Talk:Khizr and Ghazala Khan

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)

Breitbart

[2] is useful for background--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not useful in the slightest; it's not a reliable source and the content (which is opinion) is utter nonsense. Neutrality^talk 16:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Breitbart is a reliable source for the author's opinion, but not for facts, and there would need to be WP:WEIGHT established by reliable sources first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the web page [3]. Apparently he is a lawyer who specializes in "Complex Litigation Electronic Discovery", "HIPAA Compliance & Audit", and "E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnystrom (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Does Archives.Org count as a "reliable source?" Does Khan's own website statement about EB-5 immigration count? Who are Dewey & LeBoeuf? Who are Hogan & Lovell? Does it really not matter that the article describing the Khans does not identify him as a practicing attorney who helps Muslims emigrate to the United States? Neutrality is a difficult concept. Is neutrality stupidity? Just wondering. WeWentWest (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Snopes article disputing many of Breitbart's claims. Regarding the website, WSJ includes Khan's statement on why it was taken down, though a better source would help if such info were to be included. ^Falling_Gravity 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Own website" is a primary source and that would be original research. Snopes is not reliable (but useful to find out what's going on and perhaps track down other, actually reliable, sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes is hardly reliable. As for Brietbart it's ideological, and not neutral; although I suppose one could say the same for the New York Times, Washington Post and the rest of your American media. Philip72 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes not reliable? Breitbart not reliable? NYT, WP not reliable? And the guy's own website not reliable? Wow. Is no one fit to discuss this guy? Reminds me of a joke about a murder suspect who got off scot-free; why? Because there were so damned many eye-witnesses that he couldn't get a fair trial. God bless ya. 209.105.170.111 (talk) 03:56, 22 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)

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 [4]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

Original research

I have removed some recently added material regarding a published essay of Khizr Khan's. While this is all very interesting and helps one kind of understand the conspiracy theories mentioned later in the article, the material relies heavily on primary sources which can't "prove" the essay's influence beyond a citation. If secondary sources can prove the notability of this essay, then that should be used instead. ^Falling_Gravity 05:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: thank you for posting here to discuss special:diff/734565709. OR seems a bit hard though. Is your issue with the word 'influence'? I thought all cited references qualified as an influence on a book.

Isn't being cited by dozens of books over following decades itself a demonstration of notability? At the very least this shows a connection between Khizr Khan and the University of Houston during sometimes between 1980-1983. Him being published prior to achieving his LL. M. in Harvard in 1986 helps to flesh out his background.

This is apparently his "Master of Laws" and usually people get a Master's Degree after a Bachelors, and the Houston Journal of International Law is a student-edited law journal, so wouldn't his being published by it prove that he was a student of the University of Houston (probably his undergrad) before moving on to get his Masters at Harvard? Ranze (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think maybe it's the word "influence" that is clunky here, because it's hard to prove "influence" — but we could simply say that his scholarship on the structure of Islamic law has been widely cited. I don't think a published source that cites his work is a "primary source" for our purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I read through the academic citations; none have any WP:ANALYSIS of the paper, beyond the obvious and unstated "I believe this paper supports this fact." Including the paper in a prose section on his biography needs a secondary source to explain its significance; it's not obvious that it implies he was at Houston as an undergrad (the journal's current guidelines don't say contributors must be Houston students) and it's not clear if 18 citations over three decades is impressive or disappointing or what. All non-academic secondary sources are hopelessly partisan: e.g. [5] [6].

However, I think it would be both appropriate and useful to add a "publications" section at the bottom, with this paper, International commercial arbitration in the legal systems of developing countries (his LL.M. thesis), his review of Human Rights in Islam, and Ghazala's op-ed (whose notability is clearly established by extensive discussion in mainstream media). Per analogy to many other biographies, this section can be in list format, obviating the need for expert commentary. FourViolas (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Like this; WP:BRD as needed. FourViolas (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My guess about Houston being his undergrad was wrong, I looked into it and found out his Bachelor's was from PULC and added that to the article. Strangely he apparently has two Masters: 1982 from MU Law and 1986 from Harvard Law. I'm pretty confused about why he needed both a Masters from Missouri and from Massachusetts. If you want another degree after getting masters don't most of them go for doctorate? Ranze (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would we be including his legal, etc. publications? He is not notable for his publications. He is notable because of his military-related and politics-related activities following his son's death. The only play his publications have gotten in that coverage is via the conspiracy theories. This seems to fall into the "just because it's true, doesn't mean it needs to be in the article". Ghazala's op-ed is different, of course, and is used as a source. It could also be included in e.g. external links or further reading without adding some sort of "Works published" section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point: Khizr is not known for his writings, so they fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE or [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]. Still, there's lots precedent for "published works" sections for people who are notable for other things: among FAs, there's Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#Publications, Hillary_Clinton#Writings_and_recordings, Ringo_Starr#Books. But that's a cherrypicked list, and many others (e.g. Barack Obama) don't include such sections. I was thinking of FallingGravity's point that this could somewhat useful background for e.g. the Shoebat stuff, and it's the kind of information I'd expect to find in a quality traditional biography. FourViolas (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: and @FourViolas: given that one of Khizr's publication has been highlightested by the media:

• Hannity, Sean (8 August 2016). "Controversial comments made by Khizr Khan since DNC speech". Hannity. Event occurs at 35 seconds. OK, but here's a problem. Back in 1983, according to reports, Khan wrote about Sharia in the "Houston Journal of International Law

I think it could be argued that he is notable for at least that one. Ranze (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A right-wing political commentator cherry-picking a single line from a brief interview which can be interpreted a number of ways doesn't really belong here without evidence of broader interest.

If you read Khan's statement in context — Sharia Law as we have titled, there is no such thing as Sharia Law. These are laws of various Muslim countries which are hodgepodge of British laws, French laws, Portuguese laws. In there, there is tremendous discrimination of genders which disqualifies them under the constitution of the United States, cannot be implemented, cannot be brought. How can I be a person that has read this, I preach that, that I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing. — he is not saying there is no such thing as sharia law, he is arguing that the American public conception of "sharia law"("Sharia Law as we have titled"), is not what sharia law actually is — he goes on to note that the laws of many Muslim countries which are discriminatory are often leftovers from European colonial laws which themselves entrenched discrimination for many years, and is arguing that such laws are not truly "sharia law."

Therefore, I have removed the section until and unless there's any evidence that anyone besides three right-wing political commentators (one of whom is banned from entering the UK on the grounds of inciting hatred) think he's actually saying there's no sharia law. Misrepresenting the positions of people might be OK on FOX News, but we have no obligation to uncritically repeat their pablum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: regarding your removal of special:diff/735446326 while I do notice that one of the sources for Robert Bruce Spencer is a book subtitled "Far Right Networks", I don't see "right" appearing on the article of Dr. Sebastian Gorka (PhD) and would like to know what similar word I should be looking for there to confirm your designation.

As for evidence of broader interest, I can provide that to you. I actually don't watch Hannity or Fox in general, I only learned of this due to reactions to it. It's easy enough to find googling Khizr + Hannity. Here are some examples which I'll prep for citation for your consideration:

McLaughlin, Michael (9 August 2016). "Sean Hannity Launches Smear Campaign On Khizr Khan". Huffington Post.

Tesfaye, Sophia (9 August 2016). "Sean Hannity refuses to let Trump move on, launches "investigation" into Gold Star parent Khizr Khan". Salon.com.

"Watch: 'Hannity' Segment Investigates Khizr Khan's Past Statements - Breitbart". Breitbart.com. 9 August 2016.

Legum, Judd (15 August 2016). "Sean Hannity's Week From Hell". ThinkProgress. Hannity asked Spencer if Khan was "hiding his real views."

The response itself seems obviously newsworthy even if you don't agree with the arguments made in it. I think it should be restored based on that. This isn't just some random right-winger, Hannity is a show running 7 years (longer if you add the 13-year run of "Hannity & Colmes" preceding it) and the opinions he voiced were noted by other media groups.

If you want to be critical of this, that's fine, you could support it from the above sources. The criticism Hannity got over this like McLaughlin in HuffPo, Tesfaye in Salon, are good examples for sources you can cite to support whatever criticism you'd like to add. I'm going to start by restoring it with the first two added as they seem a bit more popular than the later ones. Ranze (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. A biased source makes a claim and it is discussed by other biased and/or unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: all sources are biased, the objection is irrelevant. Please restore the sources you removed in special:diff/735499502 to the page. This isn't undue weight, it's the more recent happenings. We aren't obligated to end this section at Khizr's announcement about withdrawing from televised appearances. The promise to not be silent is an open door to further news coverage. The August 8/9/10 discussion of the August 2 is quite notable. Hannity is a central figure in Khizr-related discussions in the news. Ranze (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice that the reliable sources you cite above universally describe the commentary as a smear campaign, . We have no need to repeat that smear campaign in this biography. It is undue weight on a fringe point of view which is itself based on an (intentional?) misinterpretation of the biographical subject's statements. We are not obligated to include such material here, and indeed, the Biographies of Living Persons policy strongly suggests that we avoid doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You can argue that every person, publication, channel, etc. has a bias, but the difference is that some sources are biased to the point of not being reliable for balanced, neutral coverage of subjects. Hannity is a reliable source for many things, but certainly not for a politics-related BLP. Thus he is a reliable source only for his own opinion and his show's criticisms are reliable only for their own opinion, and do not establish weight.

Of course "We aren't obligated to end this section at Khizr's announcement about withdrawing from televised appearances". What a strange thing to say. That sounds like you view it as "the last word on the matter" or something. Although FWIW I don't have any objection to removing the line about withdrawing from future TV appearances. If he continues to be in the news, then it would become meaningless; if not, then maybe later it makes more sense to restore. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Given they (or at least Khizr) has continued to be an active participant in the news coverage about him, and since there doesn't look to be much to the moving out of the spotlight storyline, I went ahead and removed it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: This was restored. See #Spotlight issue below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Purple Heart exchange

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-purple-heart-veteran-virginia-rally mentions Trump with one and http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/khizr-khan-donald-trump-purple-heart/index.html brings the issue up. Is there going to be WP:UNDUE accusations if someone tries to include this? Ranze (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to use these sources for? More generally, it seems like your edits do not have much support and maybe you should slow down a bit with adding material to the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I would consider asking about the Purple Heart issue here before adding it to be slowing down. I would like to use these 2 sources to cover the issues they're about: that Trump said a veteran gave him the medal while presenting it at a rally, and that Khizr criticized this in the Cooper interview.

I'd also like you to explain special:diff/735628276. You not seeing something as important doesn't mean it's not important. We have a reliable local source reporting it initially (Texas Tribune) and a national source (CNN) reporting it soon after. Drawing criticism from a 1/2 decade governor and 2-time presidential candidate is surely noteworthy for Khizr.

Why exactly are reverters proposing we ignore legitimate criticism from a Governor yet we leave in goofy conspiracy coverage from Baldasaro and Stone?

Perry is more notable of a person than Baldasaro and Stone combined. I think people should question why it is we're putting so much focus on people who merely retweeted some Shoebattery and so little focus on much more notable people's actual televised interviews about the article subject? Ranze (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why Trump getting a gift of a Purple Heart is actually relevant to this article (and the comments he made when he accepted it was another thing Trump was heavily criticized for). As far as Perry, it's not just the notability of the persons involved, it's more about the coverage the statements received. Perry's was hardly covered at all. Stone's was covered a lot. That's the difference. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Him getting a memento from a supporter isn't notable in and of itself, it's his publicizing it and Khizr's subsequently being asked about it and conveying opinions about it which is notable. Yes, Trump was criticized for it, and that's part of the notability, if people had just shrugged it off instead of Khizr condemning Trump and saying he should give the Purple Heart to the veteran who gave it to him then it wouldn't have been as notable.

I wouldn't characterize Perry's statements as 'hardly covered'. I didn't include every single source that did so because it would clutter the article, the city/national coverage seemed adequate. "Rick Perry" "Khizr Khan" gives 33,600-34,600 Google results, how many articles would I need to list off until you're convinced it was 'a lot' ?

By comparison "Roger Stone" "Khizr Khan" only gives 23,300-23,800 and "Al Baldasaro" "Khizr Khan" only gives 4,260-4,280. So like I said previously: Perry is more covered than both Trump staffers combined, even in respect to this article subject. Ranze (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Name of Article

This article is really about Khizr Khan. In order to explain his life and activities the article correctly names his wife and her activities, or lack of them, and the heroic life of his son, the fallen American soldier. But this is about Khizr Khan.

I recommend renaming this article Khizr Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.70.132 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming it this way made particular sense at the time because they were both in the news together. It's true he does most of the talking, and several of the sources are about him alone, but especially given Trump's comments about her, the response to those comments, and her Washington Post op-ed, it seems warranted for them to be treated together. After all, it was the speech that really catapulted them into a spotlight, and they were both there for that. According to Khizr, they both wrote it and are both very much involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Humayun Service in the US Army following ROTC

This article must be corrected for an error. It portrays Humayun's membership in ROTC and his subsequent US ARMY service incorrectly. It is very nice to think about his service as "giving back." The reality is that while in ROTC the US government pays part of the enrollee's college costs and also a stipend/salary. In addition to their normal academic work they train on weekends and summers to prepare for military service. Upon graduation with a BS they are commissioned as officers in the military branch they chose when agreeing to the ROTC program. Their service begins, for example, in the US Army at the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. Their service is required and last of a number of years. Students who enroll in graduate school for a law degree or an MD are provided similar benefits and incur an analogous service obligation.

When President Woodrow Wilson designed and launched the ROTC circa 1916 his aim, as described in public remarks by Army Chief of Staff Mark A Milley while receiving the Wilson award at Princeton in 2015, his goal was to open the military and its officer ranks to all citizens as a counterweight to the perception that appointment to the major service academies (at the time Annapolis and West Point) had become reserved for the upper class. The ROTC programs are designed to provide similar financial support, the same active duty rank upon commissioning, and a similar service obligation to the program offered to cadets at the major military academies.

Please correct this article to correctly honor Humayun's memory and his commitment to his obligations to the US military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.70.132 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So the sentence you're looking to modify is:

Upon graduating in 2000, he enlisted in the Army as a way to earn money for law school and because, according to Khizr, Humayun "felt that ROTC had completed him as a person, and he wanted to give back."

It doesn't say it's just about "giving back" (he also wanted to "earn money for law school"), but that's a direct quote given in a couple different sources. I don't know how important the rest of the details are. Perhaps he didn't receive a scholarship in exchange for an obligation, but even if he did he can still see it as "giving back". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Recently added, misleading text removed

FYI - I have removed a batch of recently-added text by Wikkileaker:

• The first chunk of text is cited to something called "fbcoverup.com" (not reliable) and claims that Mr. Khan practiced immigration law. This isn't correct. He is a commercial lawyer and doesn't practice immigration law.

The New York Times reports: "He said that he was getting hateful messages and that he was worried about it being hacked. Insinuations were being made, that he was involved in shady immigration cases. He said he has had no clients come to him for that sort of work. He said he did commercial law, especially electronic discovery work."

The Wall Street Journal reports: "In the interview, Mr. Khan said he didn’t perform immigration work—because he couldn’t find any clients. 'You can only practice if there’s a client that comes to you,' he said." Neutrality^talk 17:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• The second chunk of text claimed that "Donald Trump's proposed ban on muslim immigration, is constitutional." In addition to being ungrammatical, this (1) strays rather far from the article topic (which is a biography); and (2) isn't supported by the cited sources, which say that the proposal may be constitutional, not that it is constitutional. There's a constitutional debate, and it's very inaccurate to make this bold claim in Wikipedia's voice in the absence of firm sourcing. Neutrality^talk 17:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree this needed to be removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, right. He knew it'd be a liability so what else would he say? His self-published documents regarding his "areas of practice" have not (yet) been completely scrubbed from the web. Wikkileaker (talk)
• Explain why the string "KM Khan Law" fails to appear when I perform a <CTRL><F> on this article. I get it when I type it into Google! Why is this ??? Perhaps because there are still documents on the web published before the speech that include as his practice, "immigration services". Don't dissemble because I keep a copy of it on my hard drive and can upload it at will. So much for being disinterested...Wikkileaker (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• You appear to have fallen into the deep-end of wiki conspiracies. Threatening to leak documents? Seriously? Give us a break. ^Falling_Gravity 20:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If the convention speech is to be part of this "biographical" article, then Khan's showing of his pocket constitution demands an examination of its relevance to the subject of Trump's moslem ban. This issue of relevance has everything to do with the constitutionality of Trump's policy, because Khan's waving around of his pocket constitution immedediately following his attack on the "moslem ban" would recommend to any ordinary thinking person that Khan is imputing that the ban is unconstitutional.

There is no evidence that Khan has served as a federal judge, or consulted with a federal judge. The constitutionality of a law can only be determined by a federal judge. Therefore, Khan is unqualified to render a ruling such as he effectively did by waving his pocket constitution before a TV audience composed almost entirely of an audience with no knowledge of jurisprudence.

The burden of proof rests of the proposition of a law's supposed unconstitutionality, not its constitutionality. I demonstrate with the following hypothetical scenario: President Trump signs into law his moslem ban. It is now the law of the land. The departments of the Federal Government are obliged to enforce it. Its constitutionality is presumed until it is tried in a federal court. Law enforcement officials are not empowered to say, "Hey, this must be unconstitutional! I refuse to enforce it!" Its constitutionality -- beyond being presumed -- is unknown until a federal court renders a final ruling on its constitutionality, and it is therefore effectively constitutional.

The cited sources are by authoritative sources and they indicate that there is good reason to believe that Trump's ban may very well stand the test of constitutionality. They are certainly more authoritative than Mr. Khan, who is given de facto approval due to inclusion of his judgmental actions at the convention. For these reasons the sentences regarding Khan's presumptuous "judgment" of Trump's moslem ban and apropos and correct.Wikkileaker (talk)

• "The burden of proof rests" We're not assessing arguments here. We leave that to the sources that report on the speech and only cover it insofar as the sources do (the reliable ones), and only insofar as WP:WEIGHT is established. If it's not in the reliable sources about Khan, it shouldn't be in the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sources that report on the content of the speech are not to be disregarded, particularly when they are identified as Top Legal Scholars. I suggest you refer to the cited sources of NY Times, US News and World Report, NBC News. I have already delineated in the paragraphs above how these sources relate to the content of Khan's speech.Wikkileaker (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• These sources do not "report on the content of the speech" - in fact, as Rhododendrites writes below, they all pre-date Khan's speech and don't even mention him. Read synth. In any case, this material, properly balanced out, is possibly relevant to an article on immigration to the United States, religious tests in U.S. immigration law, or the political positions on Donald Trump. It is irrelevant, or almost entirely irrelevant, to a biographical article on Khan. Neutrality^talk 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Rhododendrites. The whole point of articles such as this one to recite what occurred, its significance, etc. We can evaluate claims under certain circumstances (i.e., when the reliable sources do so, and when we accord space to the array of views in accordance with their level of acceptance), but we can't do synthesis on our own.

And, moreover, your argument is contradictory: you write that "only the views of federal judges/courts matter," but then you want to include the views of legal commentators in the media. That is contradictory. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps you do not keep up with what happens in the media covering events such as Khan's speech at the convention. If you spent some time away from the computer then you might be aware of the week-long coverage on the major TV news broadcasts. This is suspiciously queer because if you read the paragraphs in the article following the para that I inserted, then you would see references to G. Stephanopoulos of ABC, NY Magazine, and Washington Post. Your contention that my sources are inappropriate when they comment on Khan's speech, but these others are, is specious. Your suggestion that the sources already cited in the article are more significant than the ones I introduced is ridiculous considering the caliber of the Top Legal Scholars referred to therein.
• You failed to read or understand my response competently. I made it patent that Khan is unqualified to render a ruling on the unconstitutionality of the moslem ban. But it is not to be disregarded when Top Legal Scholars (not a media source, though cited by media sources) are offering their professional opinions on the constitutionality of the ban. The fallacy your argument offers is that of the Argument from Ignorance -- because the ban's ultimate constitutionality is unknown until tried in federal court, it must be unconstitutional. As I have patiently explained, that's wrong because of a federal law's presumed constitutionality. You argue that if we cannot be 100% certain of a law's constitutionality, then it is ipso facto unconstitutional. Unknowns do not beckon negative conclusions, but probables (as outlined in my cited sources) do beckon non-negative conclusions.
• In summation: READ THE SOURCES. They are relevant to Khan's speech and authoritative. I see the tactics at work here, the same ones employed by the clinton campaign: obfuscation, changing the subject, and purposeful ignoring the facts. No surprise to me, nor would it be to anyone following this conversation.Wikkileaker (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• In fact I have looked at all of the sources. All of them were published before the speech even happened, thus it is exactly as I said above. It's not relevant to this article whether Khan is "qualified to render a ruling on the unconstitutionality of the moslem ban" because we're this is not a legal article. This is an article about him and what he said, how others responded to it, etc. Tying a source from 2015 to what the subject said in 2016 is WP:SYNTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here we go again...the fact that the cited sources were published before the speech makes them all the more relevant because Khan and the news networks that reported on his speech should have been aware of authoritative legal opinions that cast doubt on the ban's unconstitutionality. In other words, they all failed to perform due diligence in 1) composing the speech and 2) vetting its contents. I don't know what professional practice is in speech-giving at nationally televised political party conventions, or the journalism that is purported to cover it, but I do know that if I'm going to deliver a speech that will be publicly scrutinized I'd be damn sure what I was about to say was not in dispute. Clearly, Kahn's imputation of unconstitutionality is.Wikkileaker (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites is right. And Wikkileaker, don't continue to revert to reinsert material that two other editors have expressed clear objections to at talk. And don't engage in politicized personal attacks, as you do above. If this sort of conduct continues, other editors are likely to think that you are not getting the point or are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Neutrality^talk 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not right. "Clear objections" that are without merit and fail to address the counterarguments propounded. Instead we have a flippant "Sources are outdated" when this "objection" is a blatant red herring. What we have here are not "two other editors" but two partisans (I could substitute another word here, use your imagination). There is clearly an agenda at work here. And I care not what "other editors are likely to think" especially since I'm now quite certain it is YOU who are not here to "improve the encyclopedia", at least by the standards of ordinary readers. Obviously you two are resisting the appearance of any negative information pertaining to this so-called "Gold Star family". I'm real impressed, and so will others when I direct their attention (on other platforms) to this thread.Wikkileaker (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nobody said outdated. The date only matters because it shows that they were published long before Khan's speech. That's not outdated, it's evidence that the sources aren't about Khan's speech. I think you're missing a key thing about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It's not a place to right wrongs, to shine a light on something that isn't getting accurate/fair coverage in the press, or to fact check something that those reliable sources don't themselves fact check (in context -- not a year before). If the consensus among reliable sources is something false, Wikipedia will include that false information. Anyone who perceives an agenda/conspiracy/bias in the media will, if Wikipedia is doing its job, see that bias reflected on Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has special rules for biographies of living people that, among other things, makes it so anything negative needs to be accompanied by very good sourcing and does not include e.g. synthesis, which is exactly what you're proposing. Perhaps I'm wrong about you not getting this -- perhaps it's a miscommunication about the meaning of synthesis? FourViolas does a pretty decent job of summarizing that problem below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Adding my voice to the chorus that says the edit you are attempting is a clear example of original synthesis which we can't do. You need to find a source which directly makes the claim or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Adding the voice of clear language to your unclear example of WP:SYNTH. Put simply (once again), my citations by recognized sources in turn citing expert legal opinion assert that the unconstitutionality of the ban is disputed. The existence of such opinions was public knowledge even before the speech. Khan is caught making an unsubstantiated imputation and he (and his speechwriter, and the TV journalists covering the speech) should have known it. There is no synthesis taking place here. "...find a source which directly makes the claim..." What claim might that be? Please do not answer with vagarities or obfuscations or I shall place you in the same category as these other two "editors".Wikkileaker (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

We have reliably sourced material stating that

• (A) Khan criticized Trump, questioning whether he'd read the Constitution. You want to add reliably sourced material stating that
• (B) Trump's Muslim immigration ban would be constitutional. Doing so would imply the conclusion that
• (C) Khan's appeal to the Constitution to criticize Trump was inappropriate or mistaken.

The conclusion C is what is not stated in any reliable source, so combining material A and B to lead readers to that conclusion is inappropriate synthesis.

Also: Comment on content, not on contributors, or you risk being blocked from editing. FourViolas (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I heard some rumors about this stuff but hadn't bother to dig into researching his law practice, guess I got distracted by the 'Logan' aspect, going to have to set aside some time to dig into these allegations later. Regarding these alleged documents, have any major websites reported on them that might make the accusations notable even if inaccurate? Ranze (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@FourViolas: regarding conclusion C, there are sources stating basically that conclusion, for example:

• Gibbs, Douglas V. (2 August 2016). "Khizr Muazzam Khan Misquotes U.S. Constitution about Immigration". Canada Free Press.

The question here is: every time someone in the media criticizes the Khans, are they going to be labeled "conservative thus automatically unreliable" ? There seems to be a pattern there, like with Breitbart. If only Democrat-aligned media sources are considered to be reliable then we won't see anything but praise due to overwhelming solidarity in the party. Ranze (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Our coverage is not drawn by "rumors," and Canada Free Press is a website chiefly known for promoting kooky conspiracy theories. Its unreliability is so evident to all to see that I find it outlandish that this even needs to be said. Neutrality^talk 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For what purpose is biographical info missing ?

Explain why the strings "KM Khan Law" and "K.M. Khan Law" and "KM Khan" fail to appear when I perform a <CTRL><F> on this article. I get it when I type it into Google! Why is this ???Wikkileaker (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would they? And the word "please" is always a useful addition to a demand. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

His current law practice is omitted but his past law practices are included ?? Demands an explanation; I have one in mind (considering recent posts here) and it is an ugly one. Must I be rudely plain?Wikkileaker (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please be politely plain. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer the politely plain response along with an answer to the corresponding question: why it a matter of urgency that it be included such that for it to be omitted there must be [something about bias or a conspiracy or whatnot that we'll find out soon enough]? Personally, if we have reliable sources for such information then mentioning the name of his law firm doesn't seem like a big deal to me. A reliable source does not include e.g. Breitbart, of course, nor a website that the subject has himself removed from the Internet (primary sources can be the best source of information about a subject, but not when the subject has himself deleted it [or recanted/withdrawn/whatever]). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Khizr Khan

In the next to the last paragraph, the following statement is made "and blaming Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for Humayun's death.[50][56]". This should be extended to note that Humayun died in 2004 while George W. Bush was president and four years prior to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton having responsibility for foreign and defense policy.

Cordially,

Steve Lamm Steve@ceoh.com108.18.110.42 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Stance on Terrorism

The family made an interview before the DNC in which they gave their stances on terrorism,[7] and in during the convention and in later interviews also remarked this stances. I think that this should be noted in the article given the hoaxes. It would be helpful for readers.[8][9][10] Rupert Loup (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)