Talk:Huma Abedin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Times of London article

Miss Abedin is mentioned in a Times of London November 22 2007 article ("Snarls, smears and innuendo as attack dogs get ready for the fray"). Matt Drudge has made reference to the article as his main headline, November 25 2007. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the first reference in this article. Skomorokh ^incite 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Times article does not allege that Hillary and Huma Abedin are having an affair and this entry is libellous. The article cited merely reports numerous slurs leveled at Hillary and other political candidates. TheMathemagician (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article does not allege that they are having an affair. Please read carefully as this is a sensitive matter. Wikipedia is not libeling, merely reporting secondary sources - we are interested in verifiability, not truth, and the Times article verifies the claims made in this article. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of deleting the text that read:

whom The Times of London alleges she has been accused of having a lesbian affair. This rumor has also been printed in Russia's Pravda with the caveat "Hillary and her aide, Huma Abedin, do live together at home and on the road, but the only way to nail Clinton would be to catch them together in a lesbian action."

The Times article states explicitly that it is listing anonymous smears being conducted against candidates in South Carolina, which it says is "the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America". TheMathemagician was correct. It is misleading and potentially libellous to precis this as "alleges she has been accused of having a lesbian affair". It is also inappropriate to cite Pravda - a tabloid newspaper (in the British sense) and in no way a reliable source. The quality of its content is clear from the line "the only way to nail Clinton would be to catch them together in a lesbian action" - simply embarrassing. LeContexte (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

a little more digging suggests that the last line of the Pravda report may be plagiarised from Co-Ed Magazine - http://coedmagazine.com/news/3463 - that well respected political journal LeContexte (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While its debatable whether or not Pravda is an unreliable source (calling it a tabloid does nothing to establish this), The Times is unquestionably a reliable source. I have changed the wording to assuage the concerns you have mentioned, removing the Pravda comment, and noting The Times suspicion of dirty tricks. Skomorokh ^incite 17:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Times article is to be used as a source here, then it must be in the context of the story the Times was reporting: the use of anonymous smears against candidates. The Times article places the accusations in the same category as claims that Giuliani's wife supports the killing of puppies, and that Obama is a Muslim extremist, and states that these accusations come from "the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America". To cite the article without this context suggests that the Times gave more credence to the rumour than was the case.

The current text reads "[The Times reported that] a dirty tricks campaign was underway"...is this not the case? Or is it the truth but not the whole truth? Skomorokh ^incite 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The current Pravda reference in the article is also misleading, as it suggests the website was making the same claim as The Times. It was not - it was simply reporting what the Times had written, and adding an apparently plagiarised conclusion. This is not an appropriate source, even if you believe Pravda as a whole is reliable. LeContexte (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to mislead, just make the reference concise; Pravda does not cite The Times, and similarity in wording is no proof of plagiarism. It even warns the reader "The best thing to do here is to ignore all the rumors." What changes to the wording would you be happy with? I'm willing to alter it until it reflects the matter fairly. Skomorokh ^incite 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The first 2/3 of the Pravda article is most definitely based on the Times - it says so itself ("...the Times reports") but the contents and structure make it clear anyway. The last sentence seems clear plagiarism: the identical "at home and on the road" and "nail Clinton" phrases surely cannot be coincidence. Either way, this is not original reporting and not a useful source.

Any citation of the Times article has to be very careful, to avoid libel and unfairness. I will think about the best way to do this. LeContexte (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, having looked through it again I agree now that the Pravda article does not really add anything to the article. I've left the Times reference unchanged until someone suggests a way to improve it. Skomorokh ^incite 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Pravda IS a reliable source used by many Wik editors. Further, you are supposed to assume good faith. I am putting it back in as it contains a VERY important quote regarding the lack of proof. It's important that the American people know if she is cheating on her husband and the american press obviously is covering for her. Wikipedia, which has a NPOV is not supposed to do that.

I'm putting it back in and if it's reverted you will be in danger of violating the npov, 3r and assume good faith rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.68.127 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the Pravda article again. It contains no content except for secondary reporting of the Times article, some apparently plagiarised text taken from a dubious website and a short original comment from the author. This could be cited as a source as to what the author of the Pravda article says, or cited as a source that the Times article has been picked up by other media, but should not be cited as a primary source in relation to the original allegations. LeContexte (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that Wikipedia editors have a tendency to smear Republicans (Trent Lott - On November 27, 2007, WNYC New York Public Radio's program "The Brian Lehrer Show" reported that rumors of a gay sex scandal may have prompted Lott's resignation. Big Head DC has also alleged that Lott's resignation was prompted by Larry Flynt's promise to out Lott's involvement in a gay sex scandal.), while protecting Democrats (Article about Huma Abedin). This is a neutral point of view? I think not. Its only a matter of time before the public considers Wikipedia to be a "unreliable source of information." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.173.19 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that rumours and gossip should be always included, never included or sometimes included? LeContexte (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The public already considers Wikipedia to be an "unreliable source of information." Teachers, for example, do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source for reports. One professor I know personally gives his students an automatic failing grade if they use it. I also consider it a unreliable source if it is something where personal opinions are used & facts cannot be verified (such as religion). I only use Wikipedia as a serious reference for concrete things like dates, or areas where NO ONE has an emotional stake in the definition. I also find your single example to back your accusation of left-wing bias to be "unreliable" - I've seen David Duke defended on Wikipedia.96.241.3.113 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with this article is a misunderstanding of the reason for including this Times article and subsequent media attention. No one is suggesting this be included to assert that Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton are engaged in a lesbian affair. It is however important to note that this has been mentioned. It has, according to the Times of London article, been sent out in campaign e-mails. (I'm sure John McCain's page mentions the illegitimate children e-mails sent in South Carolina during the 2000 election.) Furthermore, it has been discussed on conservative talk radio recently in comparison to stories about John McCain and Vicki Iseman (a story which has been deemed mentionable on Wikipedia, even though it is just as thinly sourced.) These rumors have cultural, historical, and scholarly merits and should be included. --Williamdix (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it appears in the news does not make it noteworthy in the biography of Huma Abedin. As a historical record of her biography, is it part of her notability? Please see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. Morphh ^(talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't noteworthy, Abedin is perhaps not noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. --128.135.203.168 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazoinker (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Placement of the text

I have move the Times article down to its own section. It shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction because the content is not factual and her background is more relevant. --Voidvector (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

rumour section is a one line statement, not long enough for a statement. I think readers are more interested in this than in her place of birth

— Skomorokh, Edit summary

Presenting it in a one-line section does not prevent reader from knowing about the incident. It would give chance for other editors to add more information (fully sourced, of course) about it. --Voidvector (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, although I've amended the heading to "Smear campaign against Clinton", which I think is more accurate. LeContexte (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "smear" violates NPOV. Can we think of something else? Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't strike me as POV as there was an article on Smear campaign, although I don't think it hurts to change it to something more general like "political attacks".--Voidvector (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

When this thing hits the mainstream media, we'll need to add a section about this issue. I've removed buzzfeed since that really isn't the sort of source we'd consider reliable. Rklawton (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, and since this is likely to be a troll magnet, would anyone like to take a crack at drafting a brief section that outlines the issue? If we can establish a well considered talk page thread on this first, we'll have an easier time stopping POV pushing within the article. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, The Times is the only reliable source to cover the story so far; the buzzfeed, Pravda and "Lezident" references are unacceptable per WP:BLP. User:Astanhope (perhaps mistakenly, perhaps disingenuously) removed The Times reference without mentioning it in their edit summary. I've restored the reference, although the wording is still up for grabs. Skomorokh ^incite 01:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can agree that "Lezident" is unacceptable. Why can't we agree that extra caution should be exercised when citing any reference to lesbianism in this woman's article? There is no denying that there exists a strong partisan interest in smearing the candidate (and possibly this innocent woman) in this fashion. Simply because the smear exists doesn't mean we have to report it. Let's leave it alone. Thanks! --AStanhope (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We can exercise extra caution, and there is an ongoing discussion about how such material should be worded. A reference to lesbianism concerning this individual does appear in a reliable source, and it is likely to be of strong interest to readers of this article, so it should be included in this article, with appropriate wording and citation. Skomorokh ^incite 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the wording you chose:
The Times of London reported in November 2007 that a dirty tricks campaign was underway intimating that Abedin and Clinton were engaged in a lesbian affair.

I'm thinking that folks who visit this article will be doing so because of this issue. The way it's worded, they'll be able to see the issue in brief and click on a reliable source. Obviously we'll need to add to this as more information about the campaign from reliable sources comes to light. Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My only objection is that it slants the matter in a direction that, although it may turn out to be true, is speculative; namely, that the allegations are false and are motivated by anti-Clinton sentiments rather than a passion for revealing the truth. It's purely The Times' pov rather than reporting, but we must stick to verifiable info; I'd prefer something a little more neutral like "allegations of a lesbian relationship between Clinton and Abedin were reported by The Times, which characterized the rumours as dirty tricks on the part of political rivals". Skomorokh ^incite 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite a salient point that this issue is probably the motivation behind most readers visiting this point, well noted. Skomorokh ^incite 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I have no objection to your recommended wording above. In the interim, someone deleted the paragraph and I simply reverted the deletion. If you wish to implement your recommendation, you have my vote. Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Abedin's parents

Relevant? Do we usually mention the religions of adult biographical subjects' parents? The lesbian smear against Clinton is twice as tantalizing when her alleged lesbian lover is also Muslim. Excellent work, guys. --AStanhope (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographical articles serve to present a neutral, informative, non-libelous perspective on a person; the speculated impact of the article is irrelevant. Here are some questions you should be asking:

• Is it verifiably true? Yes.
• Is it libelous, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people? No, last time I checked being called a child of Muslims was not slanderous.
• Is it relevant, something readers would want to know? I would argue yes; in the current U.S. political climate, the fact that a leading presidential candidate is of Islamic ancestry is noteworthy.

04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Huma a "leading presidential candidate?" Huma is barely relevant herself, so I would say the religion of her parents is definitely not worth mentioning.Deepfryer99 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You should also ask yourself "is it sourced" - it wasn't. Not with the sources provided. Rklawton (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslim children cannot remain in Saudi Arabia after age 14. They are forced to leave their parents and many attend boarding schools in India and the UAE due to this rule. If Huma Abedin's parents remained in Saudi Arabia and she remained with them, we can claim, with reasonable certainity, that the Saudi government viewed her and her parents as Muslims -- what they were in the sanctity of their own private moments and lives, of course, is known only to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't because that's original research and not allowed. If you want to make this claim, you must find a reliable source that specifically states her parents are Muslims. Rklawton (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very strange, none of this is a secret. Saudi Arabia deports non-Muslim 14 year olds. Note that the statement above does not imply that her parents ARE Muslim, it simply means that the Saudi government saw them as such -- there is a very big difference between the two categories discussed. It is time to get real -- there is nothing untoward or wrong in being Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now repeating yourself. Rklawton (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also not true. Saudi Arabia does not deport children once they turn 14 if they are not Muslim. There are thousands of children in Saudi Arabia who are the children of guest workers. Like the entire Saudi Arabian little league baseball team. It is made up of the children of American workers who live in Saudi Arabia. None of them were deported when they turned 14. What a ridiculous claim. Inf fg (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm confused. I think the situation of a guest worker in SAudi Arabia would be totally different from what the article says that "her parents relocated" there. it doesn't say they were guest workers or what ahve you. So, I would take it to mean that they relocated to live. So, in that case, wouldn't Huma's parents be more strictly heard to the laws of the land when it coems to religion than a guest workers children? Would that make any sense for a guest worker's child to eb deportd if they have special conditions which allow for them to be there?

Rayghost (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Given the recent history of attack-style vandalism and the high profile this article may receive, I propose semi-protecting this article. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

sprod = always good. --AStanhope (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't think there's been much recent vandalism here - can we wait and see what happens?LeContexte (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Woman's Day ref

I have removed the following from the article as Woman's Day appears to be a tabloid simply repeating The Times's claims.

Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over". Reference:"Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal", Woman's Day, December 10 2007.

Skomorokh ^confer 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You havent given a valid reason for your removal it is not simply a repeat or the times story it has an interview with Hillary and Renta what reason do you have to remove the information ? How do you prove or claim to know its not true ?

I'm sorry, you're right, I haven't given a proper reason. Wikipedia is especially cautious about biographies of living persons, so the criteria for reliable sources are more stringent than for regular articles. As Woman's day is a glossy tabloid it is not especially regarded for its journalistic integrity. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it back as again i dont believe you have mad a case to change it reliable sources includes magazines. " Clinton has not sued the magazine and her statement is included! It is fact that they story was printed and it its acuracy has not been challanged in a court! So i fail to understand you responce and determination to remove the information. Can you explain? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem not to understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources which I linked to in my last answer. The facts that Clinton has not sued the source and that the story's accuracy has not been challenged in court are not remotely sufficient reasons for qualifying it as reliable. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the policy before dealing with issues of verifiability again. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I did read the section and it clearly state a magazine as a reliable source. as i said it was printed. Why do you keep removing it do you have some special intrest or conection to them ? please see Australian Consolidated Press.

Verifiability states, with emphasis: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Woman's Day has by no means such a reputation, it has a reputation as a scandal-ridden celebrity gossip magazine. I have no special interest, and if you would care to read this talkpage you will see that I have argued strongly for the rumour about Clinton's affair to be included. As I don't want to exacerbate this edit-war, I have asked the editors at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to judge the matter. Skomorokh ^confer 09:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe that fact Clinton agree to be interviewed for the piece adds to it's credibility.

I would also add that it makes no statement either way as to it fact or fiction it states the allegation was made Clintons response and a third parties (Renta) statement.

It adds no weight to either side but advises the reader that the story was published.

I would also state that wikipedia has many other articles which contain such information including Bill Clintons sexual misconduct allegations for example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Woman´s Day has almost 2.5 million readers, mostly women, who are of all ages and socio-economic groups. They live in cities, suburbs and regions. They are interested in their homes, families, careers and leisure time. They want to be healthy, fashionable, entertained and informed, to have fun, to know what´s going on in the world, what celebrities are up to and what´s new in health, nutrition, beauty, fashion, fitness and food. They want budget-conscious fashion, five-minute beauty routines, nutritious meals in 15 minutes, easy fitness ideas and helpful advice on life´s little problems. They enter contests in their thousands, write, fax and e-mail hundreds of letters every week, share secrets, advice, worries and joys. Woman´s Day gives its readers what they want. acp

Thank you for your commercial for Woman's Day. None of what you wrote, however, either bolsters or attacks Woman's Day's credibility, or lack thereof. 96.241.3.113 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Where that fails is in the line "Hillary Clinton has been accused." Accused by whom? That is where is doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source, which, for a story like this, has to be impeccable. Pairadox (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article hillary states that she belive it is her competition and i think your picking at straws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%freehuman (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Keilana, can you please explain why you have semi protected the page Huma Abedin ? You have stated vandalism which is clearly not the case! Please see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where the matter is being dealt with ! Can you explain your actions ? I understand I am new here but it was one of the first pieces of information i have cont. to wikipedia there has been no decision made, I can not understand your actions !

Having now had the rules for vandalism explained to me I believe you have abused your power as my contib. clearly dosent fit any of the terms ? I ask you to reaccess your actions.

The decision was made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Huma_Abedin_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Its common practice during an edit dispute such as this for an uninvolved admin such as Keilana to semi-protect the page to reduce the intensity of the dispute. In any case, from the tone of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gossip_magazines_as_reliable_sources it seems that semi-protection was the right call to stablize the article while discussion continued there and on the talk page of the reliability of sources. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: The Times ref, revisited.

As the person who argued strongest for the addition of the The Times ref, I now think that after months in which the alleged affair failed to receive any credulous coverage in a reliable news source, it may violate WP:NEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP; it does not seem appropriate that someone could have smears pasted them on the internet, a newspaper note as an aside the existence of these smears, and the smears to comprise one third of the person's biography. What do you think? скоморохъ ^ѧ 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this was ever in in the first place. Anything like this gets added to the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, we delete it right away. I would definitely remove it from here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I added this to the RFC Politics page as well, might get more comments this way as well. My opinion is to delete the mention unless more evidence of the smear being used is provided. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur - this is very flimsy and I would absolutely remove anything like this from any article on WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE grounds. I also question why this article exists at all - Howard Wolfson is far better known yet he is merely listed in Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, which it seems to me is all that is appropriate for Abedin, if that much - she's a personal assistant without any independent notability presented, so I don't see how that merits an article in its present form - it seems to exist just as a vehicle to reference the smear. I realize that isn't the specific question in this RfC, but I think it is relevant. Tvoz |talk 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote: is this article a WP:COATRACK? Probably. Is the topic independently notable? Almost certainly, per non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. скоморохъ ^ѧ 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But there is no article - take out the smear and you're left with a virtually content-less stub. Independent notability is alleged here on talk, but I don't see it presented in the article. The sources verify that she is of Indian and Pakistani parents and that she lived in Saudi Arabia and attended GW. How is any of that actually notable? Assuming the smear stuff is removed, I'd propose a merge to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Tvoz |talk 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The New York Observer article states, but the current WP article doesn't mention, that she's an important advisor to HRC on Middle East matters. Indeed, she might be the highest-ranking Muslim advisor or staff figure in any of the 2008 presidential candidates, which seems notable if it can be verified. Also note that 9 of the 14 members of Hillaryland have articles, so there may be some notability associated with that. This article could easily be built up to be more substantial; it seems intentionally bare right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "intentionally bare" is exactly what I'm saying. The staffers and advisors who have separate articles (although I didn't look at every last one) all seem to have much more substantial articles - this one is not. If others are as sketchy, I'd suggest they be merged too. All I've read says that she is the "body person" - that is, that she is responsible for the minute daily details of getting Clinton from one place to another, making sure she eats, rests, etc - what personal assistants do. Do the sources actually refer to her as "Senior Advisor", like, say, Ann Lewis? If she is indeed a Middle East advisor, that information should be available in multiple sources I would think. Tvoz |talk 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reiterating an earlier comment:

If this isn't noteworthy, Abedin is perhaps not noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. --128.135.203.168 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have been endeavoring to reintroduce this material in a very neutral way, drawing attention to the mediatic character of the allegations. However, my edits have been immediately reverted, without justification. It has been reported that people working for Clinton's campaign have attempted to delete this entire page. The story of the lesbian allegations is widespread in the blogosphere, as any cursory search will show. The coverage of Huma Abedin in Vogue (August 2007), with its disingenuous allusion to romantic partners in Hollywood, suggests to the critical eye that there is a powerful interest in stabilizing Abedin's public image.Wwallacee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This story is pure rumor and innuendo, and is potentially a violation of WP:BLP. I know nothing of Clinton's campaign having made any attempts to delete this page, nor am I a part of her campaign in any way, but indeed as far as I';m concerned Abedin may not be noteworthy enough to have an article here. I'm not proposing it for deletion right now, because it is a stub and I generally believe in giving an article time to develop, but I haven't seen this one expanding in any reliable way so would probably support an AfD if it were brought. The blogosphere is largely not considered to be a reliable source, and so the fact that gossip columnists, Matt Drudge and bloggers talk about something about which they likely have no verification of, makes it not something we discuss here. Further, the point about Vogue was pure unsupported speculation. None of this has any place in this article. Tvoz |talk 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I think the Ambinder source for "senior advisor" is not the strongest - it is a blog post (but on Atlantic magazine's site, so I suppose reliable enough in terms of blog) about another staffer's promotion and it suggests that Abedin is a senior advisor, but not at all clear if this is her official position and title - again, as Ann Lewis is - or if it's a more colloquial use of the words. I'd prefer a better source for that title, preferably a piece that is actually talking about Abedin, not mentioning her peripherally in passing. Tvoz |talk 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notoriety?

This woman is just an aide to Hillary Clinton; could someone please explain how she meets any threshold of notoriety? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.7.6 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should pull the offending passage

I know you Smart People have been dealing with this issue. Perhaps a disinterested opnion is worthwhile? I came here via the Reggie Love page. It is an interesting page that does not report any negative alligations about him. (A supposed DUI.) This is an interesting page, but repeating the allegations that she had a sexual realtionship with HC seems (to me) to be over the line. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This allegation is the main reason she is notable. There were many, many jokes about it during the campaign. It's impeccably sourced to the Times. She is a kept woman with way more spending money than a campaign aide should have. If Love's page doesn't have negative information about him, you can add it. Kauffner (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Then nominate this article for deletion. We shouldn't have bios notable soley based on a rumor. Does anybody else out there want this rumor included?--Tom (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to argue, but .... many of the Body Men of presidents and so on have their own pages. While HC never made it to the White House, I think she is worth a page. But to repeat unproven allegations, "Some say he may have been a wife-beater" seems out of bounds. But as I said, you Smart People have been noodling over this and I bow to your judgement. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If there really were a notable public accusation(s) of this, then why can't THAT fact be mentioned (the bare fact that an accusation had been widely made)? Let the reader decide what to make of it. Tragic romance (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is currently being discussed at the BLP noticeboard

I still believe the smear story does not belong in this biography; judging from the talk page, many other editors agree with me, but we haven't achieved a clear consensus. To get further input, I've posted about this article on the BLP noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive229#Huma Abedin. Your comments are welcome. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is clear consensus to include this, then fine. otherwise, this is equal to the gerbil up the azz of an unnamed actor. --Tom (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this does not belong in this article and have so commented on the noticeboard. Tvoz/talk 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It very much so belongs in the article. Probably 99% of all the media coverage she has received has been in relation to this event. As long as it is done in an NPOV manner and it doesn't go overboard in WP:Undue, there is no reason to remove this information. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Seriously the issue of the photo makes wikipedia look like a sorry joke. There has got to be a better photo than this one. Half of the frame is HC's head and you can barely see HA's face. DFS (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't a better photo, there should at least be a caption that says something like "Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton." Cynwolfe (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the only photo on this page a prominent one of Hillary Clinton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.33.160 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This photo is a is a good promotional image of Hillary Clinton, not so much of Huma Abedin. Sokolesq (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Islam she is not a Muslim anymore

According to Islam, Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men, unless the man converts to Islam.

She is married to a Jewish man and is also pregnant with his child, so is she a Muslim?

According to Islam, no she is not a Muslim.

Zec (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How do we tell then who a muslim is and isn't. She fasts for Ramadan and eschews alcohol. When I was in Turkey and all the men drink alcohol (haraam per the Quran), most don't have beards, and all the women tweeze their eyebrows. So then they would not be muslims. The Imam at the largest mosque in New York City says she has to stand by her husband. So then they he would not be a muslim. The first Iman at the so called Ground Zero mosque (whose wife does not wear a head covering) married a christian man to a muslim woman. How many "muslim" athletes engage in premarital sex? We get on a slippery slope here. We would have to remove the muslim tag from half the so-called muslims in wikipedia if we applied such a standard.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not Muslim law until a cleric issues a fatwa. Even then, it's not for Wikipedia to judge, but only to summarize what the secondary sources say. I wonder if this is why she didn't change her name to "Huma Weiner". Kauffner (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't change her name for the same reason that many women in this day and age do not change their name: She did not want to, and she (unlike women of past eras) had the freedom to decide what her name is going to be. Why does it need to be any more complicated than that? Neutron (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Muslims and all actual Islamic scholars agree that it is not allowed for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. (I have marked it bold so it's obvious)

O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They (Muslim women) are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of Allah. He judges (with justice) between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. {Surah 60:10}

Zec (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many Islamic laws. Is there someone who obeys all of them? Kauffner (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not just some Islamic law. It's one of the most important Islamic laws for Muslim women, so not to obey this law says a lot about the person.

You cant just brush it off by saying that because this specific Islamic law about marriage is very important.

Zec (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is your point of view. We have the Imama of the the largest mosque on the east coast saying different: “I would tell her to be a little bit patient,” said Omar Abu-Namous, imam of the 96th Street Islamic Cultural Center of New York. “In our holy book, if you think your wife, or husband, is doing something unacceptable, you start by counseling her.” Perhaps find a prominent Imam that is directly stating that she has become an apostate because of her actions? We cannot just enter our opinion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not my opinion. It is what Islam teaches and what the Quran says. I have only provided the Surah where it is stated, you can read it above marked in bold. Here it is again:

They (Muslim women) are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. {Surah 60:10}

So, who should we believe, the word of the Quran or the word of some so-called imam in New York?

Zec (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that there is a unanimity among Islamic scholars/jurists that it is not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. But this invalidates her marriage, not her faith. No action can make a person an apostate. Only a certain belief or disbelief would. And that would be denying any part of the Quran, oneness of God and any of the Prophets (the later two can be seen under denying any part of the Quran too). In other words, it is like a Muslim drinking alcohol but not denying that it is against the Quran's teaching. That person would still be considered a Muslim, on the other hand the one denying that it is against the religion would not be a Muslim, even if he never drinks it. I don't know why this issue got dragged this long, but no, we Wikipedia editors can not deny her faith unless she does it herself, by explicitly denying it (not by action, by conscious decision or declaration that can be verified in order to be reflected in the article).

Just a note, the imam of any mosque, however large, can not be quoted as an Islamic scholar, unless he is trained in theology and jurisprudence. He can be considered a community leader or a religious leader, but any position he takes can not be referred as the legal Islamic position. --174.89.133.140 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• The way that wp solves this, is it follows what the RSs say. Period. Even if it were agreed across all Islamic scholars and imams (and the Koran) that she was no longer Muslim, without RSs reflecting that wp would not take it upon itself to reflect it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

One might ask, why does Wikipedia feel compelled to identify someone's religion at all, unless it is really central to who they are? That obviously applies not only to this article but to thousands of others. What relevance does this person's religion have to the governmental/political positions she has held? (Just so it is clear, I agree with Epeefleche, and in light of this discussion, this would probably not be a good moment to remove her religion from the article. But this is one of the many reasons why unnecessary identifications of someone's religion should be avoided in the first place. Neutron (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• If the RSs do so, we do so. If they don't, we don't. Happily, we avoid many existential problems by simply following the RSs, rather than engaging in POV battles over what the RSs should say. (What relevance does the fact that a person was born on day x or that they were born in city y have? Same answer. We include it not because those facts influenced their notability necessarily, but because the RSs reflect it). Some like having religion in, some not, and sometimes that differs based on what religion we are referring to, and whether the person has done good and bad things. Generally, we simply apply the same rule, without regard to whether the person did good or bad things (though POV editors can be found out if they seek to highlight religion x for bad things, but hide it for good things, and vice versa).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• The question is a moot one, with statements based in ignorance of the concepts involved in Islam. The question was asked, if a Muslim woman married a non-Muslim man, is she a Muslim. The answer is simply, yes. She is living in sin by not following her faith, according to that faith, but she still is until she decides she is no longer of that faith. Not when a writer decides, not when a blogger decides, not when a scholar decides incorrectly. She never renounced, at least in any verifiable source, her faith, so she remains of that faith. I was raised Roman Catholic, I haven't been to church since my mother's funeral in 2001. I question papal infallibility, a central tenet of Roman Catholicism. Does that make me not Roman Catholic? No. For two reasons. One, I've not been excommunicated from the church. Two, I've not renounced that faith.Now, if I renounce that faith, THEN I am not of that faith. It really IS that simple. THAT all said, there is no verifiable proof of anything other than she is Muslim. No published account of her announcing following another faith or renouncing her faith. Hence, to claim otherwise is to insert one's personal POV, with no verifiable evidence to support that POV AND one is essentially claiming to be an expert in the subject, meanwhile, inserting original research. Wzrd1 (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is all just theoretical, and I am treading close to the line of violating notaforum. But I would see this. Religion X could, theoretically, say that a member of the religion is automatically excommunicated if they do Action A. It could be self-effecting. But that is all beside the point. For wp purposes, we reflect them as whatever the RSs reflect them as. We don't care about the truth, even. Just about verifiability in the RSs. That is a pretty basic wp tenet, which some of us may dislike, but which is core to guidelines. Anyway -- a pleasure chatting. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution would be simply to say she calls herself a practicing muslim, and then source it. Problem solved. Tragic romance (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Her husband's scandal

I just removed a portion of the material relating to the subject's husband's scandal (which has now resulted in his resignation.) It was unsourced and at least arguably POV. But it raises a larger issue, which is, why should this article say anything about her husband's (not her) scandal at all? It is true that, as the paragraph in question says, she has been the subject of "widespread media attention" for the past few weeks -- but it is not because of anything that she did. It would be nice if the media would respect her privacy, but alas, that is not the world we live in. The least we on Wikipedia can do is not extend the "attention" to her own article. In the article on the scandal itself, it might be a different issue. Neutron (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a slightly, we certainly don't need the "less than a year after they were married" tabloid type of sensationalism. It is probably worth a small mention here, since much of the press has centered on the "he did this while he wife was pregnant" angle, but not to any great detail. I'm open to whatever trimming/pruning others wish to do. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally agree w/Tarc. Trimming/pruning is fine. At the same time, some mention is IMHO appropriate, with a click-through for anyone who wishes to read more.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the pruning, but not for elimination. An example of validity of that is in the Hillary Clinton entry, where the Lewinsky scandal is mentioned. I DO agree with Neutron regarding unsourced and POV information being removed, but there WAS a significant amount of media traffic regarding her. Wzrd1 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahmud

That's generally a masculine name... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of Italian and French men with the feminine "Maria" or "Marie" as a middle name, too. And don't forget Stanley Ann Dunham. 70.99.104.234 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that this is also her mother's middle name. Since Pakistani women often have their father's first name as their middle name, it is likely that this was/is the name of Huma's maternal grandfather. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

To exclude any mention of the Muslim Brotherhood in relation to her is an unfair omission. She has been repeatedly been reported with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In most cases it is what makes her news worthy. Not everything on this page needs to be glowing and reading like a propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.159.68 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but after a lengthy search I have determined there are currently no reliable sources saying that this is the case. If you can cite it from a reliable source, you can include it. Michelle Bachmann and the conservatives parroting her are currently not reliable sources, because she has presented no evidence and has only made accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.130.169 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• You folks need to find some better news sources to read (meaning she's not a sekrit terrrist/muslim brotherhood/whatever)!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We can cover the controversy, now that John McCain has made it a point of personal privilege on the floor of the U.S. Senate; however, at this point it seems to be impacting Michele Bachmann more than Huma Abedin, so it probably is better on the Michele Bachmann article (Michele_Bachmann#Letter_on_Muslim_Brotherhood_influence)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than be mysterious, we should quote what MB wrote in her letter, just so we know the "charge". Otherwise it looks like WP editors have chosen not to provide the details. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is more of a Michele Bachmann issue than a Huma Abedin issue. The 'controversy' should be kept brief here, for BLP and UNDUE reasons. Someone's actually created a separate article where it can be covered in more detail: Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories. Robofish (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope what I've added is just enough. There's nothing wrong with repetition across different WP entries, just that each has a different level of detail and is written to suit its context. The Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories needs lots of work and can handle lots of detail if anyone is interested. Bachmann's source, the Center for Security Policy isn't even mentioned there. And Bachmann's reliance on that source doesn't appear on the Center for Security Policy entry if anyone is interested.

I'm going to see if I can find a way to integrate the link to Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories into the text properly as well. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This page badly needs discussion of the rumors. A lot of the Internet are going to be coming here to see if there's any truth to it, and finding a blank in the article, only be left with the conspiracy loons down the rest of the search page. Twin Bird (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologize in advance for not knowing the "war" rule. Several times I've added new information that was sourced and linked from a U.S. Congressional website. That these materials exist was the point of the post. A a very brief description of the materials directly in regard to the subject of the page and the topic of the section of the page and a link to the materials is what has been removed. That these materials exist in favor of the investigations was the fact of the matter. They are properly sourced. They mention Ms. Abedin by name. Why are they scrubbed? Constance Harris (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Constance Harris, thank you for coming to the talk page, also, by using ":"s you can format the thread better. If consensus forms to include this material, then it goes in. Right now, a few editors don't feel that it is noteworthy or properly worded to warrant inclusion. That can change of course. --Mollskman (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9 and Constance Harris raise very valid points. For a fuller description of this article's defects see User talk:Prolog. Hackercraft (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I am not sure what this means. I would rewrite it if I knew what they were trying to say.

"McCarthy explained that the government is supposed to avoid the appearance of impropriety and that the congressmen were correct to question why the State Department had dramatically changed its view of the Muslim Brotherhood while Abedin has been a top adviser as Abedin's parents and brother have all had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.141.70 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

McCarthy article

Adding information on McCarthy's defense of the letter calling for an investigation and taking John McCain to task belong in an article about the controversy and not one specific to Abedin.

First the claims McCarthy puts forward (which appear to merely be a repeat of those put forward by the Center for Security Policy) are about the Justice department and do not assert any additional causality between Abedin and these policies. The Center's specific claims about Abedin have already been mentioned in the article. McCarthy makes no additional claims specific to Abedin nor makes any assertion that he has independent sources that verify the Center's claims.

Secondly, as this article is a biography of a living person wikipeida demands high standards for inclusion. McCarthy's piece being cited might be considered a blog which would not qualify as a reliable source under Wiki standards. The page cited makes a point to state that "Andrew C. McCarthy is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America." The title seems highly partisan and throws into questoin if McCarthy is an unbiased source concering Ms. Abedin, which would further disqualify the comment for a biography of a living person. Certainly these are his own opinions and it seems he may well be notable, so they would probably be worth mentioning in an article specifically about the controversy and would be illustrative of a side of that controversy.

Wowaconia (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But we need to be careful when discussing the "other side" of the controversy, if at all, to make clear these people are deranged crackpots. I'm sorry, that is not meant as a BLP-violation, but as a matter of truth verified by John McCain and others who maintain some level of balls.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

An article about the controversy should be started for the controversy rather than place that information here, similar to how the Thomas Jefferson article mentions the controversy around Sally Hemings but for positions on the controversy the link to the Jefferson-Hemings controversy article is provided. In the case of his article or of Abedin's if one was to give the controversies full coverage on the biography pages it might well dominate the work for dozens of paragraphs, therefor a separate article is required. If you can not find a pre-existing article about the controversy over the letter one should be made, see Wikipedia:Starting an article. --Wowaconia (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This really warrants its own article? I just removed some material about a bi partisan letter which linked to one of the congressman. Not sure we need a blow by blow update on this bio. The section is already almost 1/2 the article.--Mollskman (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Duh, Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories. --Mollskman (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If Huma is Muslim did Weiner convert to Islam when he married her? Or, did she commit apostasy by marrying a non muslim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.86.104.62 (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Parents profession not relevant

So the article tells a lot about her parents, but what qualification does she have herself? Does she even have a college degree? Who cares, if her parents have a Ph.D., that's not relevant for the article. --79.214.13.194 talk:79.214.13.194|talk]]) 11:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the picture

This picture is rather unflattering to Ms. Abedin: her head is down, she has an odd/distracted facial expression, and Hillary (not Huma) seems to be the focal point. Do we have a professional-looking faceshot of Huma? Steeletrap (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Teneo activities

This Teneo situation will be an increasing major focus and needs a section, well sourced and responsive. I would initiate but am too amateurish.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If and when it becomes a major focus, reliably sourced, and if it appears to have a major impact on her life and/or career, it will be added. Right now it is just a request from a Senator, which was responded to, and we say so. See WP:CRYSTAL - we don't speculate on what may happen - we wait for it to happen and be reliably reported on. Tvoz/talk 04:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Its already a major focus and should be included asap. I will get to work! Prolifer4046006 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Practicing Muslim

The article mentions that "Abedin is a practicing Muslim", whereas Islam does not permit Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men and her husband is Jewish.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam#Marrying

Therefore suggest that the text is modified as follows:

"Abedin claims to be a practicing Muslim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.96.46.10 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

plenty of practicing Muslims drink alcohol (no wiggle room), have premarital relations (no wiggle room), don't have beards, or have pet dogs. She defines herself as such and that is what we should report. Perhaps "indicates she is a practicing Muslim" might be better since "claims" seems to apply doubt that she is....and maybe she is a better Muslim than most but for the marriage to a non-Muslim.Patapsco913 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"identifies as a practicing Muslim" sounds like the best solution. The OP should note that adherence to every regulation of a religion is not necessary to be identified as a member of it; Catholics masturbate and have pre-marital sex. Steeletrap (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The article today just said "Abedin is Muslim" with one source, so I revised it to read: "Abedin is a practing Muslim." WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple high-quality sources for something like this. I added two more, one from the Washington Post and likely the originating 2007 one from Vogue magazine, both using the term "practicing." The 2007 Vogue article was a photo spread and interview in which she participated. She came back for another photo spread article in the September 2010 issue to discuss her wedding; thus, proving she was okay with the previous article on her. 5Q5 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Even outside the Jewish husband she is the very image of a nominal Muslim, working for a non Muslim government, not wearing hijab excetra, so I am going to change it to simply Muslim without the practicing as it is blantly obvious she is not a practsing muslimah. if you have problem bring it up with me, i don't mind but don't just undo my edit. Calling yourself a practicing Muslim does not make you one. to the user above who said plenty of practicing Muslims drink alcohol (no wiggle room), have premarital relations (no wiggle room), don't have beards, or have pet dogs. They are not practisng Muslim they are nominal Muslim and that is what she is a nominal Muslim not practicing one so lets agree to compromise and just say Muslim IslamicrevialistmMujahid

Bill Clinton conducted wedding?

The article says Bill Clinton conducted the wedding. Since he is a neither a clergyman nor a practicing lawyer/JP, I doubt it. The link provided does not state that he conducted it -- in fact, it doesn't mention him at all. Anyone got any evidence? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bill Clinton conducted the wedding. I read about it in Reuters or somewhere like that. He had to get a special license to do it. If it isn't sourced, I'll find one and include it. Good catch!--FeralOink (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it! New York Times via FreeRepublic - Clinton to Perform Weiner Wedding July 9, 2010

Bill Clinton is not giving away his daughter Chelsea’s hand in marriage for another three weeks. But he is going to get a little practice at the altar on Saturday, when he officiates at the wedding of Representative Anthony D. Weiner and Huma Abedin, a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The ceremony will be at Oheka Castle in Huntington, N.Y., in the early evening. Matt McKenna, a Clinton spokesman, told The Associated Press that Mr. Clinton would conduct the ceremony and was authorized to do so, but did not elaborate.

--FeralOink (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Congressional inquiries

With this edit, Professor JR (talk · contribs) expanded this section on a congressional inquiry led by Chuck Grassley from one to three paragraphs. Her "career" section is only two paragraphs (and so is the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy issue, but that's another matter). Seems to me that redundant or out of date info from that section should probably be trimmed to maintain due weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Is MSNBC a Reliable Source For Including the Judicial Watch Court Activity?

I plan to use this source. Any objections? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. MSNBC (non-pundit edition) is WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I will want to see the edit before commenting. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Nocturnal can make an edit, and if there's anything we object to we can object to it. I don't think there's been content that I've objected to, just sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ok,thanks, I'll get at it tomorrow. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, WP:NODEADLINE. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

E-mail controversy

Abedin is not the subject of any investigation, and neither of the currently-cited sources even mention Abedin in relation to the issue. She may be part of the controversy (although that's currently not supported by the sources) but to include a section header which implies she is under "investigation" is not kosher. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Judicial Watch lawsuit / Abedin's State Dept. employment

That section is way too long and includes information that does not belong in a short bio. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have shortened that section to contain the essential information without the spin. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is currently castrated and is not comprehensive enough for our Readers. This has to be fixed to make the BLP NPOV. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I think this BLP is sanitized and biased in favor of the Subject. I feel it needs a NPOV tag, at least with some of the headings and topics. What say ye? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nay I say! Ahahaha, but on a more serious note: I do think that would be a mistake. In reading through the article, this one seems tame in comparison to the majority of political bios here on Wikipedia. No need to call in the cavalry simply because a change you've attempted to make keeps being reverted. Cheers! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the most whitewashing I've seen in a long time. The Judicial Watch lawsuit, which was national news, was not even included until now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If the "Judicial Watch lawsuit was national news," then surely there are independent reliable sources discussing it, and we can base discussion on those independent reliable sources, rather than a press release from a partisan advocacy group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, the lawsuit is even included in the Clinton Email Controversy article, with the same sources, perhaps you want to go there and remove it? This is like pulling teeth, please work with me on this BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In the context of that article it may be suitable. Not here, per WP:UNDUE. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's absurd. The lawsuit names this Subject, not Clinton ! Its more suitable here than there. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If all you can find for this "Judicial Watch" lawsuit are primary sources, then it doesn't belong on the bio of an individual whose behaviors/persona/associations can be considered "controversial". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: An NPOV tag, is useless unless you indicate what is that you believe needs improvement. They are not designed to shame an article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The judicial watch info should absolutely be in the BLP. Here are dozens of news articles related to the matter.[1]. Since you do not like the sources which are used in the Clinton email article, perhaps you can help improve this BLP by selecting one of these sources? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

On that page, I see Breitbart, Newsmax, Washington Free Beacon, something called "The Hillary Daily" (and I see that page is advertising for noted anti-Clinton blowhard Dick Morris)... these are right-wing sources that I'm against using under any circumstances because of their right-wing POV. Has CNN picked this up? WaPo? Any other credible mainstream publication? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times pushed the lie that Saddam had WMDs. So would they be a "credible" publication today? Maybe a RS, but credibility is subjective. Maybe that's what's going on here. Some editors applying their own opinions as to what publications are "credible". ?Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The tag must go back up and I think this BLP's heavy handed content restrictions fit into the comment by Quicksilver on the Kevin McCarthy BLP. "According to the comment left by user ======= in performing the revert, "mv BS allegation sourced to Breitbart, the only source worse than Fox News". Hmmm. I wonder what he considers "reliable" sources. Although I agree with the need for accuracy and verifiability in biographies of living people, it's attitudes such as this on the part of some Wikipedia editors that make all articles here dealing with politics, political figures, political commentators and politicized technical and scientific subjects a complete joke, not worth the time reading or quoting. Garbage in, garbage out. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)" Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Colorful, but unilluminating. The "content restrictions" here are the same as for any BLP on the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I can no longer contribute to this BLP

I am placing this on this talk page to explain why I feel I am no longer able to contribute to this BLP; which, I think, effects the substance and quality of this BLP in a negative way. I feel bad because I spent so much time----many hours---- trying, imo, to improve the BLP. However, I have now received a twice repeated warning on my talk page from an Administrator concerning my edits. A warning which castrates,imo, my ability to improve this BLP.

I simply am not experienced enough to know, much less understand, all of the nuances, rules and regulations concerning the matter and thus do not think I can make useful contributions while trying to comply with the enormous number of restrictive rules that other, some embedded in this BLP, editors may use to level official administrative punishments against me. I may not be seeing this entire event objectively or clearly, I am actually quite an old, somewhat stubborn, man now, which may also be a hindrance in some way. I truly did my best with the editing, trying to avoid the 3RR rule etc. There used to be a policy "Ignore All Rules", but that does not seem to exist in practice anymore. I will be reading with great interest this BLP as it develops.

Once again, I know this is not a forum, and I will not be responding to any comments about this section of the talk page, but I do think that my words here are directly and substantially related to the quality and development of this particular BLP.Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. After all, WP:WPDNNY - Cwobeel (talk)

That's a pretty aggressive,silly and stupid referral. I never said I would leave Wikipedia, just this BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The the point I was trying to make is that Wikipedia does not need you or me. If you don't want to edit this or any other article, it is absolutely fine. Happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The substance and quality of BLPs are negatively affected by the introduction of material that is sourced to attack websites or partisan smear publications. The BLP policy is designed to prevent that. Many people don't like that aspect of the policy because it prevents them from using the encyclopedia to attack living individuals. Those who are trying to improve the encyclopedia and the substance and quality of its articles understand the need for high quality reliable sources that are compliant with this policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia is that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

yep. They have an article on Abedin [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

sorry, its passive aggressive,silly and stupid...really stupid.Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Humagate

Consider adding a redirect from a new term "Humagate". I found the word in an article and tried looking it up, but it didn't exist. 84.210.46.118 (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Google currently says that there are a mere 809 hits, and the first page of these (as results from my particular filter bubble) includes recyclings of the same excited article, the Facebook page of somebody named Gumbogo Humagate, etc. So after brief consideration, no. -- Hoary (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Times has used the term "Humagate" HERE. I would say "no" to a section in the article, but perhaps consideration should be given to a redirect. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See WP:FRINGE - Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

To: Cwobee: I don't know what the big deal is. In order to be "fringe" it has to be a theory of some kind. Are you saying the word Humagate is a conspiracy theory? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the NPOV tag Will be Grounds for Blocking; Items 1,2,4,5,8 and 9 have no consensus as yet

Please respect the tag and work together to reach a consensus regarding excluded RS content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought you are no longer contributing? If you are going to continue to contribute, maybe remove your rant about how you aren't going to contribute? Also, what items are these numbers referring to? Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Threats like "grounds for blocking" strikes me as incivility. And like Gamaliel said, we have no idea what these "items" are that you're referring to. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Gamaliel and Muboshgu

Please see the contents of this talk page; the items these numbers refer to are:

1 Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

2 NPOV Tag

4 Humagate

5 Judicial Watch lawsuit / Abedin's State Dept. employment

8 Judicial Watch and Breitbart

9 Hubedin's close personal relationship with Hillary Clinton

Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay, you were using the numbers from the TOC. Better to spell them out, since talk page archiving will change the numbers you gave. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy this argument. POV tags are not for shaming articles. All these issues have been discussed and there is no grounds for a POV tag. If you have specifics for new areas of concern, please describe them. Tag removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow stop the nonsense and abide by consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not have unilateral authority here and anyone can see by reading that the issues have not reached consensus. Tag replaced. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are the only one arguing for inclusion. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean WP:UNANIMITY. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Professor JR has also been trying to improve the BLP by making it more comprehensive. Just because an editor is not embedded here 24 hours a day does not mean you can pretendd they or their opinions do not exist. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I see your team tagging alright, and the appalling lack of good faith expressed there. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Eh, to me that looks like commiserating. This one though[3], definitely tag-teaming. 107.107.58.81 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful. And you are? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Judicial Watch and Breitbart

Judicial Watch is a right-wing partisan interest group, and before adding wholesale amounts of their claims or discussion about Abedin, we need to consider issues of undue weight along with the sourcing. As well, Breitbart is categorically unacceptable as a source about living people, particularly living people whom they are known to politically oppose — this is as per extensive and repeated discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, based upon the outlet's demonstrated history of poor fact-checking, misidentification, unsubstantiated rumor/gossip-mongering and outright fabrication of negative material about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm astonished that editors are revert warring to include low-quality and primary sources in a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Its certainly not intentional on my part. Is there a list of generally acceptable Reliable Sources anywhere? I thought the Daily Mail was just as good as the Guardian. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The UK tabloid The Daily Mail, is not a reliable sources for BLPs either. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The "External links" section of a biography is not a dumping-ground for links to sites making partisan attacks on that living person. Please see WP:BLPEL, which states in pertinent part, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs. Just as our article on George W. Bush does not include external links to left-wing partisan attacks on him (of which there are surely many), there will not be external links in this article to right-wing partisan attacks on Huma Abedin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The * State Department email release link is to raw documents released by the State department. The categorization of the documents as "right wing partisan attacks" is either an intentional lie or abject stupidity and I object to the assertion that I would attempt to provide a link to "right wing partisan attacks". Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The site which hosts this document is most certainly making right-wing partisan attacks on Abedin and others. But let me rephrase: What encyclopedic purpose is served to linking to this document, which appears to be a routine e-mail conversation that Huma at one point had? What does this add to the article? If it does not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article," then it would be a link to avoid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:PRIMARY - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia;" is within WP:PRIMARY Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So how is the use of this link within the rules laid down by, say, WP:UNDUE and WP:EL? Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag says: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"

Why has Cwobeel been removing the tag when there is clearly no consensus on several issues? Have you not read the tag? Do you think you have the right to ignore what it says? Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The template documentation at {{NPOV}} says that it's only for "reasonable" disputes. Is this ongoing dispute here "reasonable"? I'm not sure, and I'd like an uninvolved admin or other trusted sort to look into it. Should we really be giving more weight to a right-wing organization's lawsuit? Should we try talking about her "close, personal relationship" with Hillary that seems to me to be code word for "lesbianism"? Pamela Gellar would probably lean towards inclusion, but she's one of the most unreasonable people I've ever seen or heard. Much of the complaints about the article do strike me as unreasonable, after many attempts to resolve them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that, unfortunately, to some people in some countries a "close, personal relationship" between 2 women may be code for lesbianism, but it certainly is not in Canada or most of Europe where heterosexual women often show extreme affection by holding hands, kissing on the lips and would laugh at the idea "close personal relationship" between 2 men or 2 women is code for anything. However, it is something that most people would think is important in a person's life. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested edit that involves this topic? Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, Gamaliel just beat me to my next post. Do you want to know if Hillary and Huma spend any time together outside of work? If they double date with Bill and Anthony? I'm not clear on what the omission is. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is this line of argumentation? Wikipedia is not a tabloid for frivolous and inconsequential material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll put together a suggested edit asap. In the meantime, Cwobee, please refrain from removing the tag, and the tag-teaming link showed above, [4] is proof to me that you have no authority to represent or preach about Wikipedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your addition of the tag has been reverted three times in the last 24 hours by three different editors. I suggest you stop edit-warring the tag. There is a pretty clear consensus here that the tag is not appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider your case for adding the tag, but you haven't made one yet beyond a blanket assertion and a vague reference to previous discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, Nocturnalnow has added {{npov}} to the article on eight occasions (listed here). Edit warring to force a personal opinion is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am looking forward to the proposed edits by Nocturnalnow. I have suggested it before and suggest it again here: WP:BOLD follow by a discussion if reverted (WP:BRD) is a much better use of editors' time than endless speculative discussions about possible additions to the article, or the misuse of POV tags. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cwobee, Thanks for the reminder about WP:BRD, I had not read that in a long time. Your comment directly above is correct.I will construct my new edits with your reminder in mind.:)Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: It is BRD, not BRRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

:)Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hubedin's close personal relationship with Hillary Clinton

I'm amazed its not even touched upon. The numerous accounts of how they spend more time together than they do with their families...the longevity of their relationship and intense closeness and loyalty between them. This also needs to be included before the NPOV tag is removed.Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for an NPOV tag. If you want to add that information, well sourced of course, go ahead. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And of course, if you read right wing online media, please be aware that the nonsense they spew about lesbianism has no place in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, and couldn't care less what Abedin's sexual preferences may be, or whether that is included in this article --- but are you suggesting that we should have a problem with, or that there's anything negative or demeaning about suggesting that someone might be a lesbian? I thought most folks had moved past that, in the United States at least. --- Professor JR (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please... - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You cannot be serious with that. She's married to a man. That's what's verifiable. Gonna resurrect the "Hillary is a lesbian" trope next? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I really have no idea what Abedin's sexual preferences may be, but just being "married to a man" certainly doesn't constitute anything WP:V regarding a person's sexuality, one way or the other. Not to suggest that it is true in her case, but did you ever hear of bisexuality? --- or of 'fag stags'? (a term of endearment in the LGBT community, BTW) --- or of someone using a 'husband' for cover?
All I was attempting to point out above (duh), is that we should take care to avoid what may be taken as offensive remarks by the LGBT communities when making statements like: "the nonsense they spew about lesbianism has no place in this article". Users would do better to confine such comments only to the verifiability of sources.
And, "trope"? Do you even know what that means? (google it --- perhaps you meant "tripe".)
And, you're not suggesting that someone positing that "Hillary is a lesbian" would be insulting her, or making a slur against her, are you?
I 'm about done with TalkPages, at least this one, and fully empathize with how Nocturnalnow feels, even if our associates, 'Cwobeel' & 'Muboshgu', seem not to care. --- Professor JR (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna (1) quote you: "but are you suggesting that we should have a problem with, or that there's anything negative or demeaning about suggesting that someone might be a lesbian?" and (2) remind you that the old conservative rumor mill about Hillary's sexuality remains offensive. Suggesting that either Huma or Hillary is a lesbian is Rush Limbaugh territory. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Cwobee1 and Muboshgu want to talk about lesbianism, as that is Ellen DeGeneres territory, but its just deflecting attention from the topic which is the complete absence in this BLP of the well published personal closeness between Hillary and Huma. 69.158.21.35 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, check back above and you see it was ProfessorJR who raised that subject. "Hillary Clinton being a lesbian" is a well-known conservative smear campaign dating back to the nineties which is highly offensive to mention.

Beyond that, I have no idea what is meant by a lack of information about their "close relationship". Obviously Hillary trusts Huma to have her in her inner circle. What information is lacking, exactly? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be in the BLP, for sure:"At the time, former Secretary of State Clinton said: "I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would (be) Huma."Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to including this factoid. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Me neither. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is, this is an important area which deserves much more content, not just this one factoid, and the editors who control this article have, for whatever reason, not even make mention of the closeness and that is one of the many examples of why this BLP is not in compliance with our policy of neutrality. Perhaps you can write up a few sentences which you feel would be acceptable. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope sorry, you need to do the work as you are the one asking for such improvements. Then we shall use WP:BRD, so go an be WP:BOLD - Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit: "When Abedin was asked if Clinton guided her through the Weiner scandal she said: "We’ve had a lot of personal conversations, none of which I feel comfortable talking about." is being removed as not relevant. I think its relevant in order for Readers to get a glimpse of the depth of the Subject's friendship with one of America's most important political figures and her current boss. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is a bio, not a tabloid. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular reason to pry into her personal and private life here, and the answer provides nothing of encyclopedic interest that's not well-encapsulated elsewhere. It is not newsworthy that someone has personal conversations with a friend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that quote provides any insight into the depth of their friendship. Could you explain why you think it does? Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Abedin says the 2 of them have "a lot" of personal conversations. That is an indicator of a strong friendship, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is an irrelevant factoid. The text there already presents that dimension. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Not every adult has a lot of personal conversations with their mother or a mother figure. I think this completes quite nicely the degree of connectiveness between the 2 women. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

we can agree to disagree. The consensus emerging is for exclusion of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What makes you say that Hillary serves as Huma's "mother figure"? What do you have to back that up aside from their age difference? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Its in [5]Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it does say that there. But, it seems to me that it's a throwaway line in a large in-depth piece, and it doesn't really say anything about what this means. We don't know that Huma said that, or the author wrote it on her own without Huma's knowledge. Based on that, I think it's undue to include that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok,Fine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Mentor and Mother Figure" [6] is a on point article which defines the relationship in a non-throwaway basis.Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a hack-ish opinion piece by Fox News. Thinking more about the above NY Times article, I think it would be more relevant to this article if Huma herself identified Hillary as a mother figure, rather than having a reporter editorialize. I wonder if others agree with that opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to know what others think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Sexting"= Weasel word =

Why do we use the vague term "sexting" when referring to Weiner exposing his penis to multiple women including one underage? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The details about these incidents is better described in Weiner's article. There is an entire article on this at Anthony Weiner sexting scandals. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose so. I see that sexting can include images. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight and coatracking

Given the brevity of this biography, there is massively undue weight being placed on negative political attacks here. In addition, creating an entire subsection talking about what her husband did in an effort to visit the sins of the father, etc. on Abedin is not acceptable. Please discuss these proposed changes here and gain consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think exactly the opposite is reflected in the BLP with Subject's avoidance of a well-vetted security clearance being under represented. Surely you are not saying her speaking at press conferences with her husband were negative political attacks? She could have chosen not to put herself in the media spotlight standing by her admitted (Redacted) husband( don't forget the underage woman he admittedly exposed himself to) but since she chose to play such a public part of that scandal, that is the only thing most Readers ever knew her for; being the wife of the disgraced mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner. Its not up to us to instill damage control for her role in the aftermath of the scandal, a role she willingly played. In fact, the only justification for her even having her own BLP is negative stuff that has been reported relating to her, her work, and her family. Really, what are her unblemished accomplishments? I would support not having a BLP for her at all, if that is the consensus, but we can't be painting the white roses red here.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the page to express your opinions about living people. I have accordingly redacted an unnecessary and inflammatory personal attack on someone who isn't the subject of this biography. We are not here to express our opinions, we are here to write biographies based on reliable sources. It is apparent that you have a highly-negative opinion of this subject's spouse, and it's increasingly apparent that you are influenced by that negative opinion to attempt to slant this subject's biography in a negative direction. That is the very definition of coatracking - writing an article not about this subject, but about another one tangentially related. I suggest that this may not be the right biography for you to write if you cannot write about Abedin without setting aside your opinions about her husband. They are not the same person, and we are not here for you to smear her with what he did. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"It's her husband's scandal not hers"

That was the edit summary left with this revert [7] which changed the text from Abedin became the subject of widespread media attention amid her husband's Twitter photo scandal. to Abedin's husband became embroiled in the Twitter photo scandal. The sentences don't strike me as significantly different with respect to whose scandal it is. Additionally, the new sentence doesn't make sense - "embroiled in THE photo scandal" "which one?" "oh THE one."

This grammatical nonsense has been restored twice - first with an edit summary indicating the reverter hadn't read the sources before reverting [8] and now with an edit summary not justified by the change. Please take the time to proofread and evaluate changes objectively before reverting. If there are no substantive arguments against, I'll restore my edit. But I'd like to give other editors some time to comment. D.Creish (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please get some experience editing Wikipedia before joining the queue of people wanting to pile on to the subject of this BLP. The article has appropriate encyclopedic content regarding the incident. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

D.Creish, I agree with your comments 100%. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt to sensationalize this article. Weiner sextet with other women. Pieces that assume things from Huma's reactions are not appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nocturnalnow (and NorthBySouthBaranoff.) John, your argument seemed to be personal and didn't address any of my points. Muboshgu, I'm sorry I can't make sense of your comment - nothing in the edit concerned "Huma's reactions." So far no cogent counter argument has been made. I'll restore the text after a sufficient waiting period. D.Creish (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles you tried to add as citations do basically that. I advise you not to edit war without a consensus to include this. If there are grammar issues, they should be dealt with in a different edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Every source I added satisfies WP:RS for BLPs. The text of my edit made no sensational claims or claims based on "Huma's reaction", as you suggest. Please remember consensus is not a vote [9] but a reflection of the strength of the arguments. I thank you for any policy-based counter arguments. D.Creish (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a straight vote, but you haven't established consensus at this point. "Abedin became the subject of widespread media attention" reads to me as cruft. Just because newspaper articles are written doesn't mean they're encyclopedic for our purposes (WP:NOTNEWS). That the articles are from reliable sources doesn't make it less so. After all, if we posted everything that gets coverage in reliable sources, there'd be much more about the Kardashians and Justin Bieber's wang. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The establishment of her notability is sufficiently relevant to justify the above 7 words of coverage. Your argument (above) that the establishment of her notability is irrelevant or "cruft" is not supported by policy. D.Creish (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That material does not belong here. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Career

Abedin is the vice-chairwoman of Clinton's campaign, so it is really not useful to star reporting on what conference calls she is involved or other minutiae. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is minutiae? McCain's opinion about a letter written not to him but to Inspector Generals is minutia in my opinion. At least this content is based upon something factual, non speculative and non-controversial.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What was the content? I didn't see what was removed. It depends on what it is; it could be useful, or it could be minutiae. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Here it is.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)