Talk:Khizr and Ghazala Khan

Stances on Terrorism

The family made an interview before the DNC in which they gave their stances on terrorism,[1] and during the convention and in later interviews also remarked this stances. I think that this should be noted in the article given the hoaxes. It would be helpful for readers.[2][3][4] Rupert Loup (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To do list?

I thought about trying to push this article towards GA a while back, but figured it didn't make sense to do so before the election, given there would probably be more coverage of the Khans in post-election analyses. Well, the election is over, and given the result, it seems less likely we'll see much of that. (i.e. if Clinton had won, I imagine we'd see articles evaluating the factors which led to the win, but it's harder to write about factors which did not lead to that outcome). It seems likely that if they opt to continue their public stance against Trump, they'll see some continued news coverage, but I don't think there's much of a reason to wait on that.

So on that note, what are people's thoughts for what needs to happen to bring this up to WP:GAC standards? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never participated in GAC, but for what it's worth I think it's all good except

• Under 1b, the lead could be expanded by a sentence or two, probably about reactions to the speech and later public-figure status.
• Under 3a, it would be good to find a secondary source to briefly describe the role they played (especially Khizr) throughout the election; conversely, under 3b the paragraph beginning "On August 5th" should probably be cut as trivial.

FourViolas (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Is it worth noting that Khizr Khan was introduced before his speech at the DNC and Ghazala Khan was not introduced? If you watch the full video, you'll see it's the case. This fact is relevant because it undermines the narrative that Ghazala was too choked up to speak and helps make the case that the speech was political theater.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:B400:26:0:F5DA:42D1:D113:C56 (talk) 15:13, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Adamant persistence of referencing non-active military titles as "former" in public is supported by written transcripts

This reference of multiple instances during a conversation on Face the Nation on Oct. 22 2017 is a legitimate detail of Khan's post- He did not directly name his son as an former- United States Army Captain but did, as written in the transcript, adamantly persist in titling former military as "former" members. Have you read the transcript? See all the commas before he'd announce the military titles? That is something not to be ignored about Khan, and it should not be ignored as irrelevan. The General he was referring to as "former" was the focus of his statements in his interview. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-khizr-khan-on-face-the-nation-oct-22-2017/ UGAWise (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Original note that was removed from the post-election section: and adamantly designated non-active duty military members as holding "former" titles of a their military grade if a title exists. UGAWise (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

References

If a mention in his Facebook is included in his history, it is obviously opinionated to remove details of this public interview about General Kelly as no longer being General Kelly. UGAWise (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That statement is not supported by the source; rather, it is your original synthesis of the material. The cited source does not refer to Khan's son as "former" - indeed, he was killed in action while on active duty. That you appear to want to make a point about your personal opinion of Khan's statement is evident; Wikipedia is not a platform for you to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not mention his son in this chat. Why are you bringing a mention of his son into this chat? I clearly stated my mention and the multiple article references of General Kelly and his statement of non-active military is "former" Generals. This is a fact, written many times in this transcript, and I am very disappointed you are telling my this is only my opinion. Wear his statement before you tell me in telling you of my opinion. This is written in the reference material I have sent you many times.

I am done not including and trading his sons title as he has taged General Kelly's title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAWise (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You edited the article's mention of Khan's son, quite clearly. Your interpretation of Khan's words as "adamantly designation" anything is original research and synthesis and is hence prohibited from Wikipedia. We do not write articles based on our personal interpretations of what we think people are saying. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

... So you saw that Khan "adamantly" added "former" before "General Kelly", so therefore either (a) you wanted to stick it to Khan by "former"ing his son on Wikipedia or (b) you've decided this must be how Khan understands how the term "former" should be used, and that someone's Wikipedia article should be written to reflect that person's definitions/worldview? Basically, nothing should be added that isn't in a reliable source (as in, the source verifies that fact directly, not verifies that the subject used a term and therefore we should apply the term to someone connected to the subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

CBS has now adjusted their transcript to mimic your description, and they have removed extra comas from their transcript, as he waits a full second after he states former while explaining "In case of former... General Kelly" during every one of his statememts. None of this is an opinion, and a rant of "Forget" only exists if a member has been exhausted from the military by the military. Khan does not have this power, but insisted each and every time to exhibit the former statement before he had to say the name Kelly. I will add a reference to the video, as NBC has now changed their original transcript. I've said it already, I'm no longer adding the Former to his son, that a separate addition that had nothing to do with his son's rank was removed with his statement about what he described as his son's rank was. Neither were opinion, but I disagree with HIS statement either way, but should not be ignored outright. I will leave his son's real as expected. UGAWise (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khizr and Ghazala Khan. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Electoral College" victory and other unencyclopedic content

The phrasing of "Electoral College victory" and "even before the inauguration" constitute petty, partisan political commentary and are inappropriate additions to this article. User:Volunteer Marek keeps undoing my revision. There is nothing wrong with my rewording. It is objectively more neutral, and I implore anyone to provide an argument to the contrary. Praisekek777 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Before the inauguration" is relevant in placing the event in time, and I don't see how it's "petty" to discuss that Trump won the Electoral College in the election (he did). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The use of the word "even" is what is at issue here, as it is unnecessary and adds an editorial voice to the sentence.

The truth of a statement is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being included in an encyclopedia entry. The probative value of the clause must also be considered. The manner in which Trump won the election is not the issue of this article. We have a whole article about Criticism of Donald Trump's Presidency; this is not it.

If we're including things merely because they are true, then we must apply that standard equally, so would you instead be alright with replacing "said he had been told that his travel privileges were being reviewed" with "lied about being told that his travel privileges were being reviewed"? Praisekek777 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that it is a lie is unsupported by reliable sources and is, in fact, a BLP violation. Repeating it and edit-warring it, as you have done, is likely to lead to a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

GAN

I've just tagged the article for GAN. There are a few more sources from the past year that I want to get to and some polishing to do, but I wanted to get it into the queue (the last couple I was involved with took upwards of 6 months before being reviewed). If a reviewer gets to it sooner rather than later, feedback would be appreciated and we can see if we can get it up to GA quality in a short amount of time. Some pings of possibly interested users: @JackGavin, Neutrality, and FourViolas: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't have time to learn the bureaucratic aspects of GA review at the moment, but I can offer a list of things to polish (in top to bottom order in the current revision):

• Was Ghazala really born Khan?
• Y UV is “it” not “they”
• Y private on the subject of politics—awkward. Might be omitted, or restated negatively (were not publicly active in politics)
• Y clarify and wl “talking of banning Muslims”
• Y Khizr distributing Constitutions at UV is mentioned twice, without a citation the second time
• Y would have trouble enough remaining standing doesn't sound encyclopedic: it's too impassioned. Maybe “would have difficulty maintaining her composure”
• Y Overreliance on primary sources in some places, particularly the extended transcription of Ghazala on Morning Joe and summary paraphrase of her Post op-ed. Here, for example, is a scholarly source that briefly cites, summarizes, and contextualizes her role and op-ed.
• Y? Organize §Aftermath a little better? Currently kind of crowded, with little flow between paragraphs
• Needs some deeper analysis from media scholars, talking about shifting roles of vets/Gold Stars in discourse, bipartisanship in deference to the military, the roles of Islam and Muslim Americans in the 2016 election, etc. These articles should probably be included [5] [6] [7] [8] (I can WP:RX a copy of the last), and there are plenty of shorter mentions worth considering: [9] [10] [11] [12]

FourViolas (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@FourViolas: Thanks for this. I took care of several of the above. Will have to get to the additional sources a bit later. I also do not have the answer regarding Ghazala's family name. I've just ordered the memoir in the hope it can clear up any uncontroversial biographical details like this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Having now had a chance to take a loser look at some of these sources, there's just too much that's not in there to consider GAN at this time. I'm going to withdraw it from GAN until I (or someone else) have the time to go through them properly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)