Jump to content

Talk:Khizr and Ghazala Khan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Breitbart

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

Not useful in the slightest; it's not a reliable source and the content (which is opinion) is utter nonsense. Neutralitytalk 16:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Breitbart is a reliable source for the author's opinion, but not for facts, and there would need to be WP:WEIGHT established by reliable sources first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the web page [2]. Apparently he is a lawyer who specializes in "Complex Litigation Electronic Discovery", "HIPAA Compliance & Audit", and "E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnystrom (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Does Archives.Org count as a "reliable source?" Does Khan's own website statement about EB-5 immigration count? Who are Dewey & LeBoeuf? Who are Hogan & Lovell? Does it really not matter that the article describing the Khans does not identify him as a practicing attorney who helps Muslims emigrate to the United States? Neutrality is a difficult concept. Is neutrality stupidity? Just wondering. WeWentWest (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is the Snopes article disputing many of Breitbart's claims. Regarding the website, WSJ includes Khan's statement on why it was taken down, though a better source would help if such info were to be included. FallingGravity 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Snopes is not a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"Own website" is a primary source and that would be original research. Snopes is not reliable (but useful to find out what's going on and perhaps track down other, actually reliable, sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Snopes is hardly reliable. As for Brietbart it's ideological, and not neutral; although I suppose one could say the same for the New York Times, Washington Post and the rest of your American media. Philip72 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Snopes not reliable? Breitbart not reliable? NYT, WP not reliable? And the guy's own website not reliable? Wow. Is no one fit to discuss this guy? Reminds me of a joke about a murder suspect who got off scot-free; why? Because there were so damned many eye-witnesses that he couldn't get a fair trial. God bless ya. 209.105.170.111 (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Name of Article

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

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

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

Humayun Service in the US Army following ROTC

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

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

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

So the sentence you're looking to modify is:

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

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

Purple Heart exchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research

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

@FallingGravity: thank you for posting here to discuss special:diff/734565709. OR seems a bit hard though. Is your issue with the word 'influence'? I thought all cited references qualified as an influence on a book.
Isn't being cited by dozens of books over following decades itself a demonstration of notability? At the very least this shows a connection between Khizr Khan and the University of Houston during sometimes between 1980-1983. Him being published prior to achieving his LL. M. in Harvard in 1986 helps to flesh out his background.
This is apparently his "Master of Laws" and usually people get a Master's Degree after a Bachelors, and the Houston Journal of International Law is a student-edited law journal, so wouldn't his being published by it prove that he was a student of the University of Houston (probably his undergrad) before moving on to get his Masters at Harvard? Ranze (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I think maybe it's the word "influence" that is clunky here, because it's hard to prove "influence" — but we could simply say that his scholarship on the structure of Islamic law has been widely cited. I don't think a published source that cites his work is a "primary source" for our purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I read through the academic citations; none have any WP:ANALYSIS of the paper, beyond the obvious and unstated "I believe this paper supports this fact." Including the paper in a prose section on his biography needs a secondary source to explain its significance; it's not obvious that it implies he was at Houston as an undergrad (the journal's current guidelines don't say contributors must be Houston students) and it's not clear if 18 citations over three decades is impressive or disappointing or what. All non-academic secondary sources are hopelessly partisan: e.g. [3] [4].
However, I think it would be both appropriate and useful to add a "publications" section at the bottom, with this paper, International commercial arbitration in the legal systems of developing countries (his LL.M. thesis), his review of Human Rights in Islam, and Ghazala's op-ed (whose notability is clearly established by extensive discussion in mainstream media). Per analogy to many other biographies, this section can be in list format, obviating the need for expert commentary. FourViolas (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Like this; WP:BRD as needed. FourViolas (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
My guess about Houston being his undergrad was wrong, I looked into it and found out his Bachelor's was from PULC and added that to the article. Strangely he apparently has two Masters: 1982 from MU Law and 1986 from Harvard Law. I'm pretty confused about why he needed both a Masters from Missouri and from Massachusetts. If you want another degree after getting masters don't most of them go for doctorate? Ranze (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I see your point: Khizr is not known for his writings, so they fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE or [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]. Still, there's lots precedent for "published works" sections for people who are notable for other things: among FAs, there's Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#Publications, Hillary_Clinton#Writings_and_recordings, Ringo_Starr#Books. But that's a cherrypicked list, and many others (e.g. Barack Obama) don't include such sections. I was thinking of FallingGravity's point that this could somewhat useful background for e.g. the Shoebat stuff, and it's the kind of information I'd expect to find in a quality traditional biography. FourViolas (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: and @FourViolas: given that one of Khizr's publication has been highlightested by the media:
  • Hannity, Sean (8 August 2016). "Controversial comments made by Khizr Khan since DNC speech". Hannity. Event occurs at 35 seconds. OK, but here's a problem. Back in 1983, according to reports, Khan wrote about Sharia in the "Houston Journal of International Law
I think it could be argued that he is notable for at least that one. Ranze (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A right-wing political commentator cherry-picking a single line from a brief interview which can be interpreted a number of ways doesn't really belong here without evidence of broader interest.
If you read Khan's statement in context — Sharia Law as we have titled, there is no such thing as Sharia Law. These are laws of various Muslim countries which are hodgepodge of British laws, French laws, Portuguese laws. In there, there is tremendous discrimination of genders which disqualifies them under the constitution of the United States, cannot be implemented, cannot be brought. How can I be a person that has read this, I preach that, that I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing. — he is not saying there is no such thing as sharia law, he is arguing that the American public conception of "sharia law"("Sharia Law as we have titled"), is not what sharia law actually is — he goes on to note that the laws of many Muslim countries which are discriminatory are often leftovers from European colonial laws which themselves entrenched discrimination for many years, and is arguing that such laws are not truly "sharia law."
Therefore, I have removed the section until and unless there's any evidence that anyone besides three right-wing political commentators (one of whom is banned from entering the UK on the grounds of inciting hatred) think he's actually saying there's no sharia law. Misrepresenting the positions of people might be OK on FOX News, but we have no obligation to uncritically repeat their pablum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

McLaughlin, Michael (9 August 2016). "Sean Hannity Launches Smear Campaign On Khizr Khan". Huffington Post.
Tesfaye, Sophia (9 August 2016). "Sean Hannity refuses to let Trump move on, launches "investigation" into Gold Star parent Khizr Khan". Salon.com.
"Watch: 'Hannity' Segment Investigates Khizr Khan's Past Statements - Breitbart". Breitbart.com. 9 August 2016.
Legum, Judd (15 August 2016). "Sean Hannity's Week From Hell". ThinkProgress. Hannity asked Spencer if Khan was "hiding his real views."

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

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

WP:UNDUE. A biased source makes a claim and it is discussed by other biased and/or unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: all sources are biased, the objection is irrelevant. Please restore the sources you removed in special:diff/735499502 to the page. This isn't undue weight, it's the more recent happenings. We aren't obligated to end this section at Khizr's announcement about withdrawing from televised appearances. The promise to not be silent is an open door to further news coverage. The August 8/9/10 discussion of the August 2 is quite notable. Hannity is a central figure in Khizr-related discussions in the news. Ranze (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Notice that the reliable sources you cite above universally describe the commentary as a smear campaign, . We have no need to repeat that smear campaign in this biography. It is undue weight on a fringe point of view which is itself based on an (intentional?) misinterpretation of the biographical subject's statements. We are not obligated to include such material here, and indeed, the Biographies of Living Persons policy strongly suggests that we avoid doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You can argue that every person, publication, channel, etc. has a bias, but the difference is that some sources are biased to the point of not being reliable for balanced, neutral coverage of subjects. Hannity is a reliable source for many things, but certainly not for a politics-related BLP. Thus he is a reliable source only for his own opinion and his show's criticisms are reliable only for their own opinion, and do not establish weight.
Of course "We aren't obligated to end this section at Khizr's announcement about withdrawing from televised appearances". What a strange thing to say. That sounds like you view it as "the last word on the matter" or something. Although FWIW I don't have any objection to removing the line about withdrawing from future TV appearances. If he continues to be in the news, then it would become meaningless; if not, then maybe later it makes more sense to restore. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: Given they (or at least Khizr) has continued to be an active participant in the news coverage about him, and since there doesn't look to be much to the moving out of the spotlight storyline, I went ahead and removed it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: This was restored. See #Spotlight issue below. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Recently added, misleading text removed

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

  • The first chunk of text is cited to something called "fbcoverup.com" (not reliable) and claims that Mr. Khan practiced immigration law. This isn't correct. He is a commercial lawyer and doesn't practice immigration law.
The New York Times reports: "He said that he was getting hateful messages and that he was worried about it being hacked. Insinuations were being made, that he was involved in shady immigration cases. He said he has had no clients come to him for that sort of work. He said he did commercial law, especially electronic discovery work."
The Wall Street Journal reports: "In the interview, Mr. Khan said he didn’t perform immigration work—because he couldn’t find any clients. 'You can only practice if there’s a client that comes to you,' he said." Neutralitytalk 17:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The second chunk of text claimed that "Donald Trump's proposed ban on muslim immigration, is constitutional." In addition to being ungrammatical, this (1) strays rather far from the article topic (which is a biography); and (2) isn't supported by the cited sources, which say that the proposal may be constitutional, not that it is constitutional. There's a constitutional debate, and it's very inaccurate to make this bold claim in Wikipedia's voice in the absence of firm sourcing. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, right. He knew it'd be a liability so what else would he say? His self-published documents regarding his "areas of practice" have not (yet) been completely scrubbed from the web. Wikkileaker (talk)
  • Explain why the string "KM Khan Law" fails to appear when I perform a <CTRL><F> on this article. I get it when I type it into Google! Why is this ??? Perhaps because there are still documents on the web published before the speech that include as his practice, "immigration services". Don't dissemble because I keep a copy of it on my hard drive and can upload it at will. So much for being disinterested...Wikkileaker (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If the convention speech is to be part of this "biographical" article, then Khan's showing of his pocket constitution demands an examination of its relevance to the subject of Trump's moslem ban. This issue of relevance has everything to do with the constitutionality of Trump's policy, because Khan's waving around of his pocket constitution immedediately following his attack on the "moslem ban" would recommend to any ordinary thinking person that Khan is imputing that the ban is unconstitutional.
There is no evidence that Khan has served as a federal judge, or consulted with a federal judge. The constitutionality of a law can only be determined by a federal judge. Therefore, Khan is unqualified to render a ruling such as he effectively did by waving his pocket constitution before a TV audience composed almost entirely of an audience with no knowledge of jurisprudence.
The burden of proof rests of the proposition of a law's supposed unconstitutionality, not its constitutionality. I demonstrate with the following hypothetical scenario: President Trump signs into law his moslem ban. It is now the law of the land. The departments of the Federal Government are obliged to enforce it. Its constitutionality is presumed until it is tried in a federal court. Law enforcement officials are not empowered to say, "Hey, this must be unconstitutional! I refuse to enforce it!" Its constitutionality -- beyond being presumed -- is unknown until a federal court renders a final ruling on its constitutionality, and it is therefore effectively constitutional.
The cited sources are by authoritative sources and they indicate that there is good reason to believe that Trump's ban may very well stand the test of constitutionality. They are certainly more authoritative than Mr. Khan, who is given de facto approval due to inclusion of his judgmental actions at the convention. For these reasons the sentences regarding Khan's presumptuous "judgment" of Trump's moslem ban and apropos and correct.Wikkileaker (talk)
  • "The burden of proof rests" We're not assessing arguments here. We leave that to the sources that report on the speech and only cover it insofar as the sources do (the reliable ones), and only insofar as WP:WEIGHT is established. If it's not in the reliable sources about Khan, it shouldn't be in the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources that report on the content of the speech are not to be disregarded, particularly when they are identified as Top Legal Scholars. I suggest you refer to the cited sources of NY Times, US News and World Report, NBC News. I have already delineated in the paragraphs above how these sources relate to the content of Khan's speech.Wikkileaker (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • These sources do not "report on the content of the speech" - in fact, as Rhododendrites writes below, they all pre-date Khan's speech and don't even mention him. Read synth. In any case, this material, properly balanced out, is possibly relevant to an article on immigration to the United States, religious tests in U.S. immigration law, or the political positions on Donald Trump. It is irrelevant, or almost entirely irrelevant, to a biographical article on Khan. Neutralitytalk 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Rhododendrites. The whole point of articles such as this one to recite what occurred, its significance, etc. We can evaluate claims under certain circumstances (i.e., when the reliable sources do so, and when we accord space to the array of views in accordance with their level of acceptance), but we can't do synthesis on our own.
And, moreover, your argument is contradictory: you write that "only the views of federal judges/courts matter," but then you want to include the views of legal commentators in the media. That is contradictory. Neutralitytalk 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you do not keep up with what happens in the media covering events such as Khan's speech at the convention. If you spent some time away from the computer then you might be aware of the week-long coverage on the major TV news broadcasts. This is suspiciously queer because if you read the paragraphs in the article following the para that I inserted, then you would see references to G. Stephanopoulos of ABC, NY Magazine, and Washington Post. Your contention that my sources are inappropriate when they comment on Khan's speech, but these others are, is specious. Your suggestion that the sources already cited in the article are more significant than the ones I introduced is ridiculous considering the caliber of the Top Legal Scholars referred to therein.
  • You failed to read or understand my response competently. I made it patent that Khan is unqualified to render a ruling on the unconstitutionality of the moslem ban. But it is not to be disregarded when Top Legal Scholars (not a media source, though cited by media sources) are offering their professional opinions on the constitutionality of the ban. The fallacy your argument offers is that of the Argument from Ignorance -- because the ban's ultimate constitutionality is unknown until tried in federal court, it must be unconstitutional. As I have patiently explained, that's wrong because of a federal law's presumed constitutionality. You argue that if we cannot be 100% certain of a law's constitutionality, then it is ipso facto unconstitutional. Unknowns do not beckon negative conclusions, but probables (as outlined in my cited sources) do beckon non-negative conclusions.
  • In summation: READ THE SOURCES. They are relevant to Khan's speech and authoritative. I see the tactics at work here, the same ones employed by the clinton campaign: obfuscation, changing the subject, and purposeful ignoring the facts. No surprise to me, nor would it be to anyone following this conversation.Wikkileaker (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In fact I have looked at all of the sources. All of them were published before the speech even happened, thus it is exactly as I said above. It's not relevant to this article whether Khan is "qualified to render a ruling on the unconstitutionality of the moslem ban" because we're this is not a legal article. This is an article about him and what he said, how others responded to it, etc. Tying a source from 2015 to what the subject said in 2016 is WP:SYNTH. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here we go again...the fact that the cited sources were published before the speech makes them all the more relevant because Khan and the news networks that reported on his speech should have been aware of authoritative legal opinions that cast doubt on the ban's unconstitutionality. In other words, they all failed to perform due diligence in 1) composing the speech and 2) vetting its contents. I don't know what professional practice is in speech-giving at nationally televised political party conventions, or the journalism that is purported to cover it, but I do know that if I'm going to deliver a speech that will be publicly scrutinized I'd be damn sure what I was about to say was not in dispute. Clearly, Kahn's imputation of unconstitutionality is.Wikkileaker (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites is right. And Wikkileaker, don't continue to revert to reinsert material that two other editors have expressed clear objections to at talk. And don't engage in politicized personal attacks, as you do above. If this sort of conduct continues, other editors are likely to think that you are not getting the point or are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Neutralitytalk 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Not right. "Clear objections" that are without merit and fail to address the counterarguments propounded. Instead we have a flippant "Sources are outdated" when this "objection" is a blatant red herring. What we have here are not "two other editors" but two partisans (I could substitute another word here, use your imagination). There is clearly an agenda at work here. And I care not what "other editors are likely to think" especially since I'm now quite certain it is YOU who are not here to "improve the encyclopedia", at least by the standards of ordinary readers. Obviously you two are resisting the appearance of any negative information pertaining to this so-called "Gold Star family". I'm real impressed, and so will others when I direct their attention (on other platforms) to this thread.Wikkileaker (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody said outdated. The date only matters because it shows that they were published long before Khan's speech. That's not outdated, it's evidence that the sources aren't about Khan's speech. I think you're missing a key thing about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It's not a place to right wrongs, to shine a light on something that isn't getting accurate/fair coverage in the press, or to fact check something that those reliable sources don't themselves fact check (in context -- not a year before). If the consensus among reliable sources is something false, Wikipedia will include that false information. Anyone who perceives an agenda/conspiracy/bias in the media will, if Wikipedia is doing its job, see that bias reflected on Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has special rules for biographies of living people that, among other things, makes it so anything negative needs to be accompanied by very good sourcing and does not include e.g. synthesis, which is exactly what you're proposing. Perhaps I'm wrong about you not getting this -- perhaps it's a miscommunication about the meaning of synthesis? FourViolas does a pretty decent job of summarizing that problem below. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding the voice of clear language to your unclear example of WP:SYNTH. Put simply (once again), my citations by recognized sources in turn citing expert legal opinion assert that the unconstitutionality of the ban is disputed. The existence of such opinions was public knowledge even before the speech. Khan is caught making an unsubstantiated imputation and he (and his speechwriter, and the TV journalists covering the speech) should have known it. There is no synthesis taking place here. "...find a source which directly makes the claim..." What claim might that be? Please do not answer with vagarities or obfuscations or I shall place you in the same category as these other two "editors".Wikkileaker (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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

We have reliably sourced material stating that

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

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

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

I heard some rumors about this stuff but hadn't bother to dig into researching his law practice, guess I got distracted by the 'Logan' aspect, going to have to set aside some time to dig into these allegations later. Regarding these alleged documents, have any major websites reported on them that might make the accusations notable even if inaccurate? Ranze (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@FourViolas: regarding conclusion C, there are sources stating basically that conclusion, for example:
The question here is: every time someone in the media criticizes the Khans, are they going to be labeled "conservative thus automatically unreliable" ? There seems to be a pattern there, like with Breitbart. If only Democrat-aligned media sources are considered to be reliable then we won't see anything but praise due to overwhelming solidarity in the party. Ranze (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Our coverage is not drawn by "rumors," and Canada Free Press is a website chiefly known for promoting kooky conspiracy theories. Its unreliability is so evident to all to see that I find it outlandish that this even needs to be said. Neutralitytalk 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For what purpose is biographical info missing ?

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

Why would they? And the word "please" is always a useful addition to a demand. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
His current law practice is omitted but his past law practices are included ?? Demands an explanation; I have one in mind (considering recent posts here) and it is an ugly one. Must I be rudely plain?Wikkileaker (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please be politely plain. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer the politely plain response along with an answer to the corresponding question: why it a matter of urgency that it be included such that for it to be omitted there must be [something about bias or a conspiracy or whatnot that we'll find out soon enough]? Personally, if we have reliable sources for such information then mentioning the name of his law firm doesn't seem like a big deal to me. A reliable source does not include e.g. Breitbart, of course, nor a website that the subject has himself removed from the Internet (primary sources can be the best source of information about a subject, but not when the subject has himself deleted it [or recanted/withdrawn/whatever]). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Khizr Khan

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

Cordially,

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khizr_and_Ghazala_Khan/Archive_2&oldid=1079501492"