Talk:Humayun Khan (soldier)

Re equal Dab'n

   If i had started the article, i'd have taken note that equal disambiguation is the default, and there must be a showing that, in this case, the diplomat or the war hero commands more than 50% of the public interest associated with the title. My prediction is that the soldier will soon eclipse the diplomat far beyond that, but the first step, whether or not i'm right, is to do equal dab for the time being. --Jerzy•t 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but per WP:TIND I figured that I'd let this article survive whatever WP:AfD challenges that might be thrown at it first... but OK, I'll just do it now. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind, someone beat me to it. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 14:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

His father talking to media and political outlets

I've removed/reduced/reworded this content as I don't see how it's relevant or encyclopedic:

Humayun's father Khizr M. Khan, an immigration lawyer, discussed his son's achievements in 2005 with the Washington Post in 2005 and with Vocativ in 2015. Khan gave the Hillary Clinton campaign permission to use his words in a tribute given in December 2015.

I've kept the supporting references (not reprinted here), but this otherwise seems like barely relevant WP:TRIVIA to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the December 2015 tribute is noteworthy. The other stuff, probably not so much. FallingGravity (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What's left in the current expansion of the article seems fine to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

How are the comments of his father relevant? There is clearly a double standard at play. If Khizr Khan's attacks on Donald Trump are relevant to an article on Humayun Khan... then Patty Smith's attacks on Hillary Clinton are relevant to the article on Sean Smith. If Khizr Khan's comments are not removed here then I will add Patty Smith's comments to the corresponding article. This would include her comments at the RNC that Hillary Clinton lied to her face and that she holds Hillary Clinton personally responsible for the death of her son. If one set of comments is fair play then so is the other. 107.0.155.16 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to threaten to make edits to other articles. Unfortunately, since I don't know what Sean Smith you're talking about, I cannot direct you to the appropriate talk page. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is Sean Smith (diplomat), though there's nothing stopping people from adding info on his mother's comments (with proper sources of course). I currently think the article focuses too much on the Khan/Trump dispute, which probably fits better elsewhere, like the articles for the 2016 Democratic National Convention or the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. ^Falling_Gravity 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You can quibble about my tone. What you haven't done is address the issue. I don't see how the Khizr Khan's comments about Donald Trump relevant to an article about Humayun Khan. If they are relevant, does it not necessarily follow that Patty Smith's comments about Hillary Clinton are relevant to the Sean Smith article? I'm not sure why there is an problem with me raising the issue on the talk page before making an edit... it seemed a reasonable thing to do.2601:42:C101:1BBC:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

They're at least somewhat relevant because Humayun is the reason/context for those comments (his service, death, and identity). No comment about the other person. Make that argument on that talk page. I will say, however, that since there now exists a separate page for Khizr and Ghazala Khan, there doesn't need to be any more than a brief summary of that content here (although I'll leave it to others to determine to what extent the current wording qualifies as a "brief summary"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Half of the content of this article is criticism of Donald Trump. Now people are trying to insert video of Khizr Khan criticizing Trump at the DNC. This is not the appropriate place for that content. Put it in the Khizr Khan page and mention that Humayun Khan is the son of immigration lawyer Khizr Khan... and be done with it. As far as I can tell there is zero direct relationship between Donald Trump and Humayun Khan. Put the father's criticism in the page on the father and link to that page. That content is not appropriate here.107.0.155.16 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Read The Real Booklet Hillary’s Man Was Carrying For Years. It Was The Muslim Shari’ah Constitution And NOT The U.S Constitution

http://shoebat.com/2016/08/02/hillary-is-busted-read-the-real-booklet-hillarys-man-was-carrying-for-years-it-was-the-muslim-shariah-constitution-and-not-the-u-s-constitution/ 71.182.237.125 (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Captain Khan's death

This is a hot topic right now, but Capt Khan's father's statement of his son rushing a VIED while checking a guard tower and saving a chow hall full of hundreds of coalition personnel from harm is likely a fabrication. No media release prior to the DNC regarding Capt. Khan's death mentions such acts [1], [2] tell a very different story. 70.158.100.102 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's true that none of those links mention the chow hall, but it's also possible that that is a detail that came out later. Can you provide a reliable source stating that the recent story is a fabrication? Until then this claim seems rather conspiratorial. ^Falling_Gravity 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That he stopped two suicide bombers from attacking his base is attested to in two of our 2004 sources[3][4], the second source being the Washington Post which is a newspaper of record.

That Army bases contain mess halls is attested to by 11 seasons of M*A*S*H, and that's how the story was given in WaPo as early as 2005: "The explosives detonated before the car could ram the gates or the mess hall nearby, where several hundred soldiers were eating breakfast."[5]

What article are you reading, anon? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That source makes it a direct quote from his father and should be cited as such. It isn't mentioned in any incident reports related to his death.[6]. I cant find the bronze star link though, typically that is the sort of award that would follow something like this.--Savonneux (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post only appears to be quoting the father for the "10 to 15 steps" bit. The next paragraph on the mess hall does not directly quote the father. It's possible that this piece of information was given by the father, but that is original research. ^Falling_Gravity 06:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Isee that, it is troubling it's not mentioned in any of the other sources though. Stars and Stripes from 2004 [7] DoD press release [8] I don't care but if you want to be accurate someone should find the incident report.--Savonneux (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done as much research as some of you have already, but I'll just note it's not WP:OR if it's not from a Wikipedian. In other words, while it can be problematic to quote a person directly about what they know, it's problematic as a WP:PRIMARY source, not because of WP:OR. If sources typically considered reliable/accurate report on it, too, that's secondary source coverage, and it's typically going to be fair game to include. If other sources contradict the story (not just omit), that would require a more detailed discussion, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we get the record corrected on this matter? I find it very doubtful that an army Captain would jump from a protected watchtower equipped with a machinegun to defeat a speeding vehicle with only his personal duty weapon. Also MASH is not a credible source. It is common knowledge to not place a DFAC (or mess hall) near an entry control point of base perimeter.173.216.3.186 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What you, or any of us, find doubtful about the situation doesn't matter. What matters is the credible source. If you can provide one that backs your claim, then please provide it. ^Falling_Gravity 19:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The specific tactics of army base design aside, anon, our standard here at Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability not WP:TRUTH. I hope, in my heart of hearts, that the 2005 WaPo writer did some due diligence, even if she was just doing a fluff piece about a grieving father which was to be printed in the local news section and quickly forgotten. Because, obviously, it would suck for her now if she just decided to phone it in that day. But until what you claim comes into the light, to borrow a phrase: you write Wikipedia with the reliable sources you have, not the sources you might want or wish to have at a later time. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable recent sources are, I'd definitely put more faith in summaries put out prior to 2016 and closer to the event itself. For example http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44563-2004Jun15.html was published 8 days after his death, after his burial. Here is an excerpt:

• On June 8, Khan died in a suicide car bombing at the main gates of his base.
• Khan, an ordnance officer with the Germany-based 201st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, had watched as several of his soldiers prepared to do a routine vehicle inspection.
• His unit was charged with the day-to-day security and maintenance of the camp.
• When an orange-colored taxi drove toward them, Khan ordered his soldiers to "hit the dirt," said his father, who received details of his son's death from his commanding officer.
• Khan walked toward the car, motioning for it to stop, his father said.
• A makeshift bomb inside it exploded, killing him and two Iraqi civilians in addition to the two suicide bombers.
• Ten soldiers and six Iraqi citizens were also wounded, the Army said.

Michele Clock is rather vague in who 'the army' is, I'm guessing some kind of report, doesn't matter since that last part is just about basic casualty counts and not the details of the event. Walking towards the car and ordering soldiers to hit the dirt are both details that Clock attributes to the father. It would be interesting if we could find other sources besides the father giving accounts of it. Khizr Muazzam was born 1950 so would only have been 54 at the time of death, so not old enough to assume senility, but it would have been an emotional time so finding if any articles interviewed other sources (for example, the above-mentioned commanding officer who the father says he received details from) could be better ones. Ranze (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Category: Pakistani Muslims

I have removed this category from the article, because the established description of the category says, "This category includes articles of people who are Muslim (followers of the religion of Islam) from Pakistan." He was not "from Pakistan" but rather his parents are. He was born in the United Arab Emirates. This category is not correct for this biography in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Capt. Khan was a Pakistani American, but not Pakistani. Neutrality^talk 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Man is only American in a national way. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Religion of Humayun

What is the earliest source we can find saying that he was a Muslim? Can we find one that existed prior to July 29? He died in June 2004 so there's 12 years worth of news reports that could have mentioned it, I'll start looking. Given that many recent reports are calling him a 'muslim soldier' it would be interesting to know where and when this information came from. For example if there are statements from the soldier himself before his death, or any official registrations with a champlain.

edit: Okay I found one from a report when he was buried about a week after death:

Clock, Michele (16 June 2004). "A 'Peacemaker' Is Laid to Rest - Muslim Soldier From Prince William Tried to Improve Relations in Iraq". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 August 2016. Family members and friends -- including Khan's girlfriend, Irene Auer, 24, of Amberg, Germany -- have filled the Khans' Bristow home in the past week, weeping and praying for the Muslim soldier they will remember as helping to build a bridge between the American and Iraqi people. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I'm still curious if we can find any pre-death sources though. Like for example where did Clock get the information: was it from parents? girlfriend? Military officers? Knowing the context is generally a useful thing since sometimes different people can have different opinions about what a person's religious status is. Ranze (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So first you removed mention of him being "one of fourteen Muslim Americans", calling it original research (it's right there in the source -- almost to the point of close paraphrasing). Then added "In the month of his death the media described him as a Muslim." as the second sentence of the lead? I find this very strange. Why would we need a sentence that says only that in the [second sentence of the] lead? And why "in the month of his death"? And why "the media described him as"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: re special:diff/734000375 where you reverted the 3 edits, I'll address your criticisms of them.

re special:diff/733957998 you have criticized "you removed mention of him being "one of fourteen Muslim Americans", calling it original research" elaborating "it's right there in the source -- almost to the point of close paraphrasing"

You are quoting this out of context. The problem is how this statement reads:

Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate in the 2016 United States presidential election, spoke about Khan's service, describing him as one of fourteen Muslim Americans who had died in the service of the United States since the September 11 attacks.

I still believe I am accurate in calling that original research.

I am not saying it is OR that 14 Muslim-Americans died in service, but rather, that Hillary described him that way.

You objected to my calling it OR but appear to have not found it useful to give my entire edit summary, which was:

rephrasing removing original research, in the supplied quote it only says that Clinton gave a tribute, not that she described him as a muslim, that is a summary by Timsit not Clinton. If Clinton did this too a clearer source is needed.

Here is what the source says, which you removed:

In Minneapolis in December 2015, Clinton gave a moving tribute to Humayun Khan, who was one of 14 American Muslims who died serving the United States in the 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The source only supports that Clinton gave a tribute to Humayun. It does not support her describing her as a muslim or one of 14 muslims. You point out this in the source:

who was one of 14 American Muslims who died serving the United States in the 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks

That description was not attributed to Hillary Clinton by the source. It is a description of Humayun given by the article's author, Annabelle Timsit.

I believe the OR here is a misunderstanding: Timsit's description of Humayun is being wrongly attributed to Clinton.

This source could support a separate statement like "Humayun is one of fourteen Muslim Americans who had died in the service of the United States since the September 11 attacks" but I do believe that regarding Hillary, that the statement should end at "spoke about Khan's service" because that is all the reference supports.

@Neutrality: it is fine to leave "1 in 14" so long as it is presented in proper context: research done by Annabelle Timsit, not a statement from Hillary Clinton. If Clinton DID say that in December, we would need to find another source supporting that, because this one doesn't. The phrasing does not present it as an observation made by Clinton, but as a description by Timsit, the article's author, telling readers about the person to whom Hillary made a tribute.

I'm not eloquent and agree my statement seemed strange and stilting, but I only did so as I struggled to remain neutral in representing the source. If you can find a better way to phrase it without engaging in original research, I am open to that.

Saying "described as Muslim" is more neutral than saying "was a Muslim". There are always reasons to doubt people's religions, as some people's religious presentation or description can vary depending on context. Unless we know that Humayun chose the design for his gravestone (what is the policy on that?) I don't think that shows anything. Even then we should say "Humayun chose the star and crescent to display on his tombstone", which is more neutral than simply assuming he was a Muslim because of that.

The S&C is not exclusively a muslim symbol. According to our article on it "During the 1950s to 1960s, the symbol was re-interpreted as the symbol of Islam or the Muslim community" meaning that prior to that it had other uses.

Consider for example, that Humayun is of Pakistani descent, and then view File:Flag_of_Pakistan.svg. The symbol on his gravestone could for example, be honoring the country of his family's background in Punjab (region), rather than his parents' religion. Ranze (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah. In the context of the other edits, I misunderstood what you were doing with that edit. Thanks for clarifying. I have no objection to removing the "Hillary described him as..." part. I do object to a "described as Muslim" vs. "Muslim" until we have reason to doubt it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododentrites: I think 'described as' v 'is' is more neutral though, since it treats sources objectively. If I died my parents might tell the press I'm a Christian and I'd have no way of stopping it, so I think we should report what we actually know (ie who said what) and not make speculations about people's state of mind, particularly when it's third parties describing the individual and not the person's own words. This is obviously a wide issue to consider beyond this article, maybe something for the BLP project... when it comes to people who were not famous prior to their deaths (and thus there isn't much evidence of their own words) and for whom we have no reports from reliable sources about religious statements from the person themself (ie we would not need Chuck Norris' wife to tell us he is a Christian because he's said that himself) then shouldn't we be conservative about making declarations? Ranze (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ranze - he was a Muslim, there's absolutely no reason to doubt that. The star and crescent on his gravestone do not signify "Punjabi heritage," but religious faith. We can be 100% sure of this because the VA has a set list of 55 standardized official gravestone markers, one assigned to each religious faith. The star and crescent are assigned to Islam. See United States Department of Veterans Affairs emblems for headstones and markers. Neutrality^talk 17:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There's reason even to doubt religious statements ANY person has made about themselves, much less statements that other people make about a person. You point out a good article for comparison though. This is something I will link to next to his cemetery mention. Even then, that would only show that Humayun chose to identify as Muslim to the US military. Choosing to identify as a religion and believing in that religion are two distinct things. Why can't we just be conservative here and state the former which we know instead of indulging in speculation about the latter which we do not know? We shouldn't really be stating ANYONE's religion because that's something only the person themself knows, all we know is statements people make about religion. Ranze (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that you are splitting hairs here, Ranze. Of course, we cannot read anyone's mind, and it is possible that a movie critic is lying when they call a film the year's best and secretly prefer another film. A politician may endorse another poltician for office but may secretly prefer a third politician. The local Catholic bishop may be a secret atheist going through the motions. We report on people's self-identification though words and actions, and do not qualify the identification based on speculation about their innermost thoughts. Take a look at the biographies of sitting members of the U.S. Congress. 99% include a religious self-identification because that is standard biographical information appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: self-identification is what I'm trying to find here. I'm not expert on the process but http://www.va.gov/vaforms/va/pdf/VA40-1330.pdf#page=3 makes it seem like next of kin are able to choose emblems for headstones without necessarily having Written Authorization from the deceased to do that, and even if someone is empowered with the WA to make the emblem choice it wouldn't necessarily mean their choice is equivalent to a direct statement from the individual about their religion. Surely there must be some kind of public domain military documents which give earlier evidence of in-military religious affiliations? Ranze (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I said previously, I think that you are splitting hairs. There are plenty of reliable sources that say he was a Muslim, including sources published shortly after his death and those published in recent weeks. His grave marker identifies him that way, which was selected either by him or by his parents. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a shred of evidence in any reliable source that calls his Muslim identity into question. Endless speculation to the contrary without any evidence is unproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites. The strange, stilted rephrasing, the removal of one of 14, etc., are just bizarre. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt Captain Khan's religion. And, furthermore, his gravestone at Arlington has the Muslim symbol on it. Neutrality^talk 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen: this is a broader issue than just Humayun. If people besides a soldier are able to make the decision of what emblem to put on a headstone then we cannot use the emblem as a source supporting self-identification. Parents saying a child is of a religion should support "described as a Muslim by his parents". If media also does this "described by media as Muslim" is appropriate. If we find a statement by Humayun himself then that would support 'self-described Muslim' or similar.

Really any discussion of religious beliefs should be worded like this on any biography article, since beliefs are internal and cannot be objectively proven for anyone.

If we were to discuss "affiliation" rather than "belief" then I would not be splitting hairs, because affiliation can be done regardless of beliefs. For example if Humayun reported himself as a Muslim to the army (source?) or was registered at a Mosque. Ranze (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ho hum. "Muslim soldier" in Washington Post, 2004. [9] When reliable sources do the research, it's not original research on Wikipedia.--Carwil (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carwil: as you can see at special:diff/733959240 (or just reading above) I already linked to that article, I'm not sure why you're reposting it. The question is: is Michele Clock actually a reliable enough source that she can just dictate people's religion and we should assume she dug deeper than the star/crescent on the headstone? How many people did Clock interview and ask about his religion? Was Irene Auer even asked? Good journalists will generally back up their claims better. Obviously since the Khans weren't famous back then we can't expect Clock's claim to have been given heavy scrutiny. Ranze (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source. When we have a central claim regarding an individual, the one which underlies their entire notability, routinely repeated without contradiction, it's not our job as editors to play epistemological games like "How did Michele Clock know?" That would be relevant if and only if there were any other RS that said Khan was not in fact a Muslim.

As it happens, however, we have verification that military headstones and burials are based on the self-identification of the soldiers involved, in an article about Khan and the other Muslim Americans who have died in combat since 9/11:

But those numbers are only for service members who self-identified as Muslims. The Pentagon does not track recruits by faith. They only ask service members to declare their faith on their records so that in case of death, the department can provide the correct religious chaplain.[10]

--Carwil (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carwil: what verification do we have that Humayun declared this in his records? AJ Willingham says that 6,024 members served (14 died) but doesn't say that Humayun is among that number. The source he cites mentions:

At least 6,024 U.S. service members who declared Islam as their faith have served honorably in overseas war deployments since the 9/11 attacks, and 14 Muslim-American troops have been killed in action, all in Iraq, the Pentagon informed the Committee’s Majority Staff. We honor these American heroes, four of whom are buried in nearby Arlington National Cemetery, for making the ultimate sacrifice in service of our nation.

The report doesn't specify which 4 (or 14?) soldiers in Arlington are being talked about. So even though we know Humayun was buried there, we don't know if he is included in the "declared Islam as their faith" group based on that report. Ranze (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"is Michele Clock actually a reliable enough source...". It's not like we're citing her personal blog. The question is whether this source, written by Michele Clock, and published in the Washington Post, is a reliable source. And the answer is yes, certainly. If other reliable sources state something otherwise, that's one thing, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it (and a source that doesn't specify his religion is not such a source). If you don't think they should "dictate people's religion", they accept letters to the editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, this stuff is getting disruptive. Please stop trying to change text to change how the religion is presented without finding consensus here first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

special:diff/735730848 is not disruptive, it is making the article more neutral. Next of kin can choose the emblems on headstones so it is original research to suggest that only Muslim service members' headstones could possibly have that emblem. I'm a fan of Marvel Comics and could, for example, if my Wiccan son died, as his next of kin, choose to put the emblem of Thor on his headstone. That would not actually mean my son is a Thorian, he would still be a Wiccan. Emblems are associated with religion but do not guarantee religion. If anything is disruptive it is the injection of POV-pushing OR like saying a religious symbol associated with a religion could only be given to people of that religion. Emblem choices for headstones can be chosen on next-of-kin preferences not necessarily a personal declaration of the soldier. This neutrality has nothing to do with Humayun's religion, it is a matter of fact that would apply to any headstone's emblem. If I had a way of easily searching out other articles with headstone pictures I would take the same stance. Even in the case where we do think the emblem on a headstone properly corresponds to an individual's religion (which is likely here) that doesn't mean we should assert that only people of a given religion might bear that religion's emblem on their headstone. Ranze (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly saying it's more neutral doesn't make it so. If your Wiccan son died, but there's no record of him being Wiccan, sources like the Washington Post say he was Thorian, and if you added a Thorian symbol to his headstone to boot, then yes, we would say he's Thorian. Verifiability, not truth. What exactly is the POV you're accusing me (and/or others) of pushing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Official military death report

Would something like this be public domain for us to be able to list or would it be classified? I am wondering if something like this is citeable or not for people who want to read the US Government's assessment of the events preceding Humayun's death to compare to other sources' accounts of it. Ranze (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Quotes from Humayun

Has anyone attributed any direct quotes to him, be it friends or family or co-workers in the military? I am curious to read things said in his own words. We see this on some biography articles or they sometimes at least link to interviews. There are many people talking about him but not quoting him directly and I would like to know if anything like that exists. Ranze (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sacrifice designation

Khizr's speech includes this accusation towards Trump:

"You have sacrificed nothing—and no one"

This implication of Humayun being 'sacrificed' by his father has received some criticism:

Becker, Jillian (2 August 2016). "The grief monger". A Muslim, Khizr Kahn, spoke at the Democratic convention last week of his son's death in Iraq serving as a US soldier, implying that he, the father, has thus made a "sacrifice" .. By viewing his soldier son's death in combat as his "sacrifice", this father turns an honorable death – that of a soldier doing his job, fulfilling his promise, doing his duty – into a religious martyrdom.

Obviously there's no such thing as an unbiased source, Becker is open about being 'conservative'. The word "sacrifice" shows up in 2 titles referenced in the article, but not within the article itself.

This is also mentioned by Trump's opponent:

Zezima, Katie (31 July 2016). "Khizr Khan calls Trump a 'black soul' and says McConnell, Ryan have 'moral' obligation to repudiate him". "Mr. Khan," Clinton said at a church in Cleveland, "paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family, didn't he. And what has he heard from Donald Trump?

At first I thought by "Mr. Khan" she might have been referring to Humayun but it's clear by "what has he heard" she's referring to Khizr, the Mr. Khan still able to hear.

Due to the recurring theme (Khizr using "sacrificed nothing" in his speech, Ghazala using "true sacrifice" in her article title, Hillary's quote) and the criticism of it by a notable authority like Becker, shouldn't discussion of this word be present in some form here? Ranze (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The source, called The Atheist Conservative looks like a glorified blog to me, and I do not consider it a reliable source for anything other than Becker's opinion. She has been an outspoken advocate against Islam for many decades. She is an activist and an advocate far more than a journalist. The name of the website reveals its point of view. In common usage, the word "sacrifice" has both secular and religious connotations. Becker seems inclined to assign only religious meaning to the word, even though the broad context of the usage of the word in the father's DNC speech lacks religious connotations, as I read it. Abraham Lincoln (or his secretary) used the word in a similar fashion in a similar context in the Bixby letter. Berger's assumption seems to be that since the family is Muslim, a religious meaning must have been intended. Since Christians and Jews also use the word "sacrifice" in both secular and religious contexts, this assumption seems dubious. In conclusion: weak source, fringe interpretation. I say we keep it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: although TAC appears to use blog SOFTWARE and also has a 'blogroll' on the side linking to blogs, its presentation seems to elevate it as more than that. It's staff page for example:

On our Editorial Board we have an economist and businessman (King’s College, Cambridge, and Stanford Business School); a lawyer (King’s College, Cambridge, and Yale Law School; member of the California bar); a soldier in the US army who is also our webmaster; a professional writer and former Director of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism (London).

Wouldn't this qualify it as an edited work? Reliable sources don't necessarily need to be pretty or fancy, don't they just need an editor/writer relationship? An editorial BOARD seems to qualify.

Regarding the Bixby letter, I don't think it necessarily represents a secular presentation of the word. I understand how people could get that impression reading the excerpt "the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom" adapted to the Lady Columbia statue at Punchbowl Cemetery but reading the entire thing in context clearly associates it with religion:

"I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom."

"I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom."

Religious or not, I think we should still talk about the context of the sacrifice, ie that some people rightly talk about it being Humayun's sacrifice (it was his choice to put his life at risk) while others talk about it being Khizr's sacrifice. Ranze (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. The Atheist Conservative is a fringe, extremist source. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN. If you think that in the Bixby letter, Lincoln was talking about a religious ritual sacrifice, like Abraham and Isaac and that ram that ended up getting slaughtered, then I think that you do not understand Lincoln's style of speaking and writing. He often used metaphors of religious origin when making secular points. The one thing that is clear is that there is no consensus for you to add Becker's opinion to this article, since that would give undue weight to a fringe opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why anyone would think that the biography of a fallen soldier is the proper place to republish a blogger's self-published rant attacking that soldier's father over a terrifyingly-semantic attempt at redefining "sacrifice" which ignores the definition given to the word by the Oxford English Dictionary: An act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy. Gold Star families are those whose fathers, mothers, sons and daughters have paid the ultimate price for freedom — the Khan family gave up their child for the sake of America's defense against terrorism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I respectfully disagree with you, Humayun's life is his own, he chose to risk his safety to protect others and his life was taken from him. Choosing to run toward the car didn't mean he was choosing death, only danger. He sacrificed his safety, not his life. The verb sacrifice implies something done voluntarily. In the binding of Isaac for example, in the Hebrew version where Isaac was bound, Isaac was not sacrificing himself, it was Abraham doing the sacrificing. In the Muslim interpretation of this, Isaac could be viewed as sacrificing himself since he was not bound and thus was volunteering. There is a bit of a problem saying it was a soldier's family who made a sacrifice when a soldier dies, it implies that soldiers are their family's property, and makes the family the agents of sacrifice instead of the soldier. The Khans did not 'give up' Humayun because he was not theirs, he belonged to himself. Ranze (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

From a quick Google search, it's clear that your belief that "there is a bit of a problem" with using the word "sacrifice" to describe Gold Star families is not shared by the overwhelming weight of mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The premise for this is "By viewing his soldier son’s death in combat as his “sacrifice”, this father turns an honorable death – that of a soldier doing his job, fulfilling his promise, doing his duty – into a religious martyrdom.".

:And then talking about suicide bombers? This is seriously what's being proposed to use a source? Lets not with this grasping at the right-wing blogosphere to add "has received criticism" bits into articles of these people with an absence of weight in reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: to make it clear, the criticism is not directed at Humayun, but rather at how people are diminishing the impact of his own honorable choices and appropriating his agency by taking credit for the sacrifice. Khizr and Hillary talking about Khizr's sacrifice (instead of Humayun's sacrifice) has received criticism from a noteworthy individual so it seems relevant to mention. Ranze (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying "14"

Re: "I am confused guys, is it 14 killed (4 buried in Arlington) as PDF says or 14 in Arlington as Wright says?"

• There were 14 Muslim-American soldiers killed after 9/11 (since all were killed in Iraq, presumably, these all occurred after March 2003) and before the 2011 House report. Captain Khan was among them.
• There were 14 Muslim-American soldiers buried at Arlington between June 2013 and mid-2016, who are listed in Arlington's registry of Muslim burials there. Captain Khan was not among them.

By virtue of the non-overlapping dates, no one is counted on both these lists. The journalist reporting on Hillary Clinton's speech could have found either of these 14's (but more likely found the first one) and reported it as the overall total number of Muslim-American soldiers killed since 9/11.--Carwil (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carwil: thanks, I was confused by the coinciding number that I didn't think about possibility of coincidence as you discovered with dates. So does this mean we could say there are at least 18 Muslims buried in Arlington? 4 from 2001- 2011 and 14 from 2013-2016? This of course is probably low-balling since that doesn't cover 2012... plus we would also be missing an overall total of American muslims soldiers killed (the 14 overall 2001-2011 plus the 14 in Arlington 2013-2016 gives us at least 28, but given less than half were buried in Arlington in the first period there's bound to be a bunch of non-Arlington ones we're overlooking. But at least with the 18/28 totals it gives us something to build upon with additional sources. Ranze (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humayun Khan (soldier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917020122/http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/09_24_2004/khan.html to http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/09_24_2004/khan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

See my edit here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)