, are not and have not been adding any content at all, just reverting content added by a few of us, the BLP is too brief and shallow to qualify. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have contested this prod and removed the template. This deserves a full discussion with consensus at WP:AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only was it contested but since this aticle has been to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin before it is not even eligible for Prod. If you feel the article should be deleted you must nominate it at AFD. -- GB fan 16:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PROD? Seriously? This has been kept at AfD twice. Don't disrupt Wikipedia just to make some point. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

I have nominated the BLP for deletion [5] Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for wasting your time and ours on this WP:POINTY exercise. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear what is notable about Abedin in this BLP??? Obviously if there is nothing, then it should be deleted.Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what the AFD discussion is for. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability is non-routine coverage in reliable sources, which I think even you can agree Abedin has obtained. Your deletion "rationale" is about things that aren't in this article that you think should be. That has nothing to do with subject notability and AfD is a highly inappropriate step for you to have taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's not waste editors' time, see:

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 November 2015

Remove AfD tag per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Good close. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Renewed edit-warring around issues of due weight

I have reverted Nocturnalnow's bold reinsertion of material removed several weeks ago with no apparent objection. The reason is quite simple: it places undue weight on a fringe minority viewpoint. Wikipedia does not provide "equal time," it weighs viewpoints based upon their prevalence in mainstream reliable sources. It is indisputable that mainstream reliable sources reject and condemn the claims about Abedin in this matter. We have sufficient coverage of the issue and it deserves no more space in Abedin's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, if it is reinserted, then this other significant section must be readded, to properly adjust for due weight, giving (as the mainstream reliable sources do) more space and credence to the rejection of the claims than to those who apparently accept them, because one viewpoint is in the significant majority and the other is a small minority. To do otherwise presents significant issues of undue weight on these fringe minority claims which have been widely rejected by mainstream sources. However, I feel the section as-is is just fine, given that it's little more than a footnote of partisan hackery in Abedin's life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I was about to post on the same topic: A recent edit (diff) is attempting to restore previously removed text including '"There weren't allegations, there was a question" and "the question ought to be asked."' Stuff like that is a debating tactic to smear opponents—it has no information regarding whether the suggestion conveyed in the question is valid, it just blows smoke to generate FUD regarding an opponent. This article is not about an allegation so there is no need to list what opponents have said. There may be a case to include text from an opponent which has some evidence, even if not fully supported. However, smears from opponents do not belong in BLPs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Section on Abedin's campaign response to Trump's Muslim comments

I added a well-sourced section on Abedin writing an open letter as part of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, responding to a prominent candidate's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States. This is a notable act on several levels. One, the proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. is a hotly-contested point of political disagreement and Abedin's religion is central to why she wrote the letter for the campaign. Second, it indicates Abedin's role in Hillary's campaign is not just "behind the scenes" but as a public-facing spokeswoman as well. Another user has indicated disagreement with it, so I'd like to open up discussion here and gain consensus for its addition. The addition was as follows: After Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, Abedin wrote an open letter to Clinton supporters calling herself "a proud Muslim" and criticized Trump's plan as "literally (writing) racism into our law books." It was sourced to [MSNBC, but many other sources can be found. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The text was added 21:45, 21 December 2015 by NorthBySouthBaranof with edit summary "Add public response to Trump".

It was removed 04:05, 24 December 2015 by Nocturnalnow with edit summary "Please first gain consensus on talk page as this is WP:UNDUE for this BLP. You might try Trump BLP."

The edit summary for the removal uses the right words but the sentence does not make sense. The text in the edit is not about Trump—it is about the subject of this article, and shows a strong statement made by Abedin. That makes the text very DUE for this article, and the text is not mouthing-off at Trump. Another issue is that "first gain consensus" cannot apply to a bold edit to add text—no one needs permission to edit an article! The question of consensus arises after a proposed addition or deletion is disputed. That's trivial but I mention it to highlight the fact that Nocturnalnow's edit summary uses terminology from previous edit summaries for this article, but uses the terminology incorrectly. At any rate, I support the text and believe it should be restored because it shows the subject's views on an important issue raised nationally. I prepared this before the above comment was posted, and think that proceeding slowly is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For material that is controversial, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE may apply, but that is not the case here, the edit being properly sourced and not controversial in nature, the burden is on Nocturnalnow to argue on the reason for removal. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of objection (and indeed, agreement) expressed here, I have reinserted the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

State Department subpoena material

As per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, I have removed the addition of material by Bloodofox related to a subpoena of unknown relevance or interest. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the fact that a subpoena was issued to another organization related to a person is not necessarily of interest in that person's biography. We do not know what, if anything, may ever come out of it, and until we know whether or not there's anything encyclopedically relevant to Abedin's biography about it, it doesn't really merit space in her biography. It certainly doesn't merit space in the lede of her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Unknown relevance? Did you read the article? Did you miss the sections specifically stating that the subpoena was for information relating to Abedin's activities connected to the Clinton Foundation? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What information has the subpoena revealed that is relevant to Abedin's biography? The mere existence of a subpoena requesting information about someone is not presumptively encyclopedic. Is there a section in every Wikipedia biography of every person who has ever been mentioned in a subpoena, noting that fact? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we can afford to wait to find out if the subpoena is encyclopedic. That is, does it reveal information relevant to her biography? If it does, I would agree that it should be included. If nothing ever comes of it beyond the fact that a subpoena was issued to a third party for information about her, it doesn't belong in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Are you connected to this individual in some way or something? Obviously, it's very relevant that the United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the controversial Clinton Foundation specifically about the activities of this individual. How isn't that obvious? Do you get subpoenas from the State Department "all the time"? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am committed to ensuring Wikipedia biographies are appropriately, neutrally and sensitively written. Are you biased against this individual in some way or something? Your attachment of the weasel word "controversial" to the Clinton Foundation belies your own personal feelings in this matter.

No, it's not "obviously... very relevant" that a third party is subpoenaed for information about someone. The mere existence of the subpoena may be briefly newsworthy, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What is the lasting encyclopedic relevance of the existence of this subpoena to Abedin's life? You can't tell me? Then you might understand why it doesn't belong in her biography right now. If something encyclopedic comes out of it, we can add it at that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No requirement the subpoena reveal anything; it's relevant because it concerns the subject directly and notable because it's reported in multiple sources: Washington Post Fox News Reuters Politico (just from a cursory search.)

I agree it doesn't belong in the lede and an entire section seems undue. Any objections to moving the couple sentences to the existing Employment records and emails section? D.Creish (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @NorthBySouthBaranof: D.Creish (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflicted. Being subpoenaed isn't itself important, and we do not know at this point if the subpoena is regarding Albedin's own actions or if they are after information she has about someone else. (Indeed, from what I can see the investigation is the foundation, not Albedin directly (although certianly it may come out that Albedin's actions at the foundation are what are an issue, but we don't know that yet)) It is getting coverage, and will likely get more. If it is included now, shouldn't be in the lead, but I think 1 or 2 sentences at most could go into the suggested section. More than that would definitely be undue at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the correct article for the subpoena section. As currently written, it is a classic beatup seen everyday when one side of politics spreads FUD about the other. When the State Department investigates something like the Clinton Foundation, naturally they will subpoena as much material as possible so it can be examined looking for any relevant information. No one outside the State Department has any idea whether they hope to find something that may be directed against Abedin. When the matter is resolved, it may turn out that Abedin is totally irrelevant other than the fact that she happened to be a key staffer at the time. It is the latter fact (key staffer) that has encyclopedic significance. The section should be removed pending a secondary source showing its significance for the subject of this article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That a State Department subpoena was specifically issued regarding information on the article's subject is very notable and this has received significant media attention. It transparently means the subject is currently identified as directly involved in a State Department investigation.

I'm sure that we're all aware that the Clinton Foundation is generally regarded as highly controversial, and the article's subject has had her share of controversy. It's relevant. If you want secondary source analysis, it's also there from the usual pundits. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The arguments of :bloodofox: are very compelling, IMO. Boscaswell talk 21:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Would someone - I'm not sure, but does it have to be an Admin? - please edit the box note "The neutrality of this article is...", changing the word "article" to "section". Thanks. Boscaswell talk 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Script for Huma Abedin's name : should likely not be arabic

Huma Abedin's name is followed by a (doubtful) Arabic or Urdu transliteration of her name. Given that her parents are Indian and Pakistani, and that she is a US citizen, it is debatable whether that should be the appropriate script to use. India has a large variety of scripts, ranging from Latin to Hindi to Bengali, Kannada, etc. The only justification for using the Arabic script is if we put the emphasis on her Pakistani parent. Has someone even checked that the transcription in Urdu script is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.7.118 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Husband / Husband's scandal

While there is probably some public interest in her husband and her husband's scandal, I would consider it sexist and also not very informative about her to discuss her husband's scandal at length, and show his picture on her page. Rarely is a partner's picture shown on a person page anyway, and from an encyclopedic and historical perspective, I think that the scandal was overblown by the press. I am therefore removing the picture and the section, leaving in place a note that she is married to Weiner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswelt (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations"

"Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations" redirects here, but does not appear on the page. Without any explanation, it's clearly implying that she's some sort of Muslim Brotherhood sleeper agent. I think this constitutes a violation of WP:BOLP. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree, and have removed the redirect and nominated the page for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Apart from redirects based on Abedin's name, these redirects exist:

• Anti-Islamic propaganda
• Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood
• Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theories
• Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories
• Muslim Brotherhood influence operations

Having this page as the target seems strange to me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: They've all been either deleted or redirected to a more appropriate page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight and lack of NPOV on congressional Inquiries Sections

First off being a aid to Hilary Clinton for a very long time, without even looking I will wager those are not the only congressional inquiries she has had to testify. Also that section seems rather large considering each separate inquiry has its' own lengthy article. It also seems to lack neutral point of view0pen$0urce (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

tag rapidly removed without any discussion C O M E DY !!!To much POV on wiki 0pen$0urce (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No Mention of Huma Abedin's Position at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs?

So, I see that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs receives brief mention in the article but the article does not mention Huma Abedin's position at the journal. This has been getting a lot of press coverage lately, including a Clinton campaign response: cf. "Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for a dozen years" (New York Post) and "Huma Abedin denies active role at radical Muslim journal" (also New York Post, with campaign response).

The thing isn't that this isn't some kind of out-there American rag blather, Abedin was in fact listed as an assistant editor from 1996 to 2008, and she may received a regular check for it. The Clinton campaign says that Abedin wasn't directly involved with the journal. Shouldn't this be in the article? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The New York Post is not reliable as it pertains to anything Hillary-related. I did a Google search, and the only other outlets I see looking into this is TheBlaze.com, Fox News, Breitbart, and Judicial Watch. So, we have to disregard this entirely, and not consider it unless mainstream publications run with it. Then, we can see if there's something to include or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether you like the political leaning of the outlet or not (and I don't), the fact is that it is verifiable and even acknowledged by the Clinton Campaign. This should be plenty enough reason to include coverage of this fact. At the moment, the article simply omits Abedin's assistant editor position. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What's verifiable? Huma is denying it, so nothing is verified. The political leaning of the outlet absolutely plays a role into whether or not it is a reliable source due to WP:POV. They call it "radical" in the headline; that's not NPOV. NYP is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose POV is clear. The Blaze is a conservative site, so is Judicial Watch, Breitbart is now entwined with the Trump campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's verifiable that her name, along with various other members of her family, appears listed as "assistant editor" on the journal from 1996 to 2008, a journal that is peer-reviewed, nonetheless. The campaign claims that she had no active role but it remains unclear if she was in fact paid for the position and, either way, she is nonetheless associated with the journal, regardless of the campaign's response. I'm aware of the ownership and associations of these media outlets. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What? The NY Post is RS for American Politics? It's barely RS for subway delays. I guess they couldn't muster a story about her husband's genitals that day. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Snark aside, they are indeed correct that Huma Abedin is listed as an "assistant editor" for the publication in question from 1996 to 2008, something not included here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If that is covered by mainstream RS references in a way that describes why that role was noteworthy in her life or career, I wholeheartedly support its inclusion. In view of this discussion thread, it's clear a valid source should be presented here for consensus. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the Vanity Fair article below. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the article already does mention Huma's position. Look for the sentence "In 1998, she was also an assistant editor of JMMA." ^Falling_Gravity 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like it needs to be updated and expanded. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Vanity Fair (2016)

Looks like (Huma) Abedin's position at the journal was well known and included various other members of her family, including siblings and both her mother and father. Here is a quote from a 2016 Vanity Fair piece that discusses it:

When Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its mission as “shedding light” on minority Muslim communities around the world in the hope of “securing the legitimate rights of these communities.

... It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.

This is very relevant to the subject of this article and should be included here and at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs article. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Vanity Fair, specifically this piece, is fine by me as a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Week did an article about this. It's mostly a summary the NY Post's articles, though it's much less sensationalized (besides the "anti-feminist Saudi Muslim journal" bit in the headline). ^Falling_Gravity 02:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Business Insider covers the NY Post's articles. CNN briefly mentions it. ^Falling_Gravity 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of marital status

Earlier today I removed an above-the-TOC reference to Abedin's marriage to Anthony Weiner including the announced end of that marriage and a reference to his sexting scandal. The edit was reverted in good faith by an editor who feels that news of Abedin's marriage (and the inevitably associated information) is key to her biographical article.

Weiner's article doesn't mention his marital status in the header and only refers to sexting in general. I suspect that's the systemic bias of describing women in relation to men, but it could also be that we have a responsibility to highlight the information in both places and the Weiner article just hasn't been updated. Yet to me the lede of that article looks fine and this one is overweighted toward the personal.

Given the political careers filling the articles I can't support the conclusion that present-day marital information (and other personal dross) belongs in the lede: it does belong in each article's Personal life section, and is also in the biobox sidebar. I'll note also that if it is key to the article, that isn't yet reflected in the amount of information in that section; there's simply a repetition of the header. We seem to be stealing a march from wikinews; if one of these two announces a new engagement next week, will we continue to update the lede of both (ok maybe for Weiner, but why Abedin?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toh (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the material should not appear in the lead section, as I don't think that it fits within the WP:LEAD guideline. It seems to me that the material is appropriate for inclusion in the Personal life section of the article body. 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The context of her marriage to Weiner seems quite relevant to me. As for Weiner's bio, I think it should mention Huma in the lead as well, but that can be handled on that page's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think she's tangential to the sexting controversy, which is really Weiner's deal and is already mentioned in the lead. clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sexting controversy is "Wieners deal". As such, I don't think that mention of it belongs in the lead of this article which is not about Wiener. Mention of her reaction seems to me to be appropriate in a relevant section of the article body. Also, I think that this reeks of WP:Recentism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is about her, though, and she's married to Weiner. The sexting can be kept out of the lead. Up until today, this article didn't link to the sexting article because it's not her scandal. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the existence of her marriage to a former congressman is lede-worthy, and the fact that she has separated thus obviously belongs there, but the details of hows and whys should be left to the body. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The general answer (Marriage is not generally lead worthy) I think is overridden in this instance by the fact that a major part of both Weiner's and Albedin's notability comes from their relationship and its subsequent ups and downs. However, certainly i think things should be kept to a minimum in the lead, and the nitty gritty left for the body where it can be given appropriate context and detail. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

NEED MORE INFORMATION ON THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UMA ABEDIN AND HILLARY CLINTON

Since there is plenty of articles about Hillary and Abedin's special relationship (Hillary calls her a daughter) I think this need to be expanded. The two are almost together all the time, both have had unfaithful husbands, I think there is enough there to talk about this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:5454:7A20:549C:5270 (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not engage in tabloid-like speculation. Our biographies of living persons policy requires than any and all claims about living persons must be based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources and must not give undue prominence to claims (for example, through weasel words such as "plenty of articles"). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hillary Clinton campaingn has this article on LOCK DOWN for obvious reasons. Despite all of the now FBI criminal investigations into Abedin's husband, there is now a new FBI investigation based off of some of the email found on Weiner's laptop which have some significance to the Hillary emails. This and the also the probabilty that Abedin and Hillary's "relationship" has more to say about something we all could guess is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:F471:A783:B6E1:12F5 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016

Periods need to be at end of all references consistently. Many references do not have periods.

173.170.251.222 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some examples would be helpful. BTW, periods go before references.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

More detail on her parents please

This article needs more detail on her parents present nation of residency and positions. As well as the current controversy over her apathy towards her mother's active support of the oppression of women under Islamic culture. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a WP article on Syed Zainul Abedin -- I'm not sure whether or not this is her father, and the article is pretty sparse in any case. There doesn't seem to be a WP article about her mother. This American Thinker article has some info about her mother and about related concerns re Huma. This National Review article talks about both her parents and also about concerns re Huma. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Both of the above "sources" are right-wing partisan opinion pieces which don't appear to meet our requirements for sourcing the biographies of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

According to a couple of source, her father is no longer alive; he died in 1993 according to this one (a biased source, but I think ok for year of death) [6]. The Syed Zainul Abedin we have an article about is alive or at least was in 2015 per the references, so he cannot be the same person.--agr (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about Huma Abedin's parents, and extensive discussion of whatever views her parents might hold does not belong in this biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted the indent level of your comment above, since it seems to be primarily in reaction to my comment. I hope you don't mind. If you do mind, please undo my adjustment and feel free to appropriately adjust the indent level of this response. What you say is pretty much the reason why I just mentioned that info here on the talk page rather than trying to add anything to the article at this point. I'm not presently able to make an editorial judgement re relevancy here (this article isn't one I normally keep an eye on; it's apparently on my watchlist because I recently did make a couple of small edits to it), but it seems to me that mention of the info in my comment above here on the talk page so that might be discussed was a reasonable idea. Re WP:BLP, I don't think mentioning on an article talk page about a living person that particular articles on notable secondary sources contain info re that person flouts that policy. Re political leanings of the sources I mentioned, of course WP:DUE needs to be considered if any of this is deemed sufficiently relevant for mention in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a problem with the links being here for discussion (there's nothing outright libelous in either of them) but I would object to either of them being used as sources for the biography. I've split my comment for indent clarity; the first sentence is mostly directly directed at tpositionshe OP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. AFAIK, neither of those sources is generally outright libelous. Re your potential objections, my understanding is it is not WP policy that generally reliable but non-neutral sources are precluded from being cited as supporting sources for NPOV article assertions, including NPOV assertions mentioning and attributing non-neutral information published or assertions made by those sources, even including such assertions in biographical articles about living persons. The essay WP:Neutrality of sources discusses that a bit. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." All articles includes articles which are about living persons. This is getting pretty far afield from the topic of this subsection. What say we break it off at this point? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The biographies of living persons policy sets higher standards for sourcing biographies, particularly for controversial or negative claims about living people. The American Thinker is, at best, a questionable source given its notable advocacy for fringe conspiracy theories and extremist viewpoints — see this paean to an avowed white nationalist or this anti-feminist screed or this claim that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book or this complaint that black people are on postage stamps or this conspiracy theory that Obama didn't actually attend a soccer game or this wild nutjob allegation that Obama's real father is a Communist for a few examples of the site's clear lack of fact-checking and editorial control that we would expect from a mainstream reliable source.

Due weight on highly-negative claims published by such a non-mainstream source may, in fact, be zero, particularly considering the brevity of this biography. Moreover, a reading of the article finds that it is primarily concerned with a lengthy discussion of claims about viewpoints the author claims are held by Abedin's mother, which have absolutely nothing to do with Huma herself, and are specifically called out by policy as something to avoid — Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

We have plenty of high-quality reliable sources addressing the conspiracy theory claims about Huma, and widely dismissing them as unfounded xenophobic scaremongering. That's all we need to say about the topic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There is not much point in debating a hypothetical edit, but if the suggestion is that the (alleged) sins of the mother should be visited upon the daughter, well, no. Nor should a biography contain text such as "the subject refuses to comment on X", if that is the intention of the OP's second sentence. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this page may have an inaccuracy. Huma's father was not of Indian descent, and her was born in Pakistan, not pre-partition India. I think this often causes confusion in labeling her an 'Indian', and here father, although born in pre-partition India, would be considered as a 'pre-partition Pakistani' as he had not lived in Pakistan. Therefore, I would like for this inaccuracies to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyFKen (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

It states that she was born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. That she moved to the states when she was 2, yet her bio says she was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

63.145.198.2 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, she was born in Kalamazoo, and moved to Jeddah when she was two. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sunnite or a Shiite?

Is she a Sunnite or a Shiite?--The SBC Guy (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would you think she is one of those two? There are many different denominations of Islam. -- GB fan 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I know that but the Majority of Muslims are Sunnites and Shiites.--Hans Stolz (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Since her parents chose to move to Saudi Arabia with her, I think it is more probable that Abedin is Sunni. However, assumptions don't have a place on Wikipedia so lets leave it out until there is a credible source. Amin (Talk) 19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Due weight

(Wikipedia:Due weight) This article is a mess and afoul of basic WP:BLP requirements. A glance at the article and you'd think she's best known for "Congressional inquiries"... The "Criticism" section is half as long as the section her career. Really? We avoid "controversy" sections for this reason—keep the content to her biography and major events in it. Anything worth keeping from the "Criticism" section could be refitted into the general career history and said at a fraction of the length.  czar 17:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Abedin is known primarily by the public for the sexting scandals of her husband. Amin (Talk) 19:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Why so little on the Weiner computer issue?

I added a lot from CNN [7] and it was blanked. What's going on? KINGOFTO (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's too much detail for a biographical article about Huma. The only connection so far between Huma and the new investigation is that they're (apparently) her emails. Other details can go in articles like Hillary Clinton email controversy or Anthony Weiner sexting scandals. ^Falling_Gravity 22:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

NBC sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton. This event clearly centers on Abedin, imo, especially since its her own lawyers who are un discussions with the FBI about this matter. KINGOFTO (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So, I put it within the state dept. subpoena section, but it appears to becoming a very large issue with substantial consequences and importance to the Subject, so I think it will soon have its own section. KINGOFTO (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation, even if NBC doesn't realize it. Huma swore under oath that she had turned over all her devices with State Department emails. According the The Washington Post, Huma doesn't know how the emails got on her husband's computer. I've seen numerous rumors floating around about the nature of these emails (for example, this blog post speculates that Anthony downloaded the emails from his wife's account). I think the best way to deal with them is to wait until the FBI finishes its investigation before adding.

As for the location of this information, there's already a section titled "Employment records and emails". ^Falling_Gravity 05:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The blog post is interesting however we likely should value the NBC info and other RSs more in our decisions here. I would endorse relocating to the "Employment records and emails" section for the time being, but I think its also likely that this issue is going to continue gathering RS attention so, imo, we should retain at least what we have so far. KINGOFTO (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Huma's Degree - details

http://www.vogue.com/13464218/huma-abedin-family-job-hillary-clinton-campaign-strategist/ states "With the idea that she’d return to Saudi Arabia after college, Abedin majored in journalism, with a minor in political science." The fact her degree was in journalism, with a minor in polsci is VERY relevant. Please add, if possible. SevenTowers (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Her major and minor are indeed relevant. I've added the detail. Thanks for the suggestion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dual citizen?

Can anyone find a reliable third-party source about whether or not she is a dual citizen please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried but could not find anything about it. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The closest thing even mentioning her nationality is this quote from Newsweek:

"In Clinton circles, it’s the height of uncouth to mention Abedin’s nationality or childhood [..]"

I doubt it would be 'uncouth' to mention her nationality if she only held one American passport. Nevertheless, this is Wikipedia so we shouldn't state anything until we find something more concrete on this issue.

Amin (Talk) 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's also not "uncouth" to relay facts on Wikipedia, especially as she spent her formative years in Saudi Arabia apparently. Here is the USDS's policy on security clearance for dual citizens; it is handled by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Without a reliable source explicitly saying she has dual citizenship, we can't say anything of the sort. The State Department's policy on dual citizenship doesn't apply, as it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it just shows that she could be a dual citizen. I was hoping to nip this in the bud, but I guess we need to keep researching it.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nip what in the bud, though? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether she's a dual citizen or not.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That much I got. My point was though, that I don't know that anyone (aside from you) is asking this question, so there's no bud to nip. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You are both right; it is important, but, for whatever reason, there is no RS which provides the info; in fact some articles refer to the Subject as "mysterious" because so much about her, which would normally be in the public record for a public servant of her importance, is not in the public record, perhaps because it is "uncouth" to ask any questions about her, also for whatever reasons. KINGOFTO (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Right now, our best bet might be to set up a Google Alert, in case there are new findings about Abedin's citizenship. I hope a journalist will ask her that in the next interview, though for some reason I feel that is unlikely. Amin (Talk) 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Her parents

Her parents seem to be notable in their own rights, so I wikified their names but it was reverted by another editor. I guess that doesn't matter as long as we haven't created their articles. Can anyone find sufficient RS about them please? I think there must be many in Arabic, but I wouldn't be able to help with that. If her mother is a professor, she must have written books, so we could add book reviews to flesh out her article for example. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: There's a lot of gossip like this online. I think it would help if we managed to create NPOV articles. WorldCat has some info about her mother's PhD thesis and a book she edited.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Despite the inflammatory headline, there is some factual information in this article that we could use:

• Kessler, Glenn (August 25, 2016). "Does Huma Abedin have 'ties' to the Muslim Brotherhood?". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 2, 2016.

Specifically, the article says her father "was educated at Aligarh Muslim University in India, founded as a forward-thinking, even liberal institution. Syed later received a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. [...] Syed Abedin in 1978 founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank which began publishing the journal a year later, with the support of Abdullah Omar Naseef, at the time president of King Abdulaziz University."

It goes on to say, "Abedin’s mother founded an aid organization in the 1990s called the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which at one point was said to be affiliated with International Islamic Council for Da'wah and Relief. IICDR was banned in Israel years later for allegedly supporting Hamas".Zigzig20s (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If the mother or father are notable then they should have their own Blp, otoh, any work the Subject did in concert with her parents is acceptable here,I think. KINGOFTO (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Abedin is a Pakistan / Bangladeh name and NOT Indian name which means her father is NOT Indian

Huma Abedin is wrongly being described that she is half Indian and half Pakistani, actually its wrong to say she is Indian because her father's family name 'Abedin' is a name which muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh have and it is not a name of Indian Muslim origin hence her father is of Pakistan descent and not Indian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.197.164 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty thin argument for telling a woman she's wrong about her own ethnicity. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2016

Baezcodes (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC) She is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and her family run offices of the Muslim Brotherhood in London UK.

Not done: This is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu is correct. Here is another article which debunks the claims of the New York Post's article. Apparently the two things which are used to project the theory are here and here, neither of which can be reasonably construed as showing a link between Huma Abedin and the Muslim Botherhood. KINGOFTO (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the last link I used is only pages 301-303 of an article, however, you can see that the author is not Huma Abedin so she can not be held responsible for anything within that particular article. KINGOFTO (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

you are citing partisan sources. That's fine, but you cannot use them to establish "facts" or present their claims in Wikipedia's voice. It's not "false", it was just "denounced", by sources loyal to one party. As far as I can see, the connections have not been "debunked", it has merely been argued that bringing them up is reprehensible. Which is, of course, a moral but not a factual judgement. As far as I can tell, the factual points brought up by nypost.com are not under dispute, it has just been said that it is in poor taste to bring it up. Which it might well be, what do I know, that's a matter of social mores not of fact. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I just find it strange that the article should give attention to the venomous opinion pieces but ignore the piece of investigative journalism. I would find it more natural to first summarize the reports of the known facts, then report on claims that have been disputed on factual grounds (if any), and only then, if at all, focus on opinion journalism trying to spin the facts for the election campaign. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not a "partisan source." The article you cite does not in any way support a claim that Abedin has ever been "associated with the Muslim Brotherhood." The article you cite does not even contain the words "Muslim Brotherhood." Moreover, the work extensively discussed in that New York Post article was not written by Abedin - it was merely published in the journal that Abedin was, at the time, the assistant editor of. Journals publish lots of articles, and publication in a journal does not mean that every staff member in that journal agrees with every word published in it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section is currently little more than straw man fallacy and propaganda

The Criticism section reads, rather blatantly, like a straw man attack. A small, barely representable sample of the many criticisms against here occupy the first paragraph, while the second paragraph appears to dismiss them one by one, but not by any rational means. Instead, they're all appeals to misleading authority, itself yet another logical fallacy. This is not a proper Criticism section at all. It's not even a minimally acceptable list of the criticisms against Huma Abedin. Rather, it's a straw man approach, a thinly veiled attempt to convince readers that the short, cherry-picked list of critiques against Human Abedin are groundless and therefore all criticism against her is groundless. As a Wikipedia editor and college professor, I object to this logically fallacious and partisan propaganda. Criticism doesn't need to be exhaustive. It must, however, be reasonably complete, supported by objective, credible third-party sources, and must also stand on its own, without counterpoint. The rest of the entry is the only appropriate counterpoint. I therefore hereby request a deletion of the second paragraph, along with significant modification and expansion of Huma Abedin's properly sourced wrongdoings. Leaving things as they are, however, is a violation of both the spirit and stated intent of Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. The current Criticisms section violates Wikipedia's What Wikipedia Is Not WP:NOT, specifically, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, specifically, "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for propaganda." Everyone in politics has a list of criticisms against them. Post the list, ensuring it's accurate and well-sourced, then move on, without the straw man rebuttal. As it currently exists, this article advocates for Huma Abedin, using propaganda. That, too, violates Wikipedia policy. It also violates WP:NPOV. I do not appreciate partisan propaganda in any encyclopedia, and I am quite sure most Wikipedia editors and the community at large feel the same. Please change the Criticism section.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS. In short, posting bullshit criticisms is not part of how Wikipedia works. If there is a specific WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV problem, please identify the text and preferably make a suggestion for how it should be improved. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

re: "The claims in the letter were debunked and were flagged as conspiracy theories.” By whom? “Debunked” sounds rather authoritative and final. How about: The claims in the letter were assailed in the media and characterized as conspiracy theories by Abedin’s defenders.? Orthotox (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice those little numbers in square brackets? They are links, and if you click them it shows the reference used to support the text in the article. Try WP:RSN if the suitability of a reference is questioned. The proposed wording is totally unacceptable at Wikipedia because articles here are not slanted in that manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

{{edit semi-protected|Huma Abedin|answered=yes} Removed the following, as it is not accurate: "After Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, she wrote an open letter..." 55.164.251.33 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is not accurate about the statement? It is supported by the source. The only thing I saw was that the source says it was an email. I have changed open letter to email. ~ GB fan 20:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Just hours after disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner pleaded guilty to sexting with a minor, his wife filed for divorce in Manhattan Supreme Court. Reference: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Report-Huma-Abedin-files-for-divorce-from-11161232.php Johniew398 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)