Talk:Huma Abedin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-01. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents


[edit] Times of London article

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

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

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

This article does not allege that they are having an affair. Please read carefully as this is a sensitive matter. Wikipedia is not libeling, merely reporting secondary sources - we are interested in verifiability, not truth, and the Times article verifies the claims made in this article. Regards, Skomorokh incite 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of deleting the text that read:
whom The Times of London alleges she has been accused of having a lesbian affair.[1] This rumor has also been printed in Russia's Pravda with the caveat "Hillary and her aide, Huma Abedin, do live together at home and on the road, but the only way to nail Clinton would be to catch them together in a lesbian action." [2]
The Times article states explicitly that it is listing anonymous smears being conducted against candidates in South Carolina, which it says is "the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America". TheMathemagician was correct. It is misleading and potentially libellous to precis this as "alleges she has been accused of having a lesbian affair". It is also inappropriate to cite Pravda - a tabloid newspaper (in the British sense) and in no way a reliable source. The quality of its content is clear from the line "the only way to nail Clinton would be to catch them together in a lesbian action" - simply embarrassing. LeContexte (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
a little more digging suggests that the last line of the Pravda report may be plagiarised from Co-Ed Magazine - http://coedmagazine.com/news/3463 - that well respected political journal LeContexte (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
While its debatable whether or not Pravda is an unreliable source (calling it a tabloid does nothing to establish this), The Times is unquestionably a reliable source. I have changed the wording to assuage the concerns you have mentioned, removing the Pravda comment, and noting The Times suspicion of dirty tricks. Skomorokh incite 17:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Times article is to be used as a source here, then it must be in the context of the story the Times was reporting: the use of anonymous smears against candidates. The Times article places the accusations in the same category as claims that Giuliani's wife supports the killing of puppies, and that Obama is a Muslim extremist, and states that these accusations come from "the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America". To cite the article without this context suggests that the Times gave more credence to the rumour than was the case.
The current text reads "[The Times reported that] a dirty tricks campaign was underway"...is this not the case? Or is it the truth but not the whole truth? Skomorokh incite 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The current Pravda reference in the article is also misleading, as it suggests the website was making the same claim as The Times. It was not - it was simply reporting what the Times had written, and adding an apparently plagiarised conclusion. This is not an appropriate source, even if you believe Pravda as a whole is reliable. LeContexte (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to mislead, just make the reference concise; Pravda does not cite The Times, and similarity in wording is no proof of plagiarism. It even warns the reader "The best thing to do here is to ignore all the rumors." What changes to the wording would you be happy with? I'm willing to alter it until it reflects the matter fairly. Skomorokh incite 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The first 2/3 of the Pravda article is most definitely based on the Times - it says so itself ("...the Times reports") but the contents and structure make it clear anyway. The last sentence seems clear plagiarism: the identical "at home and on the road" and "nail Clinton" phrases surely cannot be coincidence. Either way, this is not original reporting and not a useful source.
Any citation of the Times article has to be very careful, to avoid libel and unfairness. I will think about the best way to do this. LeContexte (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, having looked through it again I agree now that the Pravda article does not really add anything to the article. I've left the Times reference unchanged until someone suggests a way to improve it. Skomorokh incite 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

So are you suggesting that rumours and gossip should be always included, never included or sometimes included? LeContexte (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The public already considers Wikipedia to be an "unreliable source of information." Teachers, for example, do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source for reports. One professor I know personally gives his students an automatic failing grade if they use it. I also consider it a unreliable source if it is something where personal opinions are used & facts cannot be verified (such as religion). I only use Wikipedia as a serious reference for concrete things like dates, or areas where NO ONE has an emotional stake in the definition. I also find your single example to back your accusation of left-wing bias to be "unreliable" - I've seen David Duke defended on Wikipedia.96.241.3.113 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Just because it appears in the news does not make it noteworthy in the biography of Huma Abedin. As a historical record of her biography, is it part of her notability? Please see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. Morphh (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If this isn't noteworthy, Abedin is perhaps not noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. --128.135.203.168 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Placement of the text

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

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

– Skomorokh, Edit summary

Presenting it in a one-line section does not prevent reader from knowing about the incident. It would give chance for other editors to add more information (fully sourced, of course) about it. --Voidvector (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion, although I've amended the heading to "Smear campaign against Clinton", which I think is more accurate. LeContexte (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think "smear" violates NPOV. Can we think of something else? Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It didn't strike me as POV as there was an article on Smear campaign, although I don't think it hurts to change it to something more general like "political attacks".--Voidvector (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

As discussed above, The Times is the only reliable source to cover the story so far; the buzzfeed, Pravda and "Lezident" references are unacceptable per WP:BLP. User:Astanhope (perhaps mistakenly, perhaps disingenuously) removed The Times reference without mentioning it in their edit summary. I've restored the reference, although the wording is still up for grabs. Skomorokh incite 01:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that we can agree that "Lezident" is unacceptable. Why can't we agree that extra caution should be exercised when citing any reference to lesbianism in this woman's article? There is no denying that there exists a strong partisan interest in smearing the candidate (and possibly this innocent woman) in this fashion. Simply because the smear exists doesn't mean we have to report it. Let's leave it alone. Thanks! --AStanhope (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We can exercise extra caution, and there is an ongoing discussion about how such material should be worded. A reference to lesbianism concerning this individual does appear in a reliable source, and it is likely to be of strong interest to readers of this article, so it should be included in this article, with appropriate wording and citation. Skomorokh incite 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

My only objection is that it slants the matter in a direction that, although it may turn out to be true, is speculative; namely, that the allegations are false and are motivated by anti-Clinton sentiments rather than a passion for revealing the truth. It's purely The Times' pov rather than reporting, but we must stick to verifiable info; I'd prefer something a little more neutral like "allegations of a lesbian relationship between Clinton and Abedin were reported by The Times, which characterized the rumours as dirty tricks on the part of political rivals". Skomorokh incite 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's quite a salient point that this issue is probably the motivation behind most readers visiting this point, well noted. Skomorokh incite 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I have no objection to your recommended wording above. In the interim, someone deleted the paragraph and I simply reverted the deletion. If you wish to implement your recommendation, you have my vote. Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Abedin's parents

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

Wikipedia biographical articles serve to present a neutral, informative, non-libelous perspective on a person; the speculated impact of the article is irrelevant. Here are some questions you should be asking:
  • Is it verifiably true? Yes.
  • Is it libelous, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people? No, last time I checked being called a child of Muslims was not slanderous.
  • Is it relevant, something readers would want to know? I would argue yes; in the current U.S. political climate, the fact that a leading presidential candidate is of Islamic ancestry is noteworthy.
04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when is Huma a "leading presidential candidate?" Huma is barely relevant herself, so I would say the religion of her parents is definitely not worth mentioning.Deepfryer99 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You should also ask yourself "is it sourced" - it wasn't. Not with the sources provided. Rklawton (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

You are now repeating yourself. Rklawton (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also not true. Saudi Arabia does not deport children once they turn 14 if they are not Muslim. There are thousands of children in Saudi Arabia who are the children of guest workers. Like the entire Saudi Arabian little league baseball team. It is made up of the children of American workers who live in Saudi Arabia. None of them were deported when they turned 14. What a ridiculous claim. Inf fg (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Semi-protection

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

sprod = always good. --AStanhope (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps surprisingly, I don't think there's been much recent vandalism here - can we wait and see what happens?LeContexte (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woman's Day ref

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

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

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

You havent given a valid reason for your removal it is not simply a repeat or the times story it has an interview with Hillary and Renta what reason do you have to remove the information ? How do you prove or claim to know its not true ?
I'm sorry, you're right, I haven't given a proper reason. Wikipedia is especially cautious about biographies of living persons, so the criteria for reliable sources are more stringent than for regular articles. As Woman's day is a glossy tabloid it is not especially regarded for its journalistic integrity. Regards, Skomorokh confer 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted it back as again i dont believe you have mad a case to change it reliable sources includes magazines. " Clinton has not sued the magazine and her statement is included! It is fact that they story was printed and it its acuracy has not been challanged in a court! So i fail to understand you responce and determination to remove the information. Can you explain? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem not to understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources which I linked to in my last answer. The facts that Clinton has not sued the source and that the story's accuracy has not been challenged in court are not remotely sufficient reasons for qualifying it as reliable. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the policy before dealing with issues of verifiability again. Regards, Skomorokh confer 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I did read the section and it clearly state a magazine as a reliable source. as i said it was printed. Why do you keep removing it do you have some special intrest or conection to them ? please see Australian Consolidated Press.
Verifiability states, with emphasis: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Woman's Day has by no means such a reputation, it has a reputation as a scandal-ridden celebrity gossip magazine. I have no special interest, and if you would care to read this talkpage you will see that I have argued strongly for the rumour about Clinton's affair to be included. As I don't want to exacerbate this edit-war, I have asked the editors at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to judge the matter. Skomorokh confer 09:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your commercial for Woman's Day. None of what you wrote, however, either bolsters or attacks Woman's Day's credibility, or lack thereof. 96.241.3.113 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Where that fails is in the line "Hillary Clinton has been accused." Accused by whom? That is where is doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source, which, for a story like this, has to be impeccable. Pairadox (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Page protection

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

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

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

[edit] RfC: The Times ref, revisited.

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

I'm surprised this was ever in in the first place. Anything like this gets added to the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, we delete it right away. I would definitely remove it from here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind that I added this to the RFC Politics page as well, might get more comments this way as well. My opinion is to delete the mention unless more evidence of the smear being used is provided. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur - this is very flimsy and I would absolutely remove anything like this from any article on WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE grounds. I also question why this article exists at all - Howard Wolfson is far better known yet he is merely listed in Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, which it seems to me is all that is appropriate for Abedin, if that much - she's a personal assistant without any independent notability presented, so I don't see how that merits an article in its present form - it seems to exist just as a vehicle to reference the smear. I realize that isn't the specific question in this RfC, but I think it is relevant. Tvoz |talk 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sidenote: is this article a WP:COATRACK? Probably. Is the topic independently notable? Almost certainly, per non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. скоморохъ ѧ 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
But there is no article - take out the smear and you're left with a virtually content-less stub. Independent notability is alleged here on talk, but I don't see it presented in the article. The sources verify that she is of Indian and Pakistani parents and that she lived in Saudi Arabia and attended GW. How is any of that actually notable? Assuming the smear stuff is removed, I'd propose a merge to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Tvoz |talk 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The New York Observer article states, but the current WP article doesn't mention, that she's an important advisor to HRC on Middle East matters. Indeed, she might be the highest-ranking Muslim advisor or staff figure in any of the 2008 presidential candidates, which seems notable if it can be verified. Also note that 9 of the 14 members of Hillaryland have articles, so there may be some notability associated with that. This article could easily be built up to be more substantial; it seems intentionally bare right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "intentionally bare" is exactly what I'm saying. The staffers and advisors who have separate articles (although I didn't look at every last one) all seem to have much more substantial articles - this one is not. If others are as sketchy, I'd suggest they be merged too. All I've read says that she is the "body person" - that is, that she is responsible for the minute daily details of getting Clinton from one place to another, making sure she eats, rests, etc - what personal assistants do. Do the sources actually refer to her as "Senior Advisor", like, say, Ann Lewis? If she is indeed a Middle East advisor, that information should be available in multiple sources I would think. Tvoz |talk 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reiterating an earlier comment:

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

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

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

[edit] Sources

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

[edit] Notoriety?

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