Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz/Archive 2

FBI investigating her smashed hard drives
Where should we add in-line referenced info about the FBI investigating her smashed hard drives please? Should there be a new sub-section about this? (And if so, how would we phrase it in a NPOV manner please? Would "FBI investigation of smashed hard drives" be OK?) See for example: "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation.": Are there better RS that we could cite (in The New York Times for example) please? Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snopes investigated a related claim made by a different site, but also tried to verify this Daily Caller article by calling "not only the FBI, but Capitol Police and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, all of whom refused to comment on whether any hard drives had been taken from Awan’s former home." Even if we did know that the FBI was investigating these hard drives, we don't currently know what their significance is. The hard drives could be something really important, but they could just be some old or broken IT equipment. FallingGravity 06:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The FBI typically does not comment upon investigations, so their response is nothing out of the ordinary. USAG's usually carefully control the release of information through press conferences, and only subsequent to indictments, to my knowledge. Hard drives are rather durable, I think. (I just had one removed this week from my dead PC and installed in a refurbished replacement, saving the effort to transfer all its data and retaining the larger capacity hard drive from the discarded PC.) A "smashed" hard drive would infer an effort to render existing data irretrievable. Thanks for the input from everyone who is weighing in on this issue. Activist (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I share ZigZag20's reservations about relying on the Daily Caller as a source. There's ample reasons for distrusting its reliability, here: [] Activist (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 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/20140821183347/http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership to http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅L3X1 (distænt write)  01:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include a section about the arrest of Imran Awan?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article include a section about the arrest of Imran Awan, similar to the proposed draft below?

{{quotebox|

Arrest of IT Staffer Imran Awan
On July 25th 2017, Washington D.C. Capitol Police, the FBI and Customs and Border Protection, were involved in the arrest of Imran Awan at Dulles International Airport as he tried to catch a flight to Pakistan.

Awan was Wasserman-Schultz' DNC IT staffer. Awan plead not guilty to bank fraud, where he was accused of attempting to transfer several hundred thousand dollars to a Pakistani bank. This hill staffer had been employed by Wasserman Schultz as of the date where he was arrested.

It has been reported in the national news that a watchdog is calling for an investigation into Wasserman-Schultz over Awan, over an allegation that Wassermann-Schultz "continued to employ an IT staffer for months after he became the focus of a criminal investigation." }} - MrX 14:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)



He was an employee of the House of Representatives which contracted him out to various Dem reps. He was not a "DNC staffer" AFAIK. That's just plain inaccurate. Unless I'm wrong, you can't hold an RfC on an issue of accuracy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would be in favor of adding some stuff about the Awan story, but I'm against the proposed text. Let's set aside the misinformation about Awan being a "DNC IT staffer" for a minute. First of all, I think the text should be mostly about DWS's scandal, not Awan's arrest. From what I've read, the main reason DWS was roped into this is that she continued to employ Awan after most of his other employees fired him. This article might be useful. Also, a Forbes opinion piece is not an acceptable source for a BLP. FallingGravity 20:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the Awan situation belongs in the DWS article. If Awan had any role as a contractor or otherwise with the DNC, I'm not aware of it. Also, DWS's relationship with the DNC terminated almost a year ago, didn't it, and didn't its four top staffers resign around the same time? I'm also unclear on whom the couple's employer was. My presumption was that it was directly the Representatives using their services, with the House being billed within some set budget. I appreciate everyone's efforts here to get the content precisely correct. Activist (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. Fix whatever is inaccurate. There is copious coverage of the Schultz/Awan connection, including Schultz's responses. .Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not how this works. Fix the RfC or start a proper one. You cannot !vote on a completely inaccurate proposal. It'd be like deciding whether our article Earth should say "it's flat" or "it's round" by RfC. Not how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Can this RfC be rewritten to reflect the undisputed facts, remove the incorrect contention, restarted and those who have already weighed in be notified of the substitution? The proposer of the RfC, MrX, suggested an alternative "similar" draft, so that wouldn't seem to be in dispute. Activist (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone want to propose alternative wording to see if it has support, just add it above and label the various proposals A, B, C, D, etc. We don't need to start a new RfC for a wording change when the purpose of the RfC is to determine if we should have a section about Imran Awan, similar to the proposed draft.- MrX 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. On the 27th, I outreached a former FL congressional staffer whom I know who wrote me on the 28th that she wasn't aware of the details of such contractual relationships. I did speak with a current in-house IT staffer later on the 28th, who said that there is a (HR, I think) budget for contracted, non-campaign, IT services, with hire arranged by the members, but payment is through the House administration, as I surmised. So DWS was responsible for the hire and the retention until Awan's arrest when she discharged him, months after the investigation was initiated. I had found a RSS citation on the 27th that indicated that Awan had never worked for the DNC. Activist (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's all nice but 1) it's original research and 2) he still wasn't a "DNC staffer". This RfC is nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the incorrect text be deleted, and his actual duties for her congressional office be included? Activist (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposed text. It is inaccurate, pov, and UNDUE. I'm ok with a sentence or two, along the lines of "in the summer of 2017, DWS was criticised (and we should state by whom here) for not terminating the employment of IT staffer Imran Awan when he became the focus of a fraud investigation." That's really the most that I can see being DUE here, the details of Awan's case belong in his article, not here. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't that simple. Her actions and involvement gave the impression that they were possibly meant to impede the investigation of him and his alleged crime partners. Activist (talk) 05:02, 31 AuThe group had earlier stood by its claim that thegust 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that supports what you wrote above? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as excessive and UNDUE. Agree with Fyddlestix that it deserves a sentence or two. Coretheapple (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Also I think there is a definite recentism aspect to this material. I know recentism is frequently misused, but this is a good example of it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, WP:UNDUE. The sources we can cite for statements of fact make only tangential reference to Schultz; the piece that makes the most direct connection is just an opinion piece.  Either way, it doesn't really make sense for an article on her to include everyone connected to her who was ever arrested for anything, and this doesn't seem to have attracted enough coverage relative to her to be worth including at all. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Get the fats right and then → inclusion. Imran Awan's and his wife Hina Alvi's (not public) Grand Jury was convened ''November 13, 2016. --87.156.224.184 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose UNDUE. A sentence or two perhaps, not an entire section. L3X1  (distænt write)  01:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as manifestly WP:UNDUE. The accusations against Awan are not about Wasserman Shultz--not in the general sense and certainly not for purposes of our summary of Wasserman Shultz as an encyclopedic topic.  The only nexus between Wasserman Shultz and the Awan story is that she happened to be his employer while he was under investigation for possible crimes that had nothing to do with Wasserman Shultz herself.  That's the very definition of WP:UNDUE; the fact that one of the uncountably numerous, highly politicized/partisan "watchdog" groups in Washington has attempted to pull a prominent politician into the controversy doesn't change the basic facts or the sourcing here.  If the OCE were to open an investigation, that would be another matter and it would very probably necessitate a mention here--but the fact that one right-leaning activist organization has made a vague implication (of a connection between a politician from the left and a crime which she is not in any sense under investigation for or connected to) is not sufficient reason to mention Awan's alleged crimes in the same breath as Wasserman Shultz.  To do so would be a fairly clear violation of WP:NPOV; indeed, this is more or less a WP:SNOW determination, the call is so obvious.  And all this is without the need to even point out the BLP and original research issues here, which push this yet further into the territory of inappropriate content.  S n o w  let's rap 22:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't even write her name correctly! It's Wasserman Schultz.
 * The level to which Wasserman Schultz was willing to go to protect Awan has many baffled and they fear just how much damage has been done due to her inexplicable behavior. Matthew Whitaker, FACT’s executive director, stated:


 * “There is something quite amiss as to why Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz continued to use taxpayer funds to employ former technology staff member, Imran Awan, even months after he was barred from accessing the House’s computer systems and a number of her colleagues severed ties with Awan. Since Awan’s arrest last week, Wasserman Schultz has been evasive and unable to answer even basic questions about the nature of Awan’s employment with her office. This only further confirms the urgency of an investigation into her unethical and illegal actions.”


 * FACTS is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency in government and civic arenas. Whitaker is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.


 * And then there is the 18 May 2017 incident. Wasserman Schultz threated the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, Matthew R. Verderosa, for doing his job in gathering evidence on the Awan criminal investigations. Obstruction of Justice.


 * In February 2017, Politico reported that Imran Awan, and five other IT House employees tied to Awan, were under criminal investigation for allegations they “stole equipment from more than 20 member offices” and “committed serious, potentially illegal, violations of House IT policies.” In April 2017, the Capital police confiscated a laptop secreted in a crevice in the Rayburn House Office Building as evidence as part of the ongoing criminal theft and cybersecurity investigations. Chief Verderosa told Wasserman Schultz the laptop was part of the ongoing investigations and could not be returned. Yet Wasserman Schultz felt moved to threaten Chief Verderosa during a Legislative Branch Subcommittee hearing on the Capitol Police Department’s budget for the coming year for not returning the laptop--on the record and before cameras!


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAHGsyt2kZA


 * In the video shown above, instead of offering to aid Chief Verderosa’s investigation, Wasserman Schultz claims ownership of the computer and warns that "there will be consequences" if it’s not returned to her without inspection. Quote: “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences”. At best, this threat to Capitol Police would be considered highly inappropriate. More likely it is a very clear cut case of Obstruction of Justice. --87.156.225.135 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The accusations against Awan are not about Wasserman Shultz and do not belong here in her bio. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The bias in opposition is overwhelming. 2605:A000:1407:81B3:E04E:96C8:B7F0:911E (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed text as undue, per Fyddlestix. Possibly a brief neutral mention as he suggests. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This individual has their own article, which is where content primarily about that subject should go. Spilling several sentences about a tangentially related subject followed by a passing mentions of how this might be tangentially related to this subject is undue weight on an otherwise unrelated article.  T J W  talk   10:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 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://archive.is/20120716152550/http://ufdemocrats.org/posts/debbie-wasserman-schultz-meets-with-ufcd-leadership/ to http://ufdemocrats.org/posts/debbie-wasserman-schultz-meets-with-ufcd-leadership/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327004401/http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/about/biography.shtml to http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/about/biography.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110031108/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24733 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24733

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Deborah or Wendy?
Why are editors changing her name from Deborah to Wendy Deborah without linking a source? Can we include a definitive source like a birth certificate or other official documentation? 31.171.155.106 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a prank - Trump misspelled her name in a tweet. Thinking of Peter Pan? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Common error - both names have vowels and consonants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha thanks for explaining. Debby, D -> W, b -> d, Webdy -> Wendy. Kind of makes sense. I hope none of those IPs are the white house! 31.171.155.106 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Awan Scandal
I would think her part related to the Imran Awan scandal should be reflected on the Wikipedia page, including her making a veiled threat publicly to law enforcement in order to get back a laptop used by Awan while under her employ. I can understand if it gets delayed until all the dust settles with that investigation. C.D. Random (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing archives
This Talk page has 2 archives. Where is the archive counter? I can see them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz/Archive_2&action=history, but there is no access from the current Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Easy enough to add back, but I have to warn you, they mention a certain unmentionable someone who totally wasn't banned from the House IT network. Anyone reading these archives might think that Debbie's actions threatening the U.S. Capitol Police chief with "consequences" if he did not return equipment she says belongs to her is somehow wiki-worthy. This is why I trust Wikipedia for background information on current events. 173.120.153.147 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2

Infobox needs to be fixed
The infobox is currently set up for this person's time in office, but does not reflect in a Wikified manner, that it should be illustrated as 2 boxes - 1 for each district that she represented. This needs to be redone to reflect that... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Primary Controversy
Why isn't there any mention in this article - it should be substantial - of Debbie Wasserman Schultz 2018 primary controversy with her Bernie Sanders backed Democracy primary opponent, Tim Canova? It received an enormous amount of press, and involved the now dismissed, Brenda Snipes, the Broward County Election Supervisor... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

'Debra Wasserman' disambiguation
Debra Wasserman and Charles Stahler formed the Vegetarian Resource Group in Baltimore Maryland. In the summer of 2003, they were inducted into the Vegetarian Hall of Fame of the North American Vegetarian Society. Should there be an article here to point out the ambiguity? MaynardClark (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation 43 is broken link
Just heads up for future edits. 205.250.73.81 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2021 Wilton Manors Stonewall Pride Parade Truck Accident
To start I'd like to apologize for not first putting it here and instead just immediately adding it to the actual article.

However, I do believe this incident is worthy of being put into the article. My reasoning is as follows: In this incident, it was very possible if things turned out slightly different Wasserman Schultz could have been seriously injured or killed. I believed that such an incident where her life was put at risk was notable. One of the reasons why my edit was removed was because of WP:NOTNEWS, which I absolutely understand the reasoning behind this categorization. I disagree with this categorization because while there is plenty of news made about members of the House of Representatives, there are few incidents in which a member of the House is put into a perilous situation, thus to me, making it more important than the average news story.

At this moment I'd agree with it possibly being moved to a different section of the article but for now, I do firmly believe this is a notable event that does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaskBunzzz (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If this event continues to be discussed *in connection with DWS* then I will agree with you that it is relevant. Right now, I think it is too soon to know if this news item belongs in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Fort Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis said, "It was deliberate, it was premeditated, and it was targeted against a specific person (DWS)" before it was known that it was an accident. Could it be mentioned saying something like, "Fort Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis fueled speculation that it was an attack by alleging the driver had attempted to purposely strike Wasserman Schultz"? Trantalis saying this RaskBunzzz (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If Trantalis's mistaken claim has an impact on HIS career, then perhaps you can add the story to Dean Trantalis. The accident is still not a notable incident in the life of DWS, IMO. Nor is the accident significant enough to end up in Pride_parade, but possibly Wilton Manors, Florida? Either of those would be closer to relevance than the bio of DWS. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Rutgers University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)