Talk:Hoda Muthana

claimed to be an expatriate
I trimmed this phrase. As I understand it Muthana claimed to be a US citizen. It is the government's position she is not a citizen. "not a citizen" != expatriate. Geo Swan (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Stateless...
I trimmed stateless from the infobox. I believe international law does not permit someone to be stateless. The USA has birthright citizenship. If the Trump administration is asserting it doesn't apply to her because her parents were diplomats, then she would be a citizen of whatever country they were diplomats for. If the claim she is not a US citizen as the child of diplomats she wouldn't be stateless. Geo Swan (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, her parents were born in Yemen. If they really were Yemeni diplomats... she wouldn't be stateless, she would be a Yemeni.  It is another warzone.  A heck of a place to be deported to, if the courts confirm she is not an American.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to decide whether Ms. Muthana is stateless or Yemeni; if the reliable sources describe her as either, then we cite those. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is not our place to decide. We really on RS.  And, with regards to her citizenship, or lack thereof, it is disputed.  So, we don't take sides.  We neutrally report all meaningful RS positions.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarification - CNN and other news reports are saying that it was back in 2016 (under Obama) that the state department (with John Kerry as SecState) determined birthright-citizenship didn't apply because of the diplomatic issue, and sent her family a letter revoking her passport saying it had been issued in error because she was never U.S. citizen. So it's not so much "the Trump administration is asserting", it's more like "the Obama administration has asserted, and the Trump administration agrees with their assessment". Fox.jeffreyw (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it more complicated than that? Her father saved key documents.  In particular, after he himself was a citizen, when Hoda was around three years old, he requested a passport for her.  At that time he submitted appropriate documents, showing that she was born after her stopped being a diplomat, and had become a refugee, requesting citizenship.  The Passport Office accepted all those documents.  If I read the RS correctly, the documents he saved showed that the Government had accepted all that documentation, when he applied for her first passport.  So, if they had accepted his documentation twenty years ago, what had changed by 2016, or 2019?  Is it possible that some bureaucrat, in 2016, failed to accurately review the details from the late 1990s?  Does it really matter if the challenge to her citizenship was first made in 2016 or 2019? Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Tweetectomy...
I am not a big user of tweets, as references, but the tweets removed in this tweetectomy were very widely quoted, referenced, and commented upon. So I suggest this tweetectomy may have been a mistake, and I request the contributor who made it return here to explain it more fully.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I previously stated they are not relevant to the subject's entire life or (more importantly) necessary to accurately describe the situation the subject is currently in. Comparing the tweets to Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, we do not have the manifesto verbatim in his article. Instead, as within this article, the tweets are covered by a summary and/or select quotation in the body of the article of itself. As far as the Trump tweet, the government's stance is well covered within the article and we do not need the tweet to have a complete article on this subject. KnightLago (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, (1) these tweets are short, (2) the tweets were quoted, verbatim, by the press. When describing how these very short tweets were reported on in the press of course we should repeat them verbatim.  The tweets are the central element of those press reports.


 * Your comparison to the unabomber massively long and unreadable thesis? Wildly inapplicable.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Whether short or long you have ignored my point that the tweets are not necessary to accurately describe the the subject or her current situation. As stated above, the tweets are covered within the body of the article itself and the article is not lacking as a result.


 * Regarding being quoted from the press, I think you ignore the context. The media is not saying the tweets are especially important or significant in and of themselves, the media is just using the tweets as a quick and easy example of what she has allegedly tweeted about. Also, a quick search shows numerous other tweets quoted by multiple media sources yet those tweets have never been in the article. So why these specific tweets? What makes them so special? I think the answer is that they are not special. Numerous people tweet pro-ISIS propaganda. What even warrants her having an article is her life and what she has allegedly done with ISIS, not her specific words.


 * Regarding the manifesto, perhaps that is a poor example. Would you care to offer an example that supports your position? Would you consider the women of Tokyo Rose a better example? How about Iva Toguri D'Aquino? You have a much stronger argument about including multiple quotes from the Tokyo Rose broadcasts (impact on civilian audience, message as propaganda of a nation state at war, impact on military morale, etc.), yet the articles do not do verbatim quoting as you advocate for. KnightLago (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Current person" tag
I tagged this BLP as Template:current person since the court ruling on the subject's U.S. citizenship was just handed down. With appeals probably coming up and phrases such as "ISIS bride" already recirculating in the current news cycle, this tag merely serves as a friendly reminder for readers and editor.

I mentioned "ISIS bride" because that's the sort of thing that should not appear in the lead section of articles like this.

If I don't do so myself, would some other editor kindly remove the tag in a week or so if/when the news quiets down. Thanks. --Nemoschool (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Separate section for the subject's media interviews?
I suggest reorganizing content in which the subject states or claims in an "Interviews with media" section, so that readers can distinguish the Buzzfeed and NYT interviews from other factual verifiable biographic info. Any thoughts? --Nemoschool (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Hoda Muthana truly stateless?
One of the categories for this article is "Stateless person". Is she truly stateless? Is she a citizen of Yemen? Pete unseth (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is Hoda Muthana now?
It may be interesting to know where she is now. Does any country recognize her as a citizen? What about her child. Pete unseth (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)