Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Self-sourced content

Self-sourced content shouldn't be used for anything except maybe mundane 'personal life'-type content. We need reliable independent sourcing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm also concerned that the 'Political positions' section is becoming quite lengthy, and lacking in quality sources. We have to be careful not to turn this article into a WP:BROCHURE.- MrX 🖋 7:53 am, Today (UTC−5)

An editor has added a secondary source. The content regards Gabbard's attempts to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed with the consent of the Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1999. The position is important because many people blame its repeal for the banking crisis of 2008. It is certainly important and it would be more constructive to find a better source than to delete it. Primary sources are allowed, its just that secondary sources are preferable. TFD (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem that we get into with primary sources is that they may provide a misleading depiction. For example, numerous Republicans claimed that they were for preexisting conditions and other aspects of the ACA even though they had voted against such protections or were actively supporting measures to undermine them in 2018. If we were to simply use their campaign websites and op-eds to incorporate such content on Wikipedia, readers would get a misleading/false understanding of the stances of these politicians. Independent reliable sources would however have provided the necessary context. Primary sources get us into a mess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Politicians' website can present their positions in self-serving even deceptive ways and if there is no reporting of specific policies in secondary sources then they lack significance for inclusion in articles. TFD (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

However, if there is reporting of specific policies in secondary sources, then they do not lack significance for inclusion in articles. This is the case for Glass-Steagall. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

people who run for the presidential nomination can expect that all their political positions will be examined in depth. Wiki rules are clear that information about a person provided by that person is a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

India

Concerning this edit:

People will only be able to evaluate your changes properly if you argue for them here. Let's take your removal of:

In 2013, she joined some of her colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in opposing a House resolution that called for "religious freedom and related human rights to be included in the United States-India Strategic Dialogue and for such issues to be raised directly with federal and state Indian government officials"

which you wish to change in such a way that does not reflect that her vote was with the majority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, including Ed Royce and Steve Chabot and Eni Faleomavega. These are the sorts of problems we will be able to tease out if we look at your edits individually. Your notable decision to rewrite "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship." as "Gabbard has expressed support for Indian nationalists" is nowhere represented in the misleading edit summary "removed video interview", which, in fact, removed three interviews (two video interviews and one in-depth Quartz interview) and massaged the text in many ways. One of the videos you removed was the source of her statement that "there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002. for which you removed the wikilink, but kept the now unsourced text. This is just one example. While I do agree, in general, that shorter is better, there are severe problems with this edit. I will look at the others as I have time. Others will be able to do so, too. Thank you for following the rules. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? I have zero inclination to go through your laundry list of minor quibbles and vague unspecified problems. For example, are you seriously arguing that we should add that "Ed Royce and Steve Chabot and Eni Faleomavega" voted the same way as Gabbard on something? The "supports a strong US-India relationship" is unsourced. "Gabbard has expressed support for Indian nationalists" is reliably sourced. The "there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002" line is sourced to the Intercept - there's no need to cite Gabbard's own youtube videos. So, to sum up: your complaints revolve around you wanting (1) to restore unsourced text and primary sources, (2) add a line that she voted the same way as some other congressmen, (3) remove reliably sourced text, and (4) at no point did you express support for any of the changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My concerns are not about youtube videos. My concern is that you claim to be eliminating videos but are in fact massaging text, replacing a Quartz article (which includes an interview, but is not exclusively an interview) which very clearly supports the claim that Gabbard "supports a strong US-India relationship".

It is very important that the US and India have a strong relationship of mutual respect. The denial of a visa to prime minister Modi could have undermined that relationship had he used it as an excuse to reject having a strong bilateral relationships with America. This would have been bad for both of our countries. For many reasons—not the least of which is the war against terrorists—the relationship between India and America is very important. (From the first article you deleted in the section.) Let's start with that. Do you agree that was not a justified move?

Also I would add that you would do much better to pull your claims about Hindu nationalists from the Quartz article you deleted, rather than a single clause mention without any argumentation in the Guardian summary of received wisdom. At least that's what I would do if it were important to me to include PoV statements, because that article at least has some meat to it about the Modi visa question the paragraph has always been about. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain every single minor change in an edit summary, nor is there any requirement that editors do so. I mentioned the removal of one paragraph, given that you were complaining about being unable to follow the edits. My large edit already explained that I was removing unsourced text, primary sources and adding RS text. Again, there was no source behind "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" and if there were (the Quartz interview cited later), this is such a mundane and meaningless statement that it should be removed. Who does not support a strong relationship with most countries in the world, India included? Just to be clear, this is now the only problem you have with this edit: You want a line about her wanting a strong India-US relationship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to get riled up. The question is simple: should the thesis sentence of the first paragraph of India be: A) "TG supports a strong US-India relationship" sourced to the Quartz article that is used for the paragraph or B) "TG has expressed support for Indian nationalists." from an article that is not used to discuss the ideas contained in the paragraph? I could write that up in a more NPOV way for an RfC, if you'd like. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Supports a strong US-India relationship" is kind of empty campaign-speak and it's probably not a great idea to describe Gabbard's views by quoting her own interview answers verbatim. Gabbard is only mentioning this as part of a justification for why she has supported Modi, and so it's probably more appropriate to say that she's supported Narendra Modi and the BJP. Nblund ^talk 00:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: the paragraph is about a bill that sought to reprimand Modi during an election and was seen to be unseemly for that reason by a number of reps, including Gabbard.Frankly don't care that much if we keep the exact "politician speak" about US-India relations (though it was not said in the context of any campaign except the one against the censoring bill, and nevertheless is true even for those who wish to paint her as hindutva). What I object to is starting the section straight off with the spin that she supports Hindu Nationalists, because she agreed with her peers about the bill. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerning this edit that according to the ES has nothing to do with India, I have just watched the interview after verifying that ndtv.com is cited 7581 times on en.wp. I can confirm the quote from the video (16:20), can confirm that the interview does indeed have rather a lot to do with India. The interviewer also asks her a lot of questions about terrorism and Pakistan.

In an N.D.T.V. India interview during a 2014 trip to India, Gabbard said that, "very bluntly," she was "conflicted" about the report concerning CIA use of torture in interrogations: "I can also understand that any of us, if we were in a situation where our family, our community, our state, or our country is in a place where, let's say, in an hour, a nuclear bomb or an attack will go off unless this information was found, I believe that if I were the president of the United States that I would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe."

References

I would agree that this may not be the most crucial citation from the interview. However deleting the interview conducted by a major Indian press outlet strikes me as ever-so-slightly odd. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You changed that text to:

• In an NDTV India interview during a 2014 trip to India, Gabbard said that, "very bluntly," she was "conflicted" about a recently-published report concerning CIA use of torture in interrogations. She was also asked about her 2012 opponent's claim that electing a Hindu was incompatible with the US Constitution.

Having watched the whole interview, can you please explain what the first sentence has to do with India besides being sourced to an Indian news outlet? Also, in the first sentence, you removed Gabbard expressing support for torture under certain circumstances - by snipping that comment by Gabbard, you inaccurately present her view on torture. Finally, the last sentence does not really contain any substance - she was asked a question? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you watched it? (Your participial, followed by the question, "can you..."?, suggests that I have, which is true...)

I chose to weave back in a bit of temporal context (the shorter 500+ page version of the report had just been released, which is why she was asked about it). This also allows us to be more precise about what she actually said she was "very bluntly" "conflicted" about. (Though this is a minor detail, I imagine it isn't wrong to say she's conflicted about torture, but that isn't actually what she said.) As for the deletion of the long quote about torture; I have no objection to it being paraphrased (or cited in the quote tag of the ref). I left reference to it in the first line because it is often mentioned, and so people can quickly find the source and hear what she said about torture (around the 16m mark, we could add in an at= field in the reference template).

I've actually been debating with myself about this TV interview because TfD has said pretty convincingly that interviews aren't great sources. Still, this is longstanding content and the only direct reference concerning what she said about torture (which has since been frequently quoted).

The 16 minutes prior are devoted to India / Hinduism / Pakistan... and took place on Indian TV while she was in India. That's why I added one story among many to the wikitext. I'm not quite understanding your confusion. How many Americans have been interviewed on NDTV? That, in itself, seems pretty interesting to me. Now since everyone wants to talk about complicity, why not let the reader judge? Why wouldn't we give an Indian media company a little traffic for their interview? Now I wouldn't mind straight talk about the status of interviews in wikiland. It's true that people say the darnedest things on network news shows, even when pitched softball questions. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Why wouldn't we give an Indian media company a little traffic for their interview?" - What? Can you please offer policy-based arguments? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. NDTV is a WP:RS, according to en.wp usage. It is relevant and WP:DUE because what she said about torture during that interview has been frequently cited. It also resonates with two other stories about "religious bigotry" currently in the article (in two different sections). It responds directly to the question of her (non-)alignment with the BJP, which comes up frequently in the section and on the page. I must have missed your policy-based argument against inclusion in the section above. Maybe you just had "zero inclination" to give one? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is relevant and WP:DUE because what she said about torture during that interview has been frequently cited" - but you yourself deleted the only pertinent and frequently cited part about her commentary on torture (her willingness to support torture) while leaving in misleading and not-frequently cited part which gives a false impression of where she stands on torture. It's extremely hard to try to edit this article when your stated rationales (to the extent that you actually provide any) for inclusion and exclusion of content are out of sync with your editing behavior on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It also resonates with two other stories about "religious bigotry" currently in the article (in two different sections)." - the fact that she was asked a question??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It responds directly to the question of her (non-)alignment with the BJP, which comes up frequently in the section and on the page." - What??? The text does not at all in any way whatsoever respond either directly or indirectly to the question of "her (non-)alignment with the BJP". What are you talking about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"I must have missed your policy-based argument against inclusion in the section above." I have explicitly said several times that the comment on torture has nothing to do with India and should not be in the India section. The text (which should actually cover her stated opinion on torture) should clearly be in a section of its own ("torture") or related section ("counterterrorism"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, is there seriously no way out of this? This has been going on for ten days now. Every single minor edit is bogged down in these absurd time-consuming talk page discussions that go nowhere. In several cases, I can't even deduce whether SashiRolls is in favor of including/excluding content and what the reasons are, even though the user reverts the content when I add it. There are multiple edits that I haven't even been able to start talk page discussions about, because we're stuck in these pointless discussions that go absolutely nowhere on the least controversial of edits. So many of SashiRolls's comments are filled with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior has become erratic over time, with accusations of tag-teaming,[1] weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[2][3] and requests that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: There are ways out of this. I think the best way would be for you to understand what is at the root of SushiRolls's objections and start editing from a more neutral point of view. (Not an endorsement of SashiRolls's POV) ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the reference elsewhere, if you need me to I can add a ref name to it... or you could do it on your own like an adult. The fact that it is mentioned here should be no problem to you. So, no, there is nothing policy-based whatsoever in saying (now) that you want the quote on terror in its own section (when the previous two times your only action was to delete the entire reference to the Indian TV network). Is it that you don't want the story about her opponent's rhetoric on the page? I mean "Hindu" is kind of related to India... also, if you want to know what's all in the other 16 minutes, I recommend you listen to the interview, like any other reader, rather than making things up (this is the first anyone has heard about your desire to put the torture quote in its own section, before you just deleted it, twice...) and whistling for an admin to enforce your donor will. Are you a donor, Snoog? One would think you owned the place. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wtf? You edited my comment[5] to misrepresent what I said. And I cannot for the life of me understand what the second half of your comment is rambling about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I certainly did not intend to replace that sentence with three colons. I saw the three colons and wondered why they were there when responding to you, but assumed you had a script conflict. In fact it appears to have been a misclick. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The text about her support for torture has been altered to "she as president would authorize torture only under one circumstance".[6] Gabbard clearly does not specify that this is the only circumstance where she would authorize torture. That's the editor "PapaDrew's" misreading and WP:OR altering of Gabbard's comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls has violated 1RR for the second time today, this time to restore his preferred version of the text on Gabbard's position on torture.[7][8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, we can still not remove the bland "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" statement.[9] The Four Deuces's rationale: "A lot of people opposed a strong relationship with India and its PM was barred from entry to the U.S. until 2015". This edit summary confuses India with Modi, as apparently supporting a strong US-India relationship is just about being OK with a leader who played an active role in deadly ethnic riots which left 2000 dead. It's like saying Merkel is hostile to the US because she has a shaky relationship with Trump. Furthermore, the statement is not sourced to a secondary source. It's just Gabbard's own answer to an interview question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

According Obama's press secretary, Obama's many meetings with Modi, some in the U.S., strengthened the relationship between the two countries.[10] I don't think anyone would say that the U.S. has good relations with countries when they have poor relations with their leaders. Incidentally, you should refactor your comments about the 2002 Gujarat riots, per WP:BLP. In 2012, a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India "found no evidence against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with a riots case in 2002," according to the BBC.[11] This finding led to the lifting of the Modi ban in the EU, the UK and the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Tulsi Gabbard's views on foreign policy

Should the following text be added to the Political Positions section (note that the following subsections already exist): RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A. India sub-section

• Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

B. Syrian Civil War sub-section

• Gabbard has described US involvement in the Syrian Civil War as "our counterproductive regime-change war", and said that it is this "regime-change war that is causing people to flee their country". In January 2017, Gabbard met Syrian regime officials in Damascus, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Writing in 2019, the New York Times noted she is the only American official to have met Assad since his use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The Russian government's propaganda network RT praised Gabbard, saying she dared "to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative." In February 2019, she said that Assad was "not an enemy of the United States." She has defended Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, saying that criticisms of Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War were "mind-boggling" and that Russia was bombing terrorists; according to Vox, "Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."

C. Syrian Civil War sub-section

• Gabbard has expressed skepticism of the Assad regime's confirmed use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. In February 2019, Gabbard said there was "no disputing the fact that [Assad] has used chemical weapons and other weapons against his people."

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

I think that is a biased way of presenting things. A. As a member of the Congressional foreign affairs committee and vice-chairman of the DNC, Gabbard helped end the travel ban against Modi, after it had been lifted by the EU and the UK. Modi subsequently was invited to the White House by Barack Obama, who later visited Modi in India. When Modi was in the U.S., Bill and Hillary Clinton visited him and Modi was invited again to the U.S. by Donald Trump.

B. This implies opposition to the U.S. war in Syria as somehow tied to Russian interests without explicitly saying so. This type of writing may be good polemics but does not belong in an encyclopedia.

C. Following the Douma chemical attack of April 7, 2018, Gabbard said the U.S. should not respond until Assad's responsibility had been established. Gabbard says Syria has used chemical weapons and Assad should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence for trial.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support A, B and C. This is all reliably sourced, and the language mirrors that of the cited sources. These are all issues that have been covered extensively by RS, thus satisfying WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Snooganssnoogans, why didn't you follow "Before starting the process?" "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." This is a relatively complex RfC question, and it would have made sense to discuss it before hand. TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have gone above and beyond to deal with SashiRolls, who has effectively held up any and all changes to this article (see the last two months of excruciating and pointless talk page discussions). It is entirely appropriate to ask for community input at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I note you reversed a statement, "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" with the comment, "this is an empty statement. who opposes a strong relationship?"[12] Yet in A you spin Gabbard's support of that relationship as somehow sinister. TFD (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
        • That statement is sourced to an answer that Gabbard herself gave in an interview. It's not a RS description of her views on India-US relations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Support A and C, they both seem uncontroversially true and are reliably sourced. B I would reword before adding to the article; all the facts appear to be correct but it's worded more like an argument than a Wikipedia article. I suppose I should note that while reading it, the point at which I started going "wait, this doesn't seem right" is the reference to RT; that felt almost conspiratorial to me even if it is true. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Even when things are uncontroversially true, we still need sources that support them. The sources for A for example do not say that Gabbard has expressed support for any Hindu nationalists. I get the impression that these are opinions of her expressed in some op-eds, rather than facts expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I frankly am not sure what you're talking about, since both sources for A say that very clearly. Here's a quote from the Guardian source: "She has also previously expressed “skepticism” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India." And from the Intercept source: "Her progressive domestic politics are at odds with her support for authoritarians abroad, including Modi, Sisi, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad." LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
                • I was speaking about A. Your quote ways that she "aligned hereself" with nationalist figures, not that she expressed support for them. The word express means to " directly, firmly, and explicitly state" something,[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/express} which is not contained in any of your sources. TFD (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Ah, so your objection is that the sources aren't explicit enough. Well, I think they are and that complaining about the difference between "supporting" and "expressing support" is splitting hairs, but if you want an even clearer source, here's one with a direct quote. LokiTheLiar (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • So you don't think there is a difference between saying something and not saying something. Sounds like the thought police. Anyway a commentary is not a reliable source, per News organizations. Kind of surprised to find you reading Jacobin, which bills itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (Have you added any of their opinions to articles about other presidential candidates or are you just making an exception for this one article?) In every article, editors should go to the best sources and reflect what they say, not determine what should be in the article and mine for sources. TFD (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • I think both "supporting" and "expressing support" are saying something. And the reason I brought up the Jacobin article is entirely because it has the direct quote of support for Modi you seem to want. If you like, we can instead use the source Jacobin links for that quote. As I've previously said, the phrasing of the previous two sources is perfectly adequate to support the phrase "expressed support" in my view, and I don't think we need the direct quote, but if you insist on it, well, there's your source. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • The term express means to say or write something. If someone does not say or write something they have not expressed anything. The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government. TFD (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Outdent added, as it is becoming too difficult to read for mobile users.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the three are NPOV. The third comes closest, but the present tense in the second word of C being directly contradicted by the subsequent sentence is a problem. Also, don't we already have that info in the article? SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Support A and C and conditional B, per LokiTheLiar.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• A and C - Both are brief, factual, and relevant. B is simply too detailed and too quote-laden, and would tend to tip the due weight scales in the wrong direction.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• YES to B and C - The paragraphs about Syria are well sourced and relevant to an article about a politician running for president. A might also be appropriate if properly sourced, but the two citations included so far are week. They state the conclusion that she supports Modi or Hindu nationalists without much detail. I am against including the Indian subsection without better sources. I expect there are some out there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign policy

What is the standard MOS for this? I'm not sure we need a new separate header for every time Gabbard shills for one of the Kremlin's little Shia puppets (whether in Syria, Iran or Yemen) and attacks Saudi Arabia in an ill-educated manner. This can be addressed in one generic section laying out her general worldview, rather than a header for each country. Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a conspiracy theory I haven't heard. Do you have any sources that Gabbard is pro-Shia? Most of the attacks on her have claimed that she is anti-Muslim period. I know she opposes the invasion of Shia nations, but she does not support the invasion of non-Shia nations either. TFD (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions that she supports a kids-glove approach to Iran's nuclear program while at the same time attacking completely legal US arms deals with Saudi Arabia and generally makes hysterical over the top anti-Saudi comments. In regards to Syria she openly shills for the minority Alawite/Shia Assad regime which is backed up by the invading armies of the Kremlin and various Shia/Iranian death-squads who target the Syrian Sunni majority in a sectarian manner. In Yemen she is opposed to the US aiding Saudi Arabia, which is a polite way of saying she shills for the Iranian-backed Shia Houthi terrorists and Iran's geopolitical interests. All of Gabbard's foreign policy positions fall into line with those of the Kremlin and Tehran, against the Sunni states which are allied to the West. This is her general approach and can be covered in a joined up set of paragraphs rather individual headers for each state. Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty elaborate theory which we could only add if you found it had credence in any reliable sources. The reality is that most Democrats at least oppose the termination of the agreement with Iran and Saudi aggression in Yemen. Just because someone does not think the U.S. should fund al-Qaeda and ISIS does not mean they back Iran and Syria. In fact even the U.S. government considers them to be terrorist groups. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard represents the mainstream re Yemen. The House and Senate last month voted to oppose US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen--Trump vetoed it. see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/trump-veto-yemen.html Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Foreign policy section is way too extensive for this biography and we do not need a separate section for ever country that she has expressed an opinion about.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

2RR: gaming the rules...

I see that the 1RR rules on this page are being gamed. Two reversions were made earlier today: one removing "longstanding content" about religious freedom, another removing longstanding content about Gabbard's position on whistleblowers. [13], [14]

In order to restore the integrity of the text I would have needed to make two separate reverts, so rather than do so and inevitably be dragged to a drama board, I will simply point out that the spirit of 1RR has been violated with these edits. I have restored the first (MrX has been fighting about the "reproductive rights vs. abortion" language for a while now) but have had to leave the second unrestored. It would perhaps be wise to add to the text what Gabbard actually says in the Newsweek article MrX deleted to demonstrate that the question of surveillance and privacy is a policy position:

“That was something that Snowden uncovered and released, something that I don't know that even as members of Congress we would have been aware of,” Gabbard continued. “So now that we are aware of it, we can take action to close those loopholes, to change those policies, to protect our civil liberties… Was the NSA going to disclose that information voluntarily? Absolutely not.” source

-- SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The notion that making a continuous series of edits is "gaming the rules" is ludicrous. I think it's time that you stop filling talk pages with your bad faith accusations, feverish unsubstantiated smears and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. A continuous series of reverts counts as one revert. ~Awilley (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: So I can revert their 2nd reversion without risk? Your lack of comment concerning Snoogans personal attacks is very interesting. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Also @Awilley:, I'm a bit touchy about this at the moment because of this very freestyle interpretation of 1RR on a page that does not even have the BIG public notice about 1RR on its talk page. So please don't be surprised should I be slightly "chill(ed)" at the moment. 🍨 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If I have inadvertently violated 1RR, I'm happy to self-revert. I think the only portion of my original edit that was contested and restored were some section headings. Are there any objections to any of the changes that I made to them? MrX 🖋 16:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the deletion of the "Social issues" header very useful. The grouping seems to me conceptually helpful. Could you comment on the spinoff below if you haven't already? I asked the question because I do believe you've tagged some parts of the political positions section as being overly detailed? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think better groupings would be Foreign policy and Domestic policy. We should not mislead our readers into thinking that her policies are so elaborate that they need to be further sub-grouped. Some are not even policies.- MrX 🖋 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF political positions entry?

In 2016, I proposed spinning off the political positions parts of a presidential candidate's entry away from her BLP. (§§) She was the only candidate not to benefit from this treatment. IMO, the strongest argument for that candidate not having her own political positions page was the fact that she'd never held a national office.

I think that in Tulsi Gabbard's case such a spin-off would respond to MrX's concerns about too much detail in this entry. Thoughts? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for a spinoff at the moment. Also, there is still some primary source content that should be removed from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that spin off article is warranted, since her policies are just not that notable. It may make sense if she gets the nomination. - MrX 🖋 18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Article improvements

I made a few changes that were reverted. I think they improve the article by keeping it focused and relevant:

1. Removal of this image which doesn't educate readers:
2. Gabbard's op-ed in a blog masquerading as Religious freedom policy (if it were noteworthy, it may be suitable for a dedicated policy article. See my comments above.)
3. Gabbard's reflections on Snowden and Assange, masquerading as Privacy and surveillance policy. - MrX 🖋 11:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not followed the reversions. If your reversion was reverted you seem to have re-reverted. I have restored "religious freedom" as the text and multiple RS clearly support it (this has been a continuous policy position for years... cf. her opponent for the house seat she currently holds saying Hindus shouldn't be in Congress, for example, or search for "religious bigotry Gabbard" with the search engine of your choice). As for Snowden & Assange, I've added a less interpretive title than "privacy". I have also removed your addition of a low-quality Daily Mail Beast article talking about the 2020 campaign which was not mentioned in the entry about her campaign. Remember, the section on the campaign on her BLP is meant to be a short summary of the most salient parts of the dedicated entry and should not include trivial hit pieces not mentioned there, especially not without noting that they have been identified as such in RS. Cf. Matt Taibi. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I still think the religious freedom section is the answer to a question that nobody asked, but I will defer to other editors. I will also defer to other editors about Snowden and Assange. The material about contributions from Russia enthusiasts is important, but I can live with it being in the campaign article for now. The Daily Beast is not really a low quality source. The way you know that is WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX 🖋 20:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

pro-Russia campaign contributions and pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign

I strenuously object to this reversion and this reversion, which deletes relevant sources, introduces WP:OR, and gives prominence to two single sources over multiple other available sources. Content about the extensively reported pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaigns is completely missing and the reader is directed to conclude that Gabbard has been smeared based on the opinions of Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. The word "allegations" is tossed around, but the campaign contributions are a matter of public record and the pro-Gabbard Riussian propaganda is stated as a fact by sources. [15][16][17] It's also a 1RR violation for which I have requested self-reversion, but was rebuffed.[18]. - MrX 🖋 11:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign

For information, the paragraph added above by MrX has been discussed on the TG 2020 campaign entry. We decided to remove the NBC news story from this page in February but MrX has reinstated it against consensus. (Though I did not participate in that discussion, I agreed with the conclusion.) In addition to that NBC news story, MrX is complaining about the removal of a story from the Independent which recycled the NBC news story the same day (before it was made clear that the NY Times had discredited the group NBC News was using for the story), and adding nonsense about David Duke supporting Gabbard, which I believe has been discredited as well. The other opinion piece Mr X doesn't mention (in Vanity Fair) mentions the word "Russian" many times in the first paragraph but none of the occurrences refer to Gabbard. Only one occurrence refers to RT coverage of TG, which is not pertinent to her BLP. Finally, it is unclear what is "original research" in the addition of the Matt Taibbi / Glenn Greenwald reporting.

Further information: given that his reinstatement of material that had been removed by consensus is also a revert, Mr X was at 9RR on 19 May 2019, a fact he does not mention. Similarly, the discussion on the 2020 campaign entry suggests that contributors feel that that material should not be included over there either, but somehow MrX has not mentioned that discussion. If anyone wants to take Mr.X to WP:AE for his 9RR day, it would be justified, though it would likely be a waste of time and energy because for some reason Mr X seems to be above the law. I do not feel that we need to weaponize DS, but obviously Mr X does feel that way based on his comments above. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls please list nine discrete reverts that I made in a 24 hour period, or kindly retract your personal attack. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) of course.

Woops. Mr X was only at 8 RR on 19 May 2019 nope 9 red edits, but seems to have been at 3RR yesterday, because he only reinstated the NBC news story yesterday. All of this depends of course how you count reverts. Mr X seems to be saying that any change whatsoever to text he has ever added to the entry is a revert. MrX you are welcome to count the red items on the history page for 19 May 2019 I linked to above.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to cover the RS reporting on Russian support for her campaign, and any conflicts that exist between RS and notable opinion about the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know why SashiRolls removed it and the finance information with an edit summary "removed opinion piece following TP consensus, and stale campaign contribution data from her political positions". SashiRolls, where is the talk page consensus that we shouldn't include the pro-Russia information? - MrX 🖋 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, on the 2020 campaign entry listed above it was barely considered worthy of brief mention (by some contributors, not by others), so I assumed a higher standard would hold here. Fact is, though, I did get a bit confused between this and the last time you guys were adding smear about Russia (the NBC News article, which has also been roundly rejected on her BLP). You are giving the appearance of doing everything you can to make Gabbard's biography look bad (ignoring positive reports, & adding & amplifying every minor detail you can find that you think someone might consider negative, e.g. this one which I notice looking at your history you didn't add anywhere else). I personally "hope" it is because you dislike her candidacy, rather than because you want to play psychological games with people on the internet: but neither is a good excuse for the POV editing.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're stepping over the line again. I have scoured sources for anything about Gabbard that is not currently in the article, that does not originate directly from her campaign (like the Marie Claire source you added to the abortion section). I recently added her support for marijuana legalization, debate qualifying, campaign funding stats, and polling stats. It's not my fault that some of the material is unflattering to the subject. I've also made edits to improve citations, to link other article, to improve grammar and style, and to adjust material to more faithfully follow what independent sources have written. I pride myself on being able to collaborate with a wide range of editors who have a wide range of viewpoints, but I can't work with combative editors who spend more time berating other editors than discussing content.

I request that, from this point forward, you refrain from commenting on my motivations. If you think I'm violating policies, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, or at a noticeboard. Please keep it off article talk pages. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the #1 author of the campaign entry, and yet in all your "scouring" of sources you haven't yet found the phrase "opposes regime change" which she mentions in every interview I've ever heard, nor have you found her suggesting that the money saved from all that military action could be used for domestic issues, which she likewise mentions in every single interview. Odd, that. Here, let me help: [19], [20]. Tucker Carlson, "I predict, with certainty, that you will be attacked for what you just said." Please don't play Mr. Innocent. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The article, as it existed when I first edited it in January, already contained extensive material about her views on regime change: in the lead, in the '2017–18' section, in the 'Syria' section, and in the 'Counterterrorism' section. That's four places! Maybe you're hearing the phrase "opposes regime change" in interviews because your watching too much Tucker Carlson. I prefer using reliable sources that cover subjects objectively.- MrX 🖋 20:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't realized you'd deleted so many mentions of her main campaign point on the 2020 campaign entry. Surprised you're proud to admit that since she's used that language on ABC, on MSNBC, on Colbert, on PBS, on FoxNews, on CNN, on the campaign trail, (& of course on Joe Rogan)... and been cited using that language extensively in RS, and yet, Mr X knows better than those who had originally written the entry. As it happens, my only edits to the entry were with regard to the Daily Mail Mirror Beast smear you want to spin everywhere. I added none of the mentions you are so proud to have deleted. By the way, you should not have deleted her comments about her opposition to regime change in Venezuela from this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the following content:

According to NBC News, Gabbard's primary campaign has received support from Russian interests. Experts found that websites connected to the Shortly after her campaign launched, NBC News reported that it had received unusual coverage from Russian media,government had posted 20 or more stories on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, beyond the level of support given to any other Democratic candidate.

Replacing this with "unusual coverage from Russian media" misrepresents the source, which writes:

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.
— [21]

- MrX 🖋 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You could post the information without the tabloid phrasing. What exactly for example is a "Russian interest?" This is typical of polemical writing where there is an implicit accusation that there was quid pro quo, which is not encyclopedic writing. It's a bit like listing all the similarities between Ted Cruz and the Zodiac killer, without actually saying that Cruz is the killer. Could you assure us that inclusion does not violate policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." You can do that by showing that other mainstream media picked up on the story. Maybe we can wait until Snoogasnoogans next shift and get his opinion. TFD (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am attempting to adhere to the source while not plagiarizing it. What I wrote is substantially similar to the lede of the source article,[22] with some facts from the fourth paragraph:

Gabbard's campaign received supportive news coverage in the same Russian propaganda sources that influenced the 2016 presidential election A minimum of 20 stories ran on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, exceeding that given to any other Democratic candidate.

How would you word it differently? By the way, it was picked up other news media, including several that we liberally use in this article: The Independent, Business Insider, Honolulu Civil Beat, and of course, Rolling Stone and The Intercept also took notice.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The topic sentence of the paragraph should be related to the smear campaign. Otherwise, the smear has been rejected from her BLP previously as I pointed out in my edit summary. You can ping the people who participated in the previous discussion if you wish to discuss the matter again, but the only person who ended that discussion maintaining the position that this should be included was the sockpuppet "Dan the Plumber" who has been indefinitely blocked. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What smear campaign? Are you talking about Matt Taibbi's opinion that the NBC article is a "transparent hit piece"? He doesn't explain what motivation two NBC journalists (Robert Windrem and Ben Popken) would have for "hitting" Gabbard). Or are you referring to Glen Greenwald's opinion that the story was "a sham". Why would we trust Rolling Stone and the Intercept more than NBC and The Independent? We should simply include both points of view without choosing sides. In any case, you can explain why 1RR doesn't apply to you at WP:AE.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The one everyone knows is taking place. With regard to your edit warring and AE threats, see further: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion." I see absolutely nobody joining Dan the Plumber in dissenting from the TP consensus reached back in February. (As you can see, I did not participate in that discussion, so you would need to add my vote to it.) Of course, everyone knows that the inner cabal doesn't have to follow the rules and can bully folks around to their heart's desire. Are y'all donors? special ops? just lucky? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, You could phrase it, "After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran 20 stories favorable to her. These sources are considered to have influenced the 2016 presidential election."

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• The story is significant and can not be ignored after such wide coverage. So, I would agree with MrX. Also, this is not a smear campaign, but one of the first rounds of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, so you probably need such separate page for content like that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what policy based reason you consider it to be significant or how a story ignored by ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune has received "such wide coverage." TFD (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

I am sorry, but you are making a very strange non-policy based argument here. Something not being published in sources X,Y,Z can never be a argument for anything. Only something being published in RS X,Y,Z is the reason for inclusion per WP:NPOV. It tells: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How exactly this should be phrased on the page is another matter. Should it be a separate subsection? This is something debatable. I think this should be a separate subsection (maybe with a different title), given that the subject of the "interference" is separate and important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

An opinion published in only one major source is not significant. If you read further in weight: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" (my emphasis).One source does not a body make. TFD (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You probably forget this is not a single source, but at least six (see here), and there are more like this ref. "Major" is not a requirement. RS is. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And you probably forgot that I addressed that objection above:

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

While I very much enjoy in engaging in dialogue with you, it would be more interesting if you acknowledged my replies, rather than stating your opinion over and over again.

TFD (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Which WP policy tells it matters how many news networks US or any other country has? The policy is here, and 6-7 RS is enough to document an allegation as this policy requires. I am not saying how exactly this should be worded. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As you are well aware, one source among all the major media does not count as the body of reliable sources. Out of curiosity, do you believe that Susan Sarandon sent $500 to the Gabbard campaign because the Kremlin told her to? TFD (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: The source makes the point that the Russian sources were the same ones that were involved with the 2016 election and that the CIA considers two of them part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine." That's lost in your version. As My very best wishes points out, this is likely part of Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in U.S. elections. You ask why other major U.S. news sources haven't picked this up. Probably for the same reason that they are not covering Gabbard much at this point—because she's polling at around 1%. As such, we have to rely on less prominent sources. Thats why this article is filled with sources like West Hawaii Today (2), Hawaii News Now (5), Honolulu Civil Beat (4), Maui Now (2), Honolulu Star-Bulletin (2), KHON (5), and VoteTulsi.com (2). - MrX 🖋 11:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you believe "this is likely part of Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in U.S. elections," then your ecit should state that explicitly, rather than imply it. "After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran 20 stories favorable to her as part of an effort to interfere in the 2020 election". The problem with the source is that it makes that implication without actually stating it, which presumably why no major media picked up on it. TFD (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the comments in this section, I have edited a much shorter version of this content to address WP:WEIGHT issues, using The Four Deuces proposed wording.

After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election. Matt Taibbi, in the Rolling Stone, called the report a "smear campaign"

Hopefully this satisfies everyone as a reasonable compromise.- MrX 🖋 12:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Nowhere in either article does it say that these sources successfully influenced the election, so the second sentence fails verification. I have removed it, because it is not responsible to be saying things the articles themselves doesn't say. If people want the article to say the 3 blue-linked sites influenced the 2016 election they need to find sources actually saying that.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems to meet neutrality. At some point however we are going to have to decide how much coverage attack articles need in mainstream media before inclusion. As I mentioned, we seem to have a higher standard in Kamala Harris and I imagine in other articles. TFD (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have noted this as well and it is quite disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And now AOC (see WP:RSN#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change). TFD (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is it's not even Gabbard's fault. There's no reason to assume that she wants Russia's help with anything. Nonetheless, it's a noteworthy factor in the campaign coverage.- MrX 🖋 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But isn't the "smear campaign" the reporting by NBC and The Daily Beast?  According the The Intercept and Rolling Stone the reporting on Russia's support isn't accurate.  Shouldn't the main subject of the text at this point be about the stories themselves?  Something like: NBC and The Daily Beast reported that the same Russian sources who influenced the 2016 Presidential Election have been running stories favoring her.  The Intercept and Rolling Stone condemned the reporting for relying on a "disgraced" source, and Gabbard called it "fake news." Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think that's roughly what we have now, but the Daily Beast story is about campaign donations. I've been convinced, primarily by TFD, that we should leave the Daily Beast material out of this article. I think it's too esoteric and doesn't meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. It also muddies the other issue. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The article now refers to a "report" but leaves out what report it's referring to.  Gabbard's response to a question about the Daily Beast story is what received the most coverage, isn't it? (sorry I don't have time to look into this myself now).  Both stories are about Russia-linked support.  We don't have to get into specifics, and we only have to differentiate when we say which people criticized which stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If we provide sourced rebuttals (as we should), we should also source the claims that have been denied. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What about:

NBC News reported that the same Russian sources who influenced the 2016 Presidential Election were promoting her candidacy, and an article in The Daily Beast reported that Gabbard had received campaign contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia. Gabbard dismissed The Daily Beast story as "fake news", and journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald described allegations of Russia-linked support as deceptive and part of a smear campaign.

Neither story used the exact phrase "smear campaign". It doesn't read very well, but I think this wording makes sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The passage becomes confusing by conflating two separate accusations in two separate sources. It's not even clear that the Russian sources refers to news agencies as opposed to spies. One of the problems is the lack of attention paid to the stories in mainstream media means that we cannot provide a fair representation of the claims, which is one reason why weight dictates against including them. TFD (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we could separate the two stories, and we could simply replace "sources" with "news agencies". After a quick search I found that Business Insider reported on the NBC story and The Intercept's reaction to it.[23] ABC News reported on The Daily Beast story.[24] I think I understand your point that we can't provide a fair representation of the claims, but I think we should find a way to describe the attention around these stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If we separate the two stories, then there is no reason to change MrX's wording of the NBC accusation. TFD (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be an idea to have a separate article listing the various articles that have been run against Gabbard, beginning with "Tulsi Gabbard is not your Friend" in Jacobin and including the Daily Beast and NBC articles. Then we could provide more detail on the accusations, the other media that picked up the stories and articles written in rebuttal. TFD (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have articles like that about other candidates?  We can just expand on this in her 2020 campaign article.  I don't understand what you're saying about Mr.X's wording.  Do you mean this version? This is incomparable.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a plethora of sources (literally hundreds) stating that there is a smear campaign going on, but most of these sources are in places like fair.org, and progressive sites that will be argued not to be "reliable".🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't to my knowledge, but then none of them have attracted the same slew of attack articles. There are however numerous "Criticism of" articles. (I was referring to MrX's version at 12:10, 28 May 2019.) SashiRolls, you only need reliable sources that there is a smear campaign if you want to make a factual statement that there is a smear campaign. TFD (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This version doesn't even mention NBC and uses Wikivoice.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The just add to the first sentence "according to a report in NBC news." TFD (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What about:

According to NBC News, the same Russian news sources who interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election were promoting her candidacy. Gabbard repeated journalist Glenn Greenwald's opinion that the story was a deceptive smear.[25] An article in The Daily Beast reported that Gabbard had received campaign contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia. Gabbard dismissed The Daily Beast story as "fake news", and journalist Matt Taibbi called it and the NBC News story "hit pieces".

 Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And I would cite the National Review story which quotes the RNC's reaction.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For some reason this was removed: "These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election." with a stated reason: "remove claim which is not in either source cited. "sought to influence" / "efforts to influence" is not the same as "influenced". However, the source actually says the following:

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016."
— [26]

This directly contradicts the reason stated for removing this important material.- MrX 🖋 12:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You should be all set if you use the word "interfered" instead of "influenced".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sashi was correct to remove that sentence. When one attempts to reduce thousands of words into a couple of sentences in a BLP, and a political one at that, we must be very careful to not include anything that is easily misunderstood as is the case here. And especially true when Mike Taibbi then says the entire NBC report is a smear in the first place. If our readers want to fully understand this information they will need to read the sources. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: How could that sentence be misunderstood? It's a straightforward sentence stands on it's own. Now, the entire paragraph reads as if there was actually a smear campaign, but for unclear reasons. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I am doing my best to catch up here so sorry if I'm wrong here... On the other hand, unlike the rest of you who have been wrestling with this for some time now and understand fully what's involved, I'm more like one of our readers, in other words just trying to understand the whole story with very little previous knowledge. I'll copy what our article had:

After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election. Matt Taibbi, in the Rolling Stone, called the report a "smear campaign".

Certainly, as has (I think) been suggested it should state that the report was done by NBC, but even still why would WP throw in the fact re Russia's support for Trump? While it may well or most likely was her stance on Syria, IMO we can't just make the Trump election statement without some sort of explanation. And then one gets into one of those WP instances where the devil's in the details, and unable to go into the details it is best to let the reader read the sources. I think...though I certainly am open to changing my mind on this.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think should be in the article?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Very good question Kolya. Actually I'm still trying to gather my thoughts/opinions and am not yet sure. Like the rest of you (I would assume) I am also working on other difficult articles and need to be able to spend the time to catch up on this one. Right now this one is not at the top of my priority list. At any rate, I will tag along as best as I can. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the definition of innuendo is: "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature."[27] It presents a problem when reporting it in an encyclopedia, because there the writing should be direct and explicit. The only way we can do that is either through original research or use of secondary sources. Trump for example never claimed Obama was not born in the U.S. but asked why he had not provided a copy of his birth certificate. However, we had reliable secondary sources that interpreted what he was doing. TFD (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm not seeing a policy based reason for omitting a this basic fact that he source itself made a point to highlight. The fact that RT, Sputnik, and other Russian media were part of the election interference by Russia is a widely-reported and widely-accepted fact. I don't think we should put ourselves in the position of assuming that readers are not able to understand something so basic, or click though to the sources. By the way, Russia's support for Trump was never in this article.- MrX 🖋 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you explain what you are referring to as something so basic that readers are supposed to understand? TFD (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot follow this conversation.... Is my suggestion on 16:19, 29 May 2019, acceptable? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is to me, but I think other editors would push back on covering the Daily Beast article at all.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: That Russian media websites were used to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The subject has been covered extensively in English language sources on the seven continents. Any readers wanting to take a deep dive can click through to the main article.- MrX 🖋 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

But that is already clear in the various versions presented. What relevance does it have to the stories about Gabbard? TFD (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it was taken out. The relevance is established in the source. I hope we're talking about the same thing, because I'm a bit confused by your comment.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD, the NBC story is precisely about how the "Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election" was promoting Gabbard. Are you ok with my 16:19, 29 May 2019 suggested version? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And NBC is the same network that ran Seinfeld, although you don't include that. What is the connection? TFD (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to sound bad faith. What is your question? What is the connection between what and what? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the connection between they "tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election" and they promoted Gabbard when she announced her candidacy? TFD (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward? The NBC story is saying that the "propaganda machine" that tried to influence the 2016 election is now trying to influence the 2020 election by promoting Gabbard. We can make that more clear in my suggestion by replacing "interfered" with "tried to influence". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But it's not straightforward. What is the relevance to them being a propaganda machine to their reporting on Gabbard? TFD (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of the NBC story? It seems straightforward to me, so I need to understand your understanding of the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In my interpretation, the NBC writers are implying that the Russians are running positive stories about Gabbard as part of an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. Do you agree or do you think there is another reason why they mention Russian interference in the 2016 election? TFD (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

How is that different from what I said at 01:51? I don't understand what our disagreement is. Can you rewrite my suggestion using your interpretation of the NBC story so I can see the difference? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't re-write your text because I don't know what it means. Can you please explain the relevance of Russian owned media being a propaganda machine to their reporting on Gabbard? If it has no relevance, then it does not belong in the article. I believe that you think it is relevant because you believe that the Russians are running positive stories about Gabbard as part of an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. Am I right or wrong? TFD (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the meaning of my text is intended to have the same meaning as the NBC News article story which it summarizes. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to highlight between my text and the NBC story. I don't personally believe anything about what the Russians are or are not doing; I am describing a news story that was reported on by RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, it sounds like you disagree with how NBC covered the story. It's perfectly natural that they would mention the 2016 events, given the scope of the article. To answer your earlier questions about relevance and connections, the article says "Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.". The connection is that Russia is promoting one candidate, while given other candidates perfunctory coverage. That also happened in 2016. That's the connection and the relevance. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Several experts..." - so I take it that you do not agree with Taibbi's contention that the so-called "experts" were hardly experts at all, to say the least? Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a direct quote showing what the article says, not an opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not go out of your way to treat other editors as though they are not capable of editing this article due to stupidity. Guess what, I know that it's a direct quote because MrX said it was a direct quote. Easy as eating pie. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I neither agree or disagree with any of the sources about the experts, and I'm not equipped to determine who's right. When there are two major viewpoints, the best we can do is represent both in the article, without adding our own conclusions. I think we have done that. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is conceivable (or even likely) that Russian propaganda may prefer certain candidates or simply intends to stir the pot, the noteworthisness in encyclopedic biographies seems somewhat questionable to me and as well as insinuated framing of it "inappropriate" influencing in general. One might ask the following question. Do we mention in the biography of other politicians their treatment in Russian funded English speaking media? Would we consider largely negative or positive description of US politicians in other international English speaking news channels (BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera English, press tv, Chinese and Indian news outlets, ...) as an attempt to influence US election? Noteworthy of mentioning in the concerned biographies? Or to pick an rather polemic example: Would we consider the (justifiable) largely negative reporting on Donald Trump by the BBC or Al Jazeera English as an attempt by the UK and Qatar to influence the US elections (say Fox but hardly anybody else would carry such a story concerning "iappropriate" British and Qatari influence on US elections due to their press coverage)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We aren't writing about Russian propaganda preferring a candidate; we're writing about a news story about Russian propaganda preferring a candidate which was widely reported on. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I could from following the discussion so far (without doing any extensive research on my own) the "widely reported" of yours is being disputed above as well as the noteworthiness of the whole thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh, yes we would mention such coverage if another low-polling candidate were receiving disproportionate coverage in Russian media that was reported by a major news organization after they consulted with experts. For example, if Cory Booker or Any Klobuchar were suddenly the subject of flattering coverage in RT and Sputnik, and the Washington Post wrote and an article about it, there's a pretty good possibility that it would be included in their bio. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

So we would mention it only in the case of low polling candidates and Russian funded media? That logic escapes me. Also above was suggested that the Washington Post did not carry that story. So was that mistake or has changed in the meantime?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It was disputed that Russia's alleged support of Gabbard was widely reported; I don't believe it's in dispute that the NBC story was widely reported on. In addition to the sources already discussed,The Chicago Tribune[28] discussed it. The aren't many stories devoted solely to Gabbard around this time, but this story was covered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, that was my point. The polling is largely a phenomenon of name recognition at this point. There is relatively little coverage about Gabbard compared with Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, etc., so any major stories about Gabbard will tend to stand out from the coverage in the local Hawaii press.- MrX 🖋 14:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the Chicago Tribune did not discuss it, it was mentioned in a column published in the Chicago Tribune. (Read News organizations if you do not understand the difference between news and opinion.) "Widely reported" does not mean ignored by news reporting in ABC, CBC, CNN, Fox, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. It doesn't mean whatever appears in your daily news aggregator. TFD (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, it was "discussed in" The Chicago Tribune.  This is one of the only articles about her in The Chicago Tribune around that time.  We may have a different definition of "widely covered", but the point is that this is how she has been covered in RS.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided a link and asked you read it. Here is the relevant text: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content....Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." By the way there is a difference between "discussed by" and "discussed in." Columns published by newspapers do not necessarily represent the views of the newspaper. Rachel Marsden, who wrote the column published in the Chicago Tribune is not the Chicago Tribune. It does not establish weight, the most you can say is that someone whose opinions you have absolutely no interest in mentioned the NBC article. TFD (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, that's why I acknowledged that I should have said "discussed in". I don't know what you're talking about. We're not discussing establishing the weight of an opinion, we're discussing whether to include the coverage of the NBC article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the NBC article or anything else is included in the article is determined by its weight, which is one of the major content policies. TFD (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop explaining basic policies to me. Like I said, we're not discussing establishing the weight of an opinion; we're discussing whether to give [weight] to the NBC article, if that makes it clearer. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for establishing the weight of an opinion and the weight of a story are exactly the same and are included in the subsection of Due and undue weight called Balancing aspects. In case you cannot follow the link, it says,

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

TFD (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fact check: smear campaign

Can someone point out where in the Rolling Stone article [29] Matt Taibbi calls the NBC story a "smear campaign"? I see that he calls it a "hit piece". Then he talks about Howard Dean, and refers to the Dean scream coverage as "these smear jobs". I think we need to rectify this. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Exhibit A:

• She’s Exhibit A of a disturbing new media phenomenon that paints people with the wrong opinions as not merely “controversial,” but vehicles of foreign influence. source

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm only looking for the part of the article that says NBC's report was a "smear campaign". - MrX 🖋 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you have a point: based on the above, and strictly speaking, we would need to use "paint" campaign with a redirect to smear campaign. Perhaps we could add a link to the Liberty Paint factory chapter in Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Maybe Quantic's "Bomb in a Trumpet Factory" could be on the soundtrack. Flight of the Cosmic Hippo, too. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. No reason to leave a misquote in the article while we're waiting to form a consensus on the rest of the paragraph. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That solves the problem.- MrX 🖋 14:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, this was resolved until SashiRolls restored the false information in violation of WP:V. I even included the source passage in my edit summary, but that was ignored for some reason.

A transparent hit piece came out as Gabbard was announcing her run. NBC reported “the Russian propaganda machine” is “now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.

- MrX 🖋 12:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the person you reverted (i.e. not me) referred you to the discussion of Taibbi referring to today's "smear jobs". Reminder: "paint as" terrible and write "transparent hit pieces" about are synonyms for "smear"... cf.  [30]🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote "smear job" is now removed, which corrects the clear policy violation.  I do think that the direct quote "hit piece" is better than us characterizing his controversial remarks, even though smear is a perfectly appropriate characterization.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, MrX has complained about my removal of their false "not in source" tag, so in order to be a rule-follower I have had to reinstate something false. Feel free to correct it. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The text reads "Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept and Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone identified the report as being smear." Not only is that really poor writing, it misrepresents the source. "identified" carries the implication of authority, and while Greenwald did accuse NBC of smearing Gabbard, Taibbi avoided calling the report a smear. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only is that really poor writing, it's misrepresents the source. Cf. Tarage's 2nd law for the grammatical mistake. For the "substance", I hope that my telling you "you are wrong" will not be construed as any sort of personal attack, because you are wrong about what you have said: both articles say without any ambiguity that the NBC article is smear. You can find a lot more sources saying the same thing. 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then a direct quote should be used for now.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a direct quote from one of the sources should satisfy everyone. I would also be willing to explore something along the lines of "Taibbi and Greenwald were critical of the NBC report". However, "identified as [a] smear" is not acceptable in my view.- MrX 🖋 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added direct quotes per your suggestion. Insofar as both call the article smear, but we do not yet have unanimous consensus to use the English word for what is described, it seemed wisest to quote both opinions, so any nuances between their positions could be evaluated.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like these edits at all. There's way too much from Taibbi and Greenwald (or at least those specific quotes are poor choices). Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to capture the gist, not the detailed opinions of Taibbi and Greenwald. The two main viewpoints about this should be roughly equally balanced (which I have stated before, and no one has disagreed, AFAICT). - MrX 🖋 00:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I probably already asked you this, but doesn't my 16:19, 29 May 2019 suggestion...pretty much address all the points in our discussion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

For the most part I believe that this edit is appropriate. If you're going to mention such controversial matter based on one opinion of a couple of NBC journalists it needs to be addressed by better-known commentators such as Greenwald and Taibbi if they object to it. On wikipedia we sometimes need to bend over backwards to avoid bias in our articles, as is the case here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Are you saying that we should give Taibbi and Greenwald's opinions higher weight because (according to you) they are better-known? If so, that doesn't fly with our policies. I don't think we are in a position as editors to judge who's reporting is right and who's is wrong. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.- MrX 🖋 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed Taibbi's comments, hopefully that will satisfy your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Partially, and thank you. I see a bit more opportunity to trim or adjust. I'm bothered by a quote with an ellipsis in the middle of it.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's what we've got--what would you change?

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New Knowledge] [...] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm’s CEO just got caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."

Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized NBC's use of cybersecurity firm New Knowledge as a source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.[31]

Greenwald's comment about "fabricating Russian troll accounts" is over the top, so we should note his criticism, but lean on the NYT for the actual description of what New Knowledge did.- MrX 🖋 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the NYT. Sashi made the BOLD edit--Sashi, what do you think? IMO the bold edit is confusing and needs work but I'm not sure "participated in an experiment" is critical enough, though again I can't read the NYT information so am not sure... Gandydancer (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls is currently blocked. You should be able to read the NYT article here.- MrX 🖋 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for calling an edit dishonest, which is apparently not allowed even if what you call "dishonest" really was demonstrably so. Oh well, not the first time I've been blocked for pointing out an inconvenient truth. ^^ With regard to your question, Gandydancer, the NYT cites the New Knowledge report verbatim as follows in the link above:  We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 11:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote can also be found in the The Intercept story.  And SashiRolls, let's not come back from a block immediately being dishonest.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sad to say MrX, but it is not working for me. I went back and forth several times and got just snips of the article. (On a personal note, I am retired and on a limited income and for my work here I have picked WaPo to pay for. I've brought this pay-for-view problem up on Jimbo's talk page several times where it has been brushed off... Perhaps not enough editors that work on the basic nuts and bolts of our endeavor. Use only RS say our WP guidelines, but if you are blocked from reaching them, oh well...) Anyway, frustrated I googled the CEO and found this [32] Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's weird. I have no problem accessing NYT articles, maybe because I don't accept cookies and I have uBlock origin and Privacy Badger plugins. Sometimes, you can access such content by disabling javascript in your browser or changing your user agent to Googlebot, or both. I am also able to access some newspapers online by logging into my public library account. Wikipedia does have several programs for providing editors with access to paywalled content. If you need more info, stop by my talk page.- MrX 🖋 18:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK I will stop by your page when time permits. Anyway, I did do a lot of reading on her and it is my impression that Russia would indeed support her as compared to the others that are running. Even still I have reservations about using NBC journalists as a source. On the other hand, I know you to be a cautious and fair editor and I'm comfortable with using your wording if it is agreeable to others here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, and I can also post excerpts from the NYT article here if you like. Kolya Butternut and anyone else: what do think of the proposed text in green as replacement for the Greenwald quote?- MrX 🖋 14:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question, but my concern is how this compares to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Allegations of Russian support. I feel like what we write here should be the same but less detailed, but the proposed edits are different information. Maybe would should work on that article section first? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve this wording issue. If you still think that we need to add the Daily Beast material here, or remove it from the campaign article, that's worth discussing (or just be bold). But it shouldn't impede improving the wording about Greenwald's criticism of the NBC article, which is what I'm trying to accomplish now. As you can see from the article history, both articles had the same content when I added the material, and it has since morphed due to back and forth editing. So what should we do?- MrX 🖋 02:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just read the other entry for the first time and I'm surprised that you find it acceptable. I'm very surprised in fact. Gandydancer (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX, your proposed text is much better than the Greenwald quote, but I wouldn't include anything about New Knowledge here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized NBC's use of a cybersecurity firm as a source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.[33]

- MrX 🖋 16:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, why get into the details at all?  We could just say Greenwald condemned the piece which relied on a source which he stated was "discredited".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

But why mention the NBC article at all, when it was ignored by other mainstream media? The purpose of articles is not to provide stuff we think is important but professionals do not, except in articles about fringe topics. TFD (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed this. It's not that mainstream media are ignoring this particular story about her; it's that there just aren't that many stories devoted to her in the mainstream media. What other stories devoted to her that have been left out of this article do you think should be given weight? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite what policy supports your argument? If there are insufficient sources to write a fair article, the solution is to submit to articles for deletion. I note by the way that google news returns 76,200 hits for "tulsi gabbard"'[34] I think there are sufficient sources to write a neutral article. She is not exactly obscure. Anyway, if you want to ignore the policy of neutrality for this article, then you cannot use the same policy to keep out stuff you don't agree with. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like your comment is not responsive to mine. Let me put it another way: there is no policy that states something should only be given weight if it is reported in mainstream media. There are not many stories about her which meet your criteria of being covered by every single major news source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy says articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Something that is only mentioned in one major news network and ignored in major print media does not satisfy this criterion. Policy does not list every possible situation, because one assumes that editors will use reasonable judgment in interpreting them. Stormfront for example is a reliable source for the opinions of its writers. That does not mean that every opinion expressed there should be copied into every article about every subject on which they opine. Is there a policy that says an opinion expressed in only one source lacks weight? No. But one assumes that editors will use judgment in applying policy. TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That's obviously an incorrect interpretation of policy. The policy is about the body of reliable sources, it has nothing to do with "major news networks and major print media". When you say "an opinion expressed in only one source" it sounds like you're only including "major" sources as reliable sources. What is an example of a story about her campaign (other than her announcement itself) that met your criteria of being covered in all or most major media? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess we have a difference of interpretation as to what "the body of" means. To me it means a subtantial munber if not most of the major sources. To you, it means one major source and a one or two minor ones out of numerous minor sources. Or what do you think it means? TFD (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of [RS] on the subject". Media which do not report on the subject are not included in "the body of" RS. So, that leaves my question, what is an example of a story about her campaign (other than her announcement itselft) that met your criteria of being covered in all or most sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is actually about Tulis Gabbard, there is a separate article about her campaign where we can discuss your novel interpretation of weight. I note that CBS News has run 35 stories that mention Gabbard since she declared her candidacy[35] most if not all of which present news that probably is also reported in every other mainstream source. TFD (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you're focused on my lack of precision where I'm conflating a topic within an article with the "subject" of an article, but there is nothing "novel" about the interpretation that "the body of [RS] on the subject" refers to... RS on the subject.

None of those CBS stories after her campaign announcement are devoted to her besides the ones about her campaign announcement. The stories that "mention" her certainly may contain the most notable information, but other notable information will be found in less prominent RS. It does make sense to have this conversation at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss that in the article about her campaign. In this article, if you believe that her campaign has received almost no coverage in mainstream media, then the solution is to cut back on it. As policy says, articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body." If sources provide very little coverage of her campaign in relation to articles about her overall, then so should this article. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss what information is included about her 2020 campaign in Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but how much information about her campaign is in this article is a separate discussion we can have here. Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Her campaign has received plenty of coverage in "mainstream" reliable sources, but yes, we can discuss her campaign's relative coverage to the other topics in this article after we decide what information is included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be going backwards in this discussion. I believe we have already established that his material should be covered in this article. We were discussing specific wording. From what I can tell, no one has made the argument that that Greenwald's broken quote is better than the paraphrased version that I proposed several days ago, so I have made the change. - MrX 🖋 11:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, most of us have. The paraphrased version is better, I'm just questioning why we should get into the weeds here about why people believe the source is discredited. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"None of those CBS stories after her campaign announcement are devoted to her besides the ones about her campaign announcement....Her campaign has received plenty of coverage in "mainstream" reliable sources...." So her campaign has received no coverage beyond her announcement yet has received plenty of coverage at the same time. It's difficult to argue with you when you use different sets of facts depending on what point you choose to argue. TFD (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That would only be confusing if you completely ignored all context. What you describe as "major" "mainstream" media sources, e.g. CBS, is different from what I describe as mainstream media sources, i.e. reliable sources, which I have repeatedly discussed and even highlighted in bold above. The semantics argument is a distraction, and so is continuing this conversation here. It sounded like we agreed to discuss the content at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but you have not replied there. This is feeling like bad faith POV pushing. You have a legitimate argument over how much weight to give these topics, but you are instead arguing over my use of the word "mainstream" which you claim to have made it "difficult" to argue with me. Let's go to the other talk page and discuss this in good faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but did not check the campaign talk page yet. But let's keep each discussion separate. You are saying that Gabbard's campaign has received very little coverage in mainstream sources, which is understandable considering that we are early in the race and her polling numbers are low. To me, policy dictates that we provide little coverage to her campaign in this article, in accordance with its weight in the body of reliable sources about Tulsi Gabbard. Do you agree with that? Sorry, are you saying that CBS News is not a mainstream source? TFD (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If the misunderstanding is around the word "mainstream", I suggest we not use that word. I prefer to use words which are used in policy, i.e., "reliable sources." This conversation surrounds her campaign so we should move it to her campaign article. There we can discuss what to include, here we can discuss how much of that information to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire & the Daily Caller on Artsakh

So far, I don't think anybody's tried to post the Mirror or the Mail. I notice that a new section has been created on Azerbaijan / Artsakh / Armenia. An interesting article is here that could provide counterbalance to the current sourcing. Thoughts about sourcing a BLP to these opinion pieces from the Daily Wire and the Daily Caller? Thoughts about doing so without presenting Gabbard's point of view?

Does anyone know Asbarez? It seems to have nearly 400 cites @ en.wp 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 22:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you saying about The Daily Beast, etc?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That most reliable papers don't have "Daily" in their title. Any comment on the main question?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Asbarez is a newspaper ran by the Armenian diaspora in the United States. Would that not make it a partisan source given that the Armenian National Committee of America organised Gabbard's trip to Nagorno-Karabakh in the first place? Besides, it does not seem like any other source confirms what Asbarez claims Gabbard said during her visit. I added that paragraph making sure not to quote any Azerbaijani or Armenian news agencies exactly for reliability concerns over this highly sensitive matter. Parishan (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire and the Daily Caller are not usable per WP:BLPSOURCES, and they should be avoided for any article unless the topic is related to the publications or third-party coverage about something they published. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted and removed. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, in point of fact, it wasn't removed. I have removed it now. What follows is the text that was in the article, sourced only to the Daily Wire and with no mention of the Republic of Artsakh (the article was written by the head of the Salomon Center) (The .az site does not mention Gabbard at all, of course.) To get an idea about the other side of the story, you might want to look at the report prepared for Christian Solidarity International by Baroness Caroline Cox & John Eibner, "Ethnic cleansing in Progress: War in Nagorno Karabakh" (link)

In 2017, during a visit to Armenia, Gabbard and two other members of the House of Representatives made a side trip to Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-majority breakaway region of Azerbaijan controlled by Armenian forces since the declaration of its independence in the early 1990s and a war that has resulted in mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azeris from the area. Azerbaijan, whose sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized by all UN member states, has introduced a law barring foreigners from entering Nagorno-Karabakh through Armenia, with which it remains at war, considering such acts a violation of the country's visa policy. While in the region, Gabbard met with local legislators, which Azerbaijan authorities saw as "a provocation aimed at undermining efforts of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, including the United States, in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Gabbard was subsequently declared persona non grata in Azerbaijan and blacklisted for any future trips to the country.

References

Does anyone think this should go back in the article? If so, does anyone have decent sources? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)