Talk:Khizr and Ghazala Khan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Started article

Speech attracted a lot of attention, then the responses to the speech attracted a lot of attention, and at the moment the backlash to the responses to the speech is attracting a lot of attention. I'm typically not a fan of articles created about current events, but there's so much press coverage of the Khans that just having an article about their son didn't seem sufficient. I tried to limit the sources to the mainstream, stripping out those with known political biases (Fox, MSNBC, Daily Kos, etc.). It's possible per WP:BIO1E the article should be about the speech, and I might support that if some time goes by and the coverage of them stops, but it seems -- at least for now -- like they're crossing WP:BIO. I'm wary of creating a politically charged article and hope others get involved to develop it. I wanted to keep it brief to start, keeping it to the basic issues brought up by many media outlets (i.e. not any individual opinions)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about 1E issues. I think eventually we should merge the parents, the son, the speech and the aftermath into a single article. pbp 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Though the coverage started with the speech (excepting coverage around the time of their son's death), it's gone on to be about various responses and their own words outside of that speech (e.g. Ghazala's WaPo op-ed, and Khizr's "black soul" comment). The story's developments have kept it as one of the top national headlines every day since the speech. If it continues as it has been, I think a biography makes sense. If it's about to die out, yeah this could probably be moved to an article about the event. I'd like to wait a bit to see how it plays out, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you both actually. We might wait a bit to see how the narrative develops. I do agree, however, that we might revisit organization in the future. One possible path would be to combine this article with Humayun Khan (soldier) and retitle it something like:

"Khizr Khan 2016 Democratic National Convention Speech," as that is where WP:NOTE began. I agree that the story developed past the speech - and that could be handled in an "Aftermath" section. We can revisit in a month or two. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

JWV

I've put back — but in condensed form (1 sentence) — a bit about the reaction from the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America. I do understand that we can't possibly list or even mention every organization's statement (especially given that most seem to express the same general idea - revulsion), but the JWV seems worthy of a short mention because it is a U.S. veterans' organization representing a religious minority. The group's view seems particularly relevant under the circumstances. Neutrality^talk 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it again at this time, but I don't agree. "Worthy" is something determined by secondary source coverage, not our evaluation of the organization. The reason I added the VFW statement is because other news outlets ran stories about it, establishing WP:WEIGHT. If it were just the VFW source, I would support removing that as well. In other words, we need to let other sources determine which opinions are significant before adding them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: I agree that the level of coverage in the set of sources (particularly secondary sources), in combination with our own common-sense intuitions, should guide our decision on our level of coverage (i.e., determining what is noteworthy, and determining the proper weight to accord to various noteworthy items).

I do think that the level of secondary coverage here merits a one-sentence mention. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (a well-regarded news agency of long standing) is a secondary source not affiliated with the JWV, and its story got picked up in the Israeli media (by Arutz Sheva, see here, and Ha'aretz, see here). I don't deny that the JWV statement plays a minor role in this whole affair, and that the VFW statement was better covered (unsurprising as the VFW is a much larger organization than the JWV, of course). My point is that the proper extent of coverage of the JWV statement in this article, given the sources we have, is "small, but non-zero." Neutrality^talk 03:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I indeed was mistaken in thinking the citation was connected to JWV. While more coverage would be better (lest we get into Reactions to Donald Trump's comments about Khizr and Ghazala Khan), the secondary source coverage is there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Date format

The 'dmy' vs. 'mdy' date format issue is having a bit of an edit war.

Weighing in on the side of 'dmy' ("4 August 2016", or Day First) is that it was the initial format, and bias of MOS:DATERET . This is a customary format in military and European contexts.

On the side of 'mdy' ("August 4, 2016", or Month First) is that it is the customary format for the general American audience.

Note that MOS:DATERET says, "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page," so we are within bounds by talking and choosing here.

Please vote for what you think is the most appropriate format for this article.

My call is for:

Month First JackGavin (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Last i remember, a day turns every 24 hours, Months every 30 days or 720 hours so why would we use month before day? using numbers using american format is confusing for the "rest of the world", its may be ok if we use the name of the month instead of their number but very very confusing if we use all numbers (mm/dd/y)...--Stemoc 14:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I was not suggesting the confusing all-numeric format, but instead "August 4, 2016". JackGavin (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a good venue for discussing the general merits of one style vs. another. Both are valid on Wikipedia. That's why WP:DATERET says first use takes precedent (first use here being dmy). If there's a compelling reason to use another (compelling reason due to the nature of the subject, not based on a preference-based vote), then yes, it can change. @JackGavin: I presume you are arguing that there are "strong national ties to the topic"? If this were an article about, say, the US Election, or even perhaps the Trump Campaign, that would be one thing. But it's a biography. Just being about someone who lives in the US doesn't mean there are "strong national ties", let alone for people who lived half of their lives in Asia (which of course is not to say they 'are not American' or something, but to speak to the association of the subject with a particular date format). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was keying in on "or consensus on the article's talk page", to have a discussion on which is the most appropriate choice, given that I judge the primary audience to be general (non-military) Americans. This is the exact venue that we are instructed to use, for this article.JackGavin (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary audience isn't the question. Given we're on enwiki, Americans are the primary audience for lots of topics, so even if Americans are the primary audience here, and that doesn't itself create "strong national ties" for the subject. There has to be a reason for changing the format other than personal preference. Consensus is not a majority vote, so we don't disregard WP:DATERET even if more people prefer one format over another, unless there's a compelling reason to change it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see the guideline as saying "unless there is reason to change it based on [inapplicable reason] OR consensus on the article's talk page" (my emphasis). Why do you not accept the polling for consensus that MOS:DATERET explicitly allows? If the consensus gives little weight to my "primary audience" reasoning, then so be it. JackGavin (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely month first. Every article I've seen about a subject that has occurred specifically in the U.S. (and North America for that matter) has used this date format, and I don't see why this is required to be any different. Parsley Man (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My vote is for day-month-year format, following MOS:DATERET. The emphasis in the MOS is on consistency of format, and prior to the revision to month-day-year, the citations were entirely consistent. There is not a compelling national interest to have changed the format, IMHO, and in adding material I intentionally observed the first part of the DATERET point, "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used." For me, it's a matter of respect for the first editor's choice. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, uh...why in the world is MOS:DATERET even a thing? I don't see why an editor would freak out over simple, harmless edits to dates. Parsley Man (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I had not noticed any editor freaking out over the change to month-day-year format. But each editor makes formatting choices that, according to the Manual of Style, should be respected as long as the article maintains internal consistency. Here’s a comparison that may help clarify: suppose you joined a meeting set up by someone else, and then you rearranged all the chairs to fit your preferred arrangement, not because there were not enough chairs, or people couldn’t see the presentation well enough, but because you were simply used to a different arrangement. The point is that the rearrangement would not be necessary, just preferred. On the spectrum of editor behaviors, revising all the dates in an already-developed article is covered by MOS:DATERET as a thing because it’s unnecessary and maybe a bit idiosyncratic to make such changes. Readers are not confused by either format, or the other accepted formats in the manual of style, which says as long the dates are all presented consistently, it’s not helpful to change every date to your preferred style. You perceive the changes to be harmless, whereas the MOS:DATERET policy reminds us to be mannerly. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor who wants to restore the original formatting is "freaking out", but repeatedly, disruptively changing it to your own preferred format after WP:DATERET is pointed out to you is, what, just good editing? WP:DATERET is a "thing" because while everybody agrees date format is not a great big deal, there are multiple valid formats and some editors force their personal preference on others (and then, apparently, claim the other is "freaking out"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for changing from Day First to Month First, so we'll stay with "4 August 2016". Pardon the interruption. I hope this exercise has at least quelled the edit war. JackGavin (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry.com?

@Grand'mere Eugene: Regarding this, I think that in general ancestry.com is not considered a reliable source. The exception I've seen is for verifying very basic biographical details via public records. It looks like that's what you've used it for, but I can't access the source so hoping you could just clarify the content/context? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the database at Ancestry.com includes information from "Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings". Some of the "Other Household Database Listings" include City Directories (like reverse phonebooks). The two records I located on the Khans show their birth dates, and also addresses. It's true that some information on Ancestry.com is in the dubious category, as individual people post erroneous information in their family trees. This database, however, is based on public records, so more reliable for basic biographical details. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

NYT article - useful for expansion

NYT has published a long piece on the Khan family with good information about their lives, good for expanding the article. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Pulled a good deal from it. Would also be useful for the Humayun Khan (soldier) article. Since it's one of the better sources of biographical information, I'm minorly concerned that I took too much from it, and could use someone taking a look to make sure everything looks ok. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegations

Should this [1] be in the article? Those two are reliable sources but I'm wondering if coverage of it is extensive enough to include here. So putting it up on the talk page first for discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Since both sources discredit his message, what would be the point of giving it space (and credence)? This conspiracy theorist probably should not appear here. If there's an article on Trump's advisers, maybe there. – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be worth mentioning that some individuals attempted to smear the couple. Neutrality^talk 05:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. On second thought this may be more appropriate in the Roger Stone article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Coverage is significant, and includes mainstream publications The Times of Israel and CNN (an op-ed, which notes Stone quickly backtracked). Something brief and factual, like Republican political strategist Roger Stone suggested that Khizr was an agent working for the Muslim Brotherhood, although he subsequently withdrew the allegation, would add to the article by indicating to readers some of the intensity of the Trump-camp backlash against the Khans. FourViolas (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I think we are in the territory of defamation here. Even though reliable news sources have published these allegations, they are based on untruths. It would be kind to call them gossip, and I think prohibited by WP:BLP. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not our jobs to evaluate whether sources - as long as they are reliable and the coverage is extensive enough - are "based on untruths" or whether it's "gossip". If it can be well sourced, it's not a BLP violation. The only question is whether it belongs here, in the Stone article, or both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure WP:WEIGHT is established here. We have Times of Israel (which as far as I remember is a reliable source), but what else? The most substantial looks to be the Slatest piece (which is run by Slate, but a separate project to get into HuffPo-style aggregation blogging). The CNN link above is an opinion piece. There are other opinion columns in e.g. USA Today, but where's the mainstream press coverage of this, as exists for every single other thing mentioned in the article? This story seemed to only have real legs in the left-leaning blogosphere and the aggregation/gossip blogs. I'm not saying these aren't decent sources in general, but for something that has received such an overwhelming amount of mainstream press coverage, there's a high bar for WP:WEIGHT. Just because there are sources, doesn't mean it should be included. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Fundraiser

I was thinking about adding the following to the article, but have decided to hold off for now:

On 3 August, Vietnam War veteran Tom Keefe launched a fundraiser promising to support Khizr if he decided to participate in the election for the Virginia House of Delegates. The fundraiser earned more than $11,000 in 24 hours.

For one thing, we don't know if Khan will decide to run for elected office. If he accepts, then this should definitely be added to the article. If not, then it might be included if the fundraiser gains enough attention. ^Falling_Gravity 01:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's earned articles in other national as well as international media; I'd say that satisfies WP:DUE, but probably only for a shorter sentence, like A fundraiser created on 3 August to encourage Khizr to run for the Virginia House of Delegates raised over $11,000 in 24 hours. FourViolas (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news. A news item sourced or reported doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. If he actually runs or makes a substantive comment about running, then we can consider adding it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

But just because an item is in the news doesn't mean it's unworthy. The fundraiser gives a concrete indication of Khizr's rapidly acquired status as a Democratic darling, with national name recognition and support; I think that has enduring significance regardless of his future career choices.

Side note: here's further coverage, from the WaPo, reprinted internationally in the Sydney Morning Herald. FourViolas (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's merely trivia unless he comments about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a policy-based reason for that criterion? I'm playing the WP:BALASPS card: dedicated articles in a half-dozen mainstream national and international media outlets are objectively comparable to the number of sources supporting other information in the article, and as such they create a presumption that this information is significant, broadly interesting, and worth reporting. FourViolas (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I will note that Telemundo is the same article as NBC, and Time is a summary of the NBC article (credited at the bottom). Meanwhile, there's also original reporting at Washington Post. I guess I would weakly say include, and it'll be on the list of things to revisit in the future, if coverage of Khan continues to grow and this aspect goes nowhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Advisors - recent additions

@Rupert loup: I think your last couple additions to the Stone/Pierson paragraph are not ideal. Inserting Baldasaro based just on a local news story is nowhere near the kind of WP:WEIGHT we need for this. The Stone comments, by contrast, were covered in several pretty good sources (still not ideal, but that's a separate issue).

Regarding Pierson, changing "Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson made similar claims purporting Khan's support of Sharia law." to "Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson made similar claims stating that Trump only objected to "reports" that Khizr Khan "is a strong proponent of Sharia law, and actually writing about it, and how the Constitution should be subordinate to Sharia law." That sentence seems redundant and confusing. Trump didn't make any of the statements about Khan and Sharia -- it's just Pierson who seemed to use that phrasing to (and this is just my take) paint a negative picture of Khan based on vague "reports" to justify Trump's aggression. Phrasing it as such makes it sound like Trump himself made the comments. The "reports" she presumably talking about is the same blog post Stone linked to, the claims of which are already paraphrased in this very paragraph. In other words, we don't need to say ~"Stone said [paraphrased stuff about Sharia] ... and Pierson said [the same thing about Sharia, but via a longer, confusing quote]". Not opposed to modifying the wording of that paraphrase, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep this short (as both a matter of weight and a matter of good writing). "Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson made similar, false claims" is just fine with me. Neutrality^talk 21:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mainly just to improve the copy, I restored the original wording, changing "false claims" to "similar claims purporting Khan's support of Sharia law". Point is because we say "falsely claimed" in the previous sentence and connect back to those claims already, and because it's just a few more words to clarify the extent to which her claims were similar. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites No because there are not similars claims, Katrina spoke about Trump and the why of his reactions. That is because this reports. If so it states that Trump is not related with these reports. Wich is not true according with her. The relation of these "reports" with Trump should be in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear Trump is connected, given she is a Trump spokesperson. That said, we don't have a record of Trump saying these things, as far as I know. We just have her seemingly throwing a conspiracy theory against the wall to see if it'll stick (or deflect, or whatever the right political metaphor is) in order to neutralize controversy over Trump's comments (which were not specifically about this, and which we already cover in some detail). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the current coverage is good, and agree per WP:PRIMARY and WP:3PARTY that Pierson's claims need mainstream backup. I added a Boston Globe source and removed the not-very-RS Daily Beast, whose cited information was redundant with higher-quality sources. FourViolas (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm it's been a while since I've thought about it, but I'm under the impression Daily Beast is typically considered reliable. I restored it based on that assumption, but maybe I'm wrong. If removing one of them (beyond the local news piece), I would assume it'd be Huffington Post. I mean, I think there's enough mainstream coverage that we can be picky, and my sense is that HuffPo is known to tilt a bit to the left? (I say, not quite sure). I thought about removing Mother Jones for the same reason, but it seems to provide a unique resource here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked through WP:RSN archives, and all three of HuffPo, MoJo, and Daily Beast seem to be somewhere between "no consensus", "reliable-ish", and "treat with caution". None is being cited for disputed or evaluative claims, so I'd say they're fine. When more-mainstream retrospective articles show up with more perspective they'll likely discuss this, and then we can cite one of them instead of the current half-dozen. FourViolas (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Muazzam

• mom: Ghazala Khan
• dad: Khizr Muazzam Khan
• son: Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan

I am confused here about the surnames... is it possible this could be one of these double-name surnames like "Muazzam Khan" ? But then why is there no Muazzam listed for the mother? Or did Humayun have 2 middle names and one of the middle names was the same as his dad? How come the dad has a middle name but the mom does not? Ranze (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It could be that Ghazala does have a middle name, we just don't know that much personal information about her. We could also add her maiden name if anyone can find a source. ^Falling_Gravity 07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

When I searched Ancestry.com to find birth years for the Khans, I found that "Ghazala" is a fairly common name, and so is "Ghazala Khan". Nevertheless, I did find four records of the Ghazala Khan at the same address as Khizr Khan or with her birth date.

• In the U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1, a 1992 listing for "Ghazale Muazzam Khan" (note the spelling of given name) in Houston, the same address as Khizr Khan, and a second listing in 1996 fo "Ghazala G Khan" in Centreville, Virginia, same address as Khizr Khan.
• In the U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 2, undated listings for "Ghazala M Khan" at the Houston address and "Ghazala G Khan" in Dallas, both with the 1951 birthdate.

Since we have no secondary sources that have fact-checked her middle name, I think it best to leave it out. I can't verify it from available online public records. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So wait, what reliable source do we have for "Muazzam"? Why is it that when I do a google search for "Khizr Muazzam Khan" the only hits are far-right/conspiracy theory sites accusing him of e.g. being an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood? What reliable source is this based on? How absolutely certain can we be that the person on ancestry.com is definitely the person in this article, and that the information on ancestry.com is reliable? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Found it. As I believe he's affirmed that is indeed his website, that's as good a source as any for this sort of thing. I guess it's just sort of like "Barack Hussein Obama" (i.e. there's no need to mention someone's middle name for most purposes, unless it serves a political agenda... or if you're writing a biography/encyclopedia article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't more than one notable "Barack Obama", but there is another Khizr Khan so mentioning "Muazzam" as his middle name holds disambiguatory value. The same applies to Ghazala, due to the honour killing of Ghazala Khan article. Being able to provide middle names helps disambiguate discussion of both Khizrs and both Ghazalas. This allows people to use names which will not show up in searches for the earlier historical figures. It is not 'political' in the slightest to use them, it is to make their discussion distinctive from other people sharing the same name. Ranze (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

McCrummen story

It's always useful to find older articles. I'm curious about this one... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/khizr-khans-loss-a-grieving-father-of-a-soldier-struggles-to-understand/2016/07/28/18e8139a-552d-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html

The URL suggests a 28 July 2016 date but then it says "Editor’s note: This story was originally published March 22, 2005."

Where was Stephanie McCrummen's story originally published though? Are we able to locate it's original URL and confirm it being on the internet prior to 2016 via archive.org or something? I tried a custom Google search and got nothing.

Is it possible this was only published in physical format and July 2016 is its first digitization? It seems odd, I thought all the major papers had digital copies of their articles even in 2005. Ranze (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the original URL (h/t [2]). For me the page temporarily opens and then it gives me the "Page Not Found" page. Internet Archive doesn't appear to have a cached copy. ^Falling_Gravity 08:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Strange that it redirects. Just hit escape to stop loading once the first page appears, and it should prevent the redirect. Or here's an archive.is link. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong tip, I never knew that pressing escape stopped page-forwarding process, this may prove useful in the future if I can remember it. Too bad you're the first to do an Archive.is, since Robots.txt prevents crawling it. Makes me wonder if it got posted anywhere besides the Post's who might not be robot-blocked and have an old archive. Part of the problem is in re-circulating it they changed the title. I did find it referenced in this book though https://books.google.ca/books?id=rYvUouktxv4C&pg=PA137 which says it came out in 2007 so I think that's solid enough. Ranze (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Theory v Theories

Should this be singular or plural? What is currently on the page:

Republican political Trump advisors Roger Stone and Al Baldasaro repeated a conspiracy theory, based on a blog post by Walid and Theodore Shoebat, which claimed that Khizr was an agent working for the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted to impose Sharia law on the United States

The actual tweet by Roger Stone was (per Times of Israel) https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/759941783098761216 on July 31 saying:

• "Mr. Khan more than an aggrieved father of a Muslim son- he's Muslim Brotherhood agent helping Hillary"

The actual tweet by Al Baldasaro was (per the ThinkProgress.org article quoted by DailyBeast) https://twitter.com/Al_Baldasaro/status/760122785448558592 on August 1st saying:

• "Read the truth about your hero, Mr Khan who used his son as Political Pawn"

I question about "repeated a theory". Baldasaro only repeated a small 'used as pawn' part and Stone only repeated the "Muslim Brotherhood agent" part.

I think we should review if there is a way to more neutrally rephrase this to make it clear that the pair only made very small remarks and mainly just linked to this article:

"What The Media Is Not Telling You About The Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump"

Specifically its subtitle:

"He Is A Muslim Brotherhood Agent Who Wants To Advance Sharia Law And Bring Muslims Into The United States"

It should be made clearer that it is the Shoebats who made the "sharia law" claim. Stone and Baldasaro didn't actually mention Shari Law, that is just the title of the page they linked to. Directing people to read an article doesn't necessarily mean you agree with everything in the article. Even if you say "read the truth" it doesn't mean the article you link is something you believe to be 100% truthful, just that they think it contains SOME truth.

Given that reliable sources have made an issue out of these people tweeting a link to the article, is there any objections to citing the article directly to support the "sharia law" claim?

Anyway getting back to the section title, the subtitle actually appears to have 3 distinct theories regarding him:

• is a Muslim Brotherhood agent
• wants to advance Sharia Law
• wants to bring muslims into the US

Given that it is 3 theories shouldn't we call it "conspiracy theories" rather than the singular "theory" as it is presently? Ranze (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reversion review

@Rhododendrites: re special:diff/733999872 and your summary "Right. we paraphrase. and what extra information is communicated by adding additional names here?"

I'll address your second question first, as it seems simpler.

The reason I think it is valuable to add "Saqib Muazzam" is because it is a more unique name to this individual. There are several other people whose names are Humayun Khan including:

• Humayun Khan (diplomat) born 1932
• Humayun Saifullah Khan born 1943
• Humayun Khan Mandokhel born 1962
• Mir Humayun Khan Marri (senator 1998-2011, unsure of birth date)

I also think it is valuable to show the full name of Humayun because of "Muazzam" also being present in the father's name. As Eugene pointed out "Muazzam" may or may not be a portent of the mother's name too, according to volumes of the the U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993.

Now, getting to the first part, "we paraphrase". I do not oppose paraphrasing some other term as "falsely" if it is synonymous, but I still believe that it should be supported by quoting the appropriate parts from the 4 sources. Namely: what statement in each of the 4 cited sources are you paraphrasing to support the Shoebats' claims were false? Here is the sentence for convenience:

Roger Stone and Al Baldasaro repeated a conspiracy theory, based on a blog post by Walid and Theodore Shoebat, which falsely claimed that Khizr was an agent working for the Muslim Brotherhood who wanted to impose Sharia law on the United States.

I'll repost the sources following this sentence for convenience too:

• Winer, Stuart (1 August 2016). "Trump ally: Father of fallen US soldier is 'Muslim Brotherhood agent'". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 5 August 2016.

• Oh, Inae (1 August 2016). "Trump Adviser Claims Father of War Hero Is a "Muslim Brotherhood Agent"". Mother Jones. Retrieved 5 August 2016.

• Zavadski, Katie (1 August 2016). "Team Trump Got Its Smears About Khizr Khan From This 'Proud Fascist'". Daily Beast.

• Hernandez, Nicole (3 August 2016). "Trump adviser blasts Khizr Khan, says he used son as 'political pawn'". Boston Globe. Retrieved 6 August 2016.

By listing all 4 after the above-indented sentence it gives the impression that all 4 sources support the sentence. Namely the accusation against Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat were posting "false claims".

This constitutes an attack on the Shoebats' credibility and as such falls under BLP concerns. For that reason, we should be careful, if we are going to call their claims "false", that we associate that summary to sources in an understandable way. If we are paraphrasing then we should include quotes from each of these sources which say things synonymous to "false" so that it is clear we are paraphrasing and that no WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR has occurred.

Until we can do that, I would like to take away "false" for now, or make a word choice which better reflects phrasing chosen by the sources.

If not all 4 sources declare "false" or equivalent then the ones that do should be referenced right next to 'false' and the ones that do not should simply support "statement". Ranze (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Humayun's name: As this article is about Khizr and Ghazala, I think it makes more sense to include their full names. That's not justification for including the full name, rather than the common name, of someone else mentioned (even if family) -- especially if they have their own article.

Regarding "falsely", I'm happy to talk about other options, but simply removing "falsely" doesn't seem like the right way to go. No reliable source looks to have entertained it as serious, and many use terms like "conspiracy theory", "smear", "baseless", etc. We also have the words of Khan himself disputing the charge that he supports Sharia. Given WP:FRINGE (and WP:BLP) we don't leave any room for ambiguity when it comes to treatment of conspiracy theories with insufficient coverage lending credibility. I started to copy/paste blocks of text from the articles here, since there's an overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that it's a "smear", "conspiracy theory" from a "conspiracy theorist", that it's "batshit crazy" (thanks Daily Beast), that it's "baseless", "imagined" by Shoebat and/or Stone, from the "Web's fetid conspiratorial underbelly"... did I mention "smear"?

We do not need to quote directly. There may be a better way to word it that would replace "falsely" with something else, but it would have to have the same effect.

Regarding BLP as applied to the Shoebats, one can't swing a stick without hitting ten sources attacking their credibility [let's say "on this issue" to be prudent], so I'm not so concerned. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims (and the claim that a Gold Star father is a Muslim Brotherhood secret agent is by definition extraordinary) require extraordinary evidence, and this goes doubly when they are extraordinarily negative claims about a living person. To the contrary, not the slightest shred of evidence has been presented in support of the allegation. For us to even mention these fringe wingnut allegations requires that we treat them as reliable sources do — as not having a single iota of credibility. One may not simply throw a wild, unsupported allegation at someone and then complain when those unsupported allegations are labeled as what they are, until proven otherwise: False.

As for the Shoebats, BLP does not require that we treat a person's claims as true, or even as meriting credibility, and as Rhododendrites notes, it is trivial to find an enormous number of reliable sources which treat the Shoebats as we do here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: the terms "conspiracy theory" and "imagined" and "smear" does not inherently mean "false" so use of the former should not be paraphrased as the latter. Our opinions of how serious sources have taken this are irrelevant: it is still synthesis to declare that the Shoebats made false claims unless one of our sources says that or an equivalent. The "crazy" from Zavadski are more what I was looking for. "Baseless" would also work but I'm unable to find it in the 4 above sources, could you please include supply the source so I can add it?

I am going to include the related quotes for the last 2 and substitute these words. There is no compelling reason to synthesize "A and B say C and D so E" from this, we should simply report the media's reaction to those claims.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I am not suggesting we call the Shoebats credible here, just that we properly reference objections made to them and mention those objections in proper context. It is not our job to judge these, just to inform readers of cited reactions to these. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either treat the claims as true or false: we can also be neutral about them and simply state that the claims were made and the media's reactions to them. Ranze (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please hold off until this can be hashed out. Paraphrasing is almost always better than having a bunch of quotes. I get what you're saying about not seeing "falsely" as equivalent to the various other terms, but I think it's in line with WP:FRINGE and would like others to have a chance to weigh in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, Ranze, per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, which dictates that we treat living people fairly and sensitively. It is patently unfair to treat a widely-rejected, condemned and baseless attack on a living person as if it merits the slightest shred of credence in his Wikipedia biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue that the entire section in question should be removed, given the precedent set with the biography of Ted Cruz. There, in a far lengthier and more in-depth article, not one single mention will be found of the "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac killer" or the "Ted Cruz's father killed JFK" conspiracy theories, despite those theories being much more widely spread than anything ever said about Khan by Trump's cronies. The entire section places undue weight on nonsensical, baseless, thoroughly rejected and frankly libelous attacks on a living person. It has no place in this biography and should be taken out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

#Allegations (although sourcing has improved since then... I suppose I'm in favor of not strongly opposed to including in some capacity at this point, with the expectation we'll revisit several aspects of this article down the road a bit) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I weighed in earlier with this response indicating we should not give space to these allegations. If we must include them, fine, they need to be clearly labeled as FALSE. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Paraphrasing IS better having a bunch of quotes, but only if it is clearly paraphrasing and not OR/SYNTH. This should require an overwhelming consensus of very similar-sounding assessments, not a single DailyBeast writer saying "batshit-insane" so we dub it "false". To be neutral we should be saying that the media has responded and called it false.

What you're proposing here is something we would need a tertiary source to do, to weigh all this media information and make the call 'these are false'. Otherwise we should stick to less absolute terms like "unsupported" or "unaccepted". Ranze (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: you are mischaracterizing my edit. Removing "false" is not the same as inserting "true" so in objecting to the unsourced "false" insertion I am not giving credence to the theory.

NBSB I get what you mean about Ted Cruz and Zodiak/JFK but were those theories retweeted by members of Trump's campaign? It's not so much the theory itself which warrants its inclusion, but the attention brought to it by the Republican Nominee's campaign members and the subsequent reactions to their tweets, which make it worth mentioning. Ranze (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: the word "false" is not necessary so long as we accurately represent criticism the claims have received.

If you guys would like to temporarily remove the discussion of the tweets and their reactions until we can source enough objections to it, that's fine. We could do that here. But "false" is OR until we find a source saying that or equivalent, and "batshit-crazy" is too far off to be considered a technical interpretation. "Crazy" is too ambiguous, it can mean "wild" rather than "untrue". Ranze (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have appended to the word "falsely" two sources which directly describe the allegations as "false," and there are no doubt more to find once I spend some more time searching. There are zero mainstream reliable sources describing them as true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I know Snopes is not generally a RS, but I'd been thinking about something WP:INTEXT-attributed like Fact checker Snopes.com found the claims to be unsupported by credible evidence. (ref). Would that contribute to the NPOV of the section, or is the hedging of "described as" make it appropriate to add the ref to the "false, baseless and xenophobic smear campaign" sentence? FourViolas (talk)

Muslim Brotherhood and Said Ramadan

The MB is already mentioned here in relation to the tweeted claim by Roger Stone, but we don't presently mention SR. The URL Stone and Baldasaro linked to appears to base this on Khizr "gratefully" acknowledging the contribution of Ramadan's writings to his JCOIL article in HJIL on its first page (23rd of HJIL6). I'm not aware of any connections between the Khans and Ramadans besides this, I imagine if there was the Shoebats and Breitbart would have broadcast it by now.

I think by explaining what the limited connection actually is, it would better inform the public of the molehill a mountain is being made of. If we make no mention of Ramadan it gives a sense of cover-up and people will imagine something bigger than there actually is. That an 'agent' claim is being made based on acknowledgement (albeit gratefully) of Ramadan's writings to a single article should be self-evident as specious evidence, but without actually giving people some idea of what the Shoebats are arguing based on (ie why the conspiracy theory lacks evidence needed to make a credible case of agency) and letting people understand why it's "bat-shit crazy" as DailyBeast's Zavadski put it, it makes it seem like we're telling people what to think of a theory without telling them why to think it. Ranze (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting but almost impossible to guess how the inclusion or omission of particular details will affect readers' conclusions. But our job is more modest: reflect the consensus of reliable sources. The Daily Beast is the only RS which tries to follow the Shoebats' logic (this HuffPo article is much more detailed but also more partisan). That could verify a clause like ...on the basis of Khan's citation of an Islamic scholar and Muslim Brotherhood leader in a 1983 academic paper, but I doubt it would pass WP:BALASPS. FourViolas (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It would seem unbalanced to mention article writers' condemnations of the Shoebats without actually mentioning the particulars being objected to. It's not as if the Shoebats' article is 100% untruth, even the most inaccurate articles still usually have plenty of true things in them, after all. It seems undisputable the part that there's this '83 article and its first page expresses gratitude to Ramadan, and this is mentioned in direct connection to the Shoebats' speculation that this somehow makes Khizr a Brotherhood 'agent'. By this logic if I thank Vince McMahon for past enjoyable Monday Night Raws I guess that makes me a WWE agent?

The sources which attempt to actually follow the logic seem the only ones we should consider to be reliable. How reliable is a source which condemns a conspiracy theory without exploring it? I was open to thinking the Shoebats had found something before reading through the whole thing a couple times (I figured maybe I missed something the first go) so you'd think reliable journalists would do the same.

Perhaps some of them did and didn't show their work (just their conclusion) but the source which did bother to show the work (ie explaining the conspiracy theory and where it falls short on proof) such as DailyBeast and HuffingtonPost seem like the ones to go to (if no other papers are going to attempt it) for addressing the causatory topic of the Shoebats' theory. Ranze (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Missouri?

So some of the bloggers writing conspiracy theories about Khan found a 1983 publication of his in the Houston International Journal of Law, inferring a whole lot from it. Ranze has brought that citation to the article. I removed it since it didn't seem to be adding anything except to include the University of Missouri degree, based on Khan's credits in the article (I subsequently removed that as OR).

Given there's been so much coverage of this man, we shouldn't have to dig up an old publication in order to insert a biographical detail. His own website and all of the reliable sources about him only mention Harvard Law School and the University of Punjab. That's not to say it's not true -- and I admit that calling it OR was not fair -- but it seems like we should have better sources. In general, a biographical detail like alma mater is trivial/standard enough to come from a WP:BLPPRIMARY source, but in this case my own inclination is to exclude because it is, at least right now, inextricably tied to the various conspiracy theories about him. Speaking of which, although it was seemingly only used to support his degree, the citation included this quote parameter:

Khizr Muazzam Khan**
** LL.B., 1974 Punjab University Law College, LL.M, 1982 University of Missouri Law School; Specializing in International Trade Law in Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Pakistan. Author of "In Defense of OPEC", an historical perspective of OPEC; "Legal Index of the Quran", a legal reference guide. Co-founder of Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law. The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan's writings is gratefully acknowledged

The rest of that quote, after the degrees, are what the conspiracy theorists have been jumping on. Thus it clearly wasn't added just to support the degree and we see why it's problematic. To Ranze's credit, I will say he did not restore the latter half of the quote when restoring the source with the Missouri bit.

I would propose removing the HJIL source and including the University of Missouri info only if we can find it in a reliable secondary source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need such high criteria here, Khizr clearly wrote the 1983 article and we shouldn't dismiss it just because some silly conspiracies sprung up about it. I can show you secondary sources reporting on this issue though I don't know if you'll accept them as reliable or not.

Sperry, Paul (12 August 2016). "Khizr Khan No Constitutional 'Expert'; Passed Bar at Age 60". Breitbart News. While Khan did graduate from Harvard in 1986, he did not obtain a typical law degree, but instead earned an LL. M. — a one-year international program tailored to foreign students. He has a similar degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The LL. M. coursework is separate from the three-year law program required to earn a Juris Doctor, or J.D., which is the formal law degree that most licensed attorneys obtain.

HJIL shouldn't be removed, it has consistently been brought up in the media. It is irresponsible to mention conspiracy theories without replacing them with the facts they're based on.

We actually should mention Said Ramadan since the media is doing this. The "S. Ramadan" on page 23 is called "Dr. Said Ramadan" in full on page 29. Admitting that Khizr expressed gratitude towards Said's writings doesn't support the rest of the speculation in the conspiracy theory. If anything it shows just how tenuous the "link" to the Muslim Brotherhood is. There basically isn't any beyond that. Ranze (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That "the media" reports on something doesn't mean reliable sources do. Adding one of the purveyors of the conspiracy theories in question, Breitbart, which is far from a reliable source for this topic, does not help things. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Spotlight issue

@Rhododendrites: re special:diff/735575834 even if they are still metaphorically 'in the spotlight' by continuing to make statements and give interviews, the withdrawal from televised interviews seems like a significant move since the initial notability was a televised speech in the DNC. Why can't we leave it in? It's a good break between the 'televised era' and any subsequent statements would clearly be non-televised ones. Ranze (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it. I didn't think it would be contentious to remove, and don't feel strongly one way or the other. If you think it'll be useful in the long run I'm content to leave it in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump meets with Gold Star families

The following text was added to the end of the paragraph about responses to Trump's comments about Khan:

Two days after the letter was sent, Trump met with ten members of six Gold Star families in a meeting organized by a Gold Star Mom.

References

I removed it as not sufficiently related to the subject. In short, there are going to be many chains of events the DNC speech kicked off. For the rest of Trump's campaign he'll likely be trying to make up with veterans and their families at least in part because of the Khans. But even though sources about those events will likely mention the Khans (e.g. "Trump has been trying to repair xyz since yada yada Khizr Khan yada yada DNC"), that doesn't mean they're actually pertinent to the biography of the Khans (as opposed to, say, the article about Trump's campaign). This was steps removed from the Khans. Trump responded to them, certain people responded to Trump's response, and here's Trump's response to the people responding to Trump's response to the Khans. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The influence they've had on this election is what made them notable enough to write an article about, that's why this page didn't get created until 1 August 2016 even though Khizr has been published since 1983 and speaking to the media since 2004. Mentioning the influence on Trumps' campaign (like meeting with other Gold Star families) seems entirely appropriate. Ranze (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart and Conspiracy

@Rhododentrites: re special:diff/735621966 I've read the series Breitbart's done on Khizr and am aware they bring up the conspiracy series in some of the earlier ones, but I don't think that should automatically disqualify every article they put out related to him. In this case I cited this just to support acknowledgement of his Missouri degree:

Sperry, Paul (12 August 2016). "Khizr Khan No Constitutional 'Expert'; Passed Bar at Age 60". Breitbart News. While Khan did graduate from Harvard in 1986, he did not obtain a typical law degree, but instead earned an LL. M. — a one-year international program tailored to foreign students. He has a similar degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The LL. M. coursework is separate from the three-year law program required to earn a Juris Doctor, or J.D., which is the formal law degree that most licensed attorneys obtain.

As I understand the conspiracy theory, that was emphasizing the tenuous link to the Said Ramadan via the HJIL article mentioning him twice. this 2011 book review refers to him as the Brotherhood's unofficial "foreign minister" or somesuch. Thanking a member of a group doesn't make you a group's agent... but if we don't show the tiny peculiarity they're inflating then people might assume we're hiding something more serious.

This is getting off topic though, I don't get how the Sperry article is talking about the conspiracy theory, I looked for words like "Ramadan" and "Brother" and didn't find them. The only connection I can seem to find is showing that Khizr has written about Sharia, which is true. Sperry doesn't mention anything about Khizr trying to push Sharia law. Maybe some earlier Breitbart article-writer did but I wouldn't hold that against Sperry. Ranze (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think one of us is going to need to open a thread at WP:RSN if this continues. Breitbart and Sean Hannity writing about/saying something does not mean we should add it to the article. "The media" saying something is irrelevant, as "the media", as you're defining it, includes clearly unreliable sources. Per WP:BRD please stop adding this content until consensus emerges to add it. If you think I'm being unreasonable, RSN might be a way to get additional voices involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Where does the idea that Breitbart articles can't possibly be a reliable sources originate? Please note there's a difference between citing Breitbart claims to support facts and citing Breitbart claims to support that Breitbart and others made claims. I'm doing the latter not the former. Breitbart appears to be reporting on the unreliable conspiracies rather than supporting them. At worst they seem to be supporting awareness-of not belief-in toward them.

Maybe we should just split all the 'Sharia' discussion into its own section. Stone/Baldasaro tweeting conspiracy theories is pretty tenuous 'aftermath', at some point maybe we should stop classifying stuff like that as Aftermath and as its own issue. Otherwise, anything else these people do later in life could be viewed as 'Aftermath' because their publicity was gained from the speech and their publicity could lead into any later events. "Aftermath" should probably just focus on direct responses and maybe counter-responses (ie Trump makes comment A, Ghazala writes article to him B, end) and any further back-and-forth stuff could probably be put into a new section lest everything from hereon be 'aftermath'. Ranze (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is simply not a reliable source. You can take it to WP:RSN but I can tell you right now it's not going to fly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Even setting aside the longtime consensus that Breitbart's long history of fabrications, misrepresentations and lies about people it politically opposes makes it categorically unreliable, given that Breitbart's executive chairman, Stephen Bannon, is now the chief executive of Donald Trump's campaign for president, it would be entirely improper to use anything sourced to that outlet which comments on those who oppose Donald Trump — the outlet is, for all intents and purposes, an arm of his political campaign and everything it publishes ought to be viewed through that lens. We do not cite the Hillary Clinton campaign's website on Rudy Giuliani's biography and we should not cite Breitbart on Khizr and Ghazala Khan's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. But just to avoid getting caught up in a tangent, I'll just emphasize the key point that Breitbart is not a reliable source for this subject (regardless of Bannon's Trump connection, which is just another reason it's problematic). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)