Talk:Huma Abedin

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations By 5 Members of Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Articles Written By Anthony Weiner As Reliable Sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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)

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 [2]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" [3] 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)

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 [4] - 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)

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[5], 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)

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, [6] 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)

"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)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - The Forward has full editorial control, see [10] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Protected edit request on 3 November 2015: HuffPo & Obama

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

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

Non-neutral section title: Discredited partisan attacks

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