Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign

Announcement date

I'd argue that we should consider January 11, 2019 to have been the date the campaign was announced, not January 17. That is more accurately the date of her official launch. Look at Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, we consider the April 12 video announcement to have been the date she announced her campaign not the June 13, 2015 campaign launch rally. SecretName101 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Issues

I would like to propose we add a section regarding Tulsi's stances on the issues from her campaign issue website tulsigabbard.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmontana (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Pacific Islander?

Would Tulsi Gabbard in fact be the first Pacific Islander as president, given that Barack Obama was born in Hawaiʻi?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Michael J: Gabbard is ethnically Samoan. Obama is of African and European ancestry, he may have been born in a Pacific Island but he is not of Pacific Islander ethnic origin. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tulsi Gabbard Official Photo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces

Should we include the Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces here? I've removed the Daily Beast article from her BLP as it is more concerned with her campaign, but has not yet been deemed sufficiently notable to add here. The text was as follows:

The campaign drew attention after The Daily Beast reported that it had received contributions from several individuals sympathetic to Russia and Vladimir Putin, including Stephen F. Cohen and an RT employee. Gabbard called the story fake news.

References

I'll dig up the NBC hit piece (& rebuttal) if anyone thinks the smear campaign should be covered in an encyclopedia. Will it be relevant in 10 years? ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a section to cover the smear campaign. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things: they are not hit pieces. They are factual reporting, which you have errantly described as allegations. How is it that a report by a reputable source, picked up by other reputable sources, is a hit piece and "smear", when two opinion articles, apparently ignored by other reputable sources, is just fine?- MrX 🖋 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen contributed $1,100 dollars to TULSI NOW. In 2017-2018 he donated $10,800 to Warren campaigns, $4,000 for Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, $2,700 for FRIENDS OF SHERROD BROWN, $1,250 for Congressman Andy Kim, $1,000 for Congresswomam Nanette Barragán and $500 for Sam Jammal, a former Obama official in an unsuccessful bid for Congress.[1]

Contrary to the claim made in the Daily Beast, Cohen is not a professor at NYU but is retired. He is a contributing editor to The Nation, which is edited by his wife. It's misleading polemical writing disguised as journalism that Wikipedia was a policy of weight. One or two misleading articles are insufficient for inclusion. "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."

So someone with a record of making dozens of contributions to Democratic candidates over the years made a relatively small donation to another Democratic candidate in 2019. No wonder the story has been ignored by mainstream media. And I note that even in highly polemical sources, that the information is not being used against any of the other politicians to whose campaigns he contributed.

I note that Snooganssnoogans valiantly defends Warren on her article's talk page. ("When recounting the family lore about Native American ancestry, Warren said that her "aunt Bea" remarked that they had high cheekbones like Bea believed Native Americans had. You want this trivia included in the article? With a description of Warren as someone who espouses racism?") I recommend they show consistency across articles, regardless of the party line.

TFD (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Elizabeth Warren campaign article, nor would I support suppressing unflattering information about her, but I believe the native American controversy predates her campaign. The Daily Beast erred by omitting the word "emeritus" in describing Cohen, but that's not really that important anyway. Notably, he has been vocal in his pro-Russia views and his support of Gabbard.[2]

If I understand correctly, you seem to object to this material because you think that the sources (more than just a couple) are not treating Gabbard fairly. That viewpoint is already represented by the Intercept and Rolling Stone, but it doesn't diminish the many more sources about contributions from pro-Russia sympathizers, Gabbard's stance on Syria, and the pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign. Are you suggesting that we leave this out? That would reduce this article to little more than a campaign brochure. - MrX 🖋 11:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No I do not and never have objected to material because it treats a subject unfairly. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what coverage is fair or not, but to follow policy which 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."

We are discussing an article about contributions to Gabbard's campaign, not Syria.

Obviously Snooganssnoogans has a different editing history from you, but compare your treatment of this topic with Hillary Clinton. When someone wants]ed to add information about Clinton's role in mass incarceration, you wrote, "I'm suspicious of the timing of this "research" that comes out more than 15 years after the fact. I think it overstates Hillary's influence, and is largely the opinion of one person.... I never said the article was an opinion piece, however, the author makes a number of conclusions colored with her opinion." (19 Feb. 2016) We should not use different rules for different people.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that we should not use different rules for different people, I don't think the correction needs to occur here. There is not a great deal of coverage in the media about Gabbard. The Russia angle stands out in the coverage about her, so it's hard to ignore whether it's fair or not. There seem to be two main points of view: (1) she has taken positions viewed as favorable to Russia, so Russia and Russia's surrogates tend to support her, and (2) the media is unfairly smearing her with undue coverage about #1. Point two should be covered in this article (and probably the bio), but with proportionally less volume to reflect its coverage in the press. My main concern now is not so much about how the content in this article is written (although it can be improved). My objections is calling the campaign contributions and Russian propaganda "allegations", a characterization that is not in widespread use in sources, and thus should not be made in Wikipedia's voice, if at all.

I remember writing that comment about Clinton's fairly minor role in mass incarceration and I still stand by that view. By contrast, the viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant to this article. - MrX 🖋 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Are you claiming Gabbard has a role (other than being anti-interventionist) in how she is being reported? You seem to be suggesting there is a "tit for tat" (quid pro quo) relationship. Could you provide a reference for that claim? Thanks.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has articulated positions that many view as pro-Russian, so in that respect, she has a role, although it may be unwitting. Unfortunately, she probably hurt her credibility by calling it fake news.- MrX 🖋 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to limit the depth of coverage, but there's mentions from ABC, and CNN, in addition to the sources already mentioned. It's garnered enough coverage that we can also mention Gabbard's response and the criticisms of the reporting from Taibbi and Greenwald. Nblund ^talk 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me restoring your remark to level 1, since you are responding to the original question. Feel free to restore your original threading if you really feel it necessary. I would like an answer from Mr X concerning their claim of a "tit for tat" relationship with Russia. I want to know if he has evidence or if it was just gratuitous. I appreciated your edits of my copy Nblund... your text is much better. Thanks. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact there is a great deal of media coverage about Tulsi Gabbard, it's just that there is more coverage about each and every other candidate who has qualified for the debates. Google News returns 82,400 articles about her,[3] which is less than John Hickenlooper for example at 93,700 articles[4] or Kamala Harris with 7,340,000 hits. We have to decide what information to add and what to omit. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a policy called Balancing aspects, which provides assistance: "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."

That means that stories ignored in mainstream media should be ignored. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Daily Beast has been found to be ""largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons." The site's role is to provide positive information about people it likes and negative information about people it doesn't with very ittle regard for the fairness of its reporting. With 82 thousand articles about Gabbard, there is no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Whether the fact that 3 out of 80,000+ contributers to Gabbard had said positive things about Russia is more important than Clinton supporting mass incarceration is easy to establish by the degree of coverage. Politifact for example has an article about it.[5] Hillary campaigned for her husband in 1996 and spoke in support of the crime bill ("we have to bring them to heel.")

Sorry, but could you explain your "quid pro quo" comment or strike it out as a BLP violation.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote apparent quid pro quo, meaning that the sources imply an apparent quid pro quo. The references cited establish that perception quite clearly. For example "But Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria." and "RT began defending Gabbard as soon as she announced." - MrX 🖋 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the Legal Dictionary, quid pro quo means "The mutual consideration that passes between two parties to a contractual agreement, thereby rendering the agreement valid and binding."[6] Nowhere in the Daily Beast article is it claimed that there was an agreement between Tulsi Gabbard and the three donors. The fact the article left you with that false impression shows how effective it is. TFD (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we both know that I wasn't using the term in a legal sense. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign

Are any of the following considered RS?

fair.org (in 595 en.wp entries) : [7]

Counterpunch (in 2057 en.wp entries): [8]

Real Clear Politics (in 1766 en.wp articles): [9]

Joe Rogan Experience (1.8 million views, posted 10 days ago): [10]:

There are a lot more, but these are a few of the more obvious ones. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You can check at Perennial sources and then search rs to see what other editors think. They are certainly reliable sources for the opinions expressed in them. I would rather avoid however posting accusations in dubious sources about Gabbard, then rebutting them with other opinion pieces. And note I am consistent with this policy based view regardless of the subject and their views. If editors could agree to rely on using sources in mainstream publications and stories and opinions that have been reported across them, then we have a chance to have a reasonable article. TFD (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this link! In fact, I had only seen your preceding post where you mention Perennial sources as an "edit conflict" at first. (sorry) It's interesting how few sources are mentioned on that page, but I guess there have only been so many discussions at RS/N. While I'm not sure I share your optimism about the mainstream/corporate media, it's true there are one or two dissident billionaires out there. ^^ Comparing this en.wp page's number of views to the number of views of the interview with TG on the Joe Rogan show, it looks like maybe a lot of people are not entirely satisfied with the corporate media echo chamber. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why a broad question about reliable sources is under the heading smear campaign. In any case, the question in unanswerable without knowing the context of the proposed content. In general though, those seem to be low-to-very-low- quality sources.- MrX 🖋 21:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

All the articles or videos cited talk in one way or another about a DNC/media campaign to marginalize Gabbard. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then no, those would not be reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

User:SashiRolls recently reverted my entire edit based on a single WikiLink. Before I get into an edit war, I'd like for him or her to explain why he or she reverted the entire edit instead of simply removing a link. The edit contained a number of improvements to the article other than the link.

To be quite frank, SashiRolls, you seem like you're biased in favor of Gabbard and trying to defend her. You seem determined to prove that it's all just a "smear campaign" against her. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your politics. I don't believe that you are editing with with the intention to truly improve the article, but rather, simply "defend" Gabbard. In my view, the article already does a good job of expressing neutrality. The word "allegations" inherently expressed that the claims are not verified, there is a mention of journalists accusing the media of a smear campaign, etc. The fact that you're trying to find all these obscure, unreliable sources that accuse the DNC of trying to sabotage Gabbard (which sounds like a blatant conspiracy theory) indicates to me that you want to try to protect her reputation. Silver181 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not need links to Russian media outlets on the page. Everyone knows what Sputnik, RT, etc. are. We do not POV-push DNC-conspiracy theories here. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL! You're accusing me of pushing a DNC narrative by adding links to news outlets, which is common practice? You are literally admitting your bias with this comment. This is Wikipedia. You have absolutely no proof that there are "DNC conspiracy theories" afoot. YOU are the one pushing conspiracy theories that the DNC is trying to sabotage Gabbard.

I can say with near certainty that you are not editing in good faith. You are editing to protect Gabbard's reputation. I do not believe that you can be trusted to edit this article further without incorporating your bias into your edits. Stop trying to politicize the article.

Also, I like how you didn't address at all the other improvements that I made to the article. Nice job at dodging my actual question and immediately jumping to accusing me of being a DNC shill. Silver181 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should link the Russia media articles as is standard practice. I dispute that everyone knows what they are. I support Silver181's version as on overall improvement to the article. I think it's unreasonable to disparage the DNC or to refer to what's reported in reliable sources as a conspiracy theory.- MrX 🖋 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave AmPol2 to the trolls. Adding big blue-links to Russian media entries is obviously not standard practice, except for folks like Cirt (and others in his cabal). It is rhetoric. Ciao. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you would assume good faith and try to work collaboratively with other editors, we could improve this article with minimal heat. It is common practice to wikilink to other articles with the exception of very common terms. I'm trying to understand why you view it as issue, or if you have an policy-based argument for why we should not link RT (which could be anything) or Sputnik (which could be a satellite).- MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rhetorical blue highlighting and bad faith: a primer

You asked what a rhetorical blue-link is, MrX. In the first sentence of this paragraph the brand new journalist Silver181 added a blue link to the word "support" that directs the reader to "cyberwarfare by Russia". This is a tactic eerily similar to what Cirt & the gang were using while astroturfing their dozens of book review reviews about Trump. (further examples here). This page is such a textbook example, I'll add it to my textbook. Bravo, in particular, for the "Policies" section where whoever it was managed to make the first highlighted words under policy be "legalization of recreational cannibas" and "decriminalization of sex work". According to en.wp, these are TG's most important policies. Where did that sex work bit come from? Buzzfeed. And who added that blue link?

Either you, MrX, or Silver181 has also reverted my correction of a citation error "accidentally" introduced by the latter: Greenwald has not debunked the Beast article as they rewrote the entry to say: he & Taibbi debunked the NBC News article. I also tried to fix for the second time the silly claim that we can source TG calling the NBC News article "fake news" to the NBC News article itself. Such trolling is why I think I'd be better off keeping my sanity and leaving AmPol to the regulars (like Cirt / Tarc / etc.) Cf. WP:GNAT (Give No Aid to Trolls). ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Mate, no offense, but you've got a bit of a persecution complex going on. I'd rather not discuss my personal politics here, but since you're clearly implying that I'm some sort of neoliberal troll who's out to get Gabbard, I'll just say this: I consider myself to be left-wing and a progressive. I agree with Gabbard on many issues and I do believe that the media is exaggerating the extent of Russian support for Gabbard. I have no idea who "Cirt" is, either. Regardless, I would consider the link that I added to "support" to be accurate in this instance; if the allegations are true, that would be cyberwarfare. I'm also not sure what you're getting at when you say things like "whoever it was" with the policy section. Are you implying that I'm trying to make Gabbard seem like some looney by putting cannabis and prostitution policies there? I wasn't the one who put the crime section first, nor was I the one who added the info about sex work and cannabis. Silver181 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Cf. wp:tag team

1) I am not your mate. 2) Cf. sources & methods Chapter 1 is gaslighting the opposition.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, first, let me add that I also take offense to your characterization of me as a "brand new journalist". Firstly, I'm not a journalist. I believe that my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to try to state unbiased facts, not tabloid journalism. Secondly, my account is almost six months old and has over two hundred edits. I'm not some troll that created an account yesterday just to vandalize. Also, if you're trying to suggest that I'm a sock puppet of "Cirt", then... I don't even know what to say. Why would this "Cirt" create an account six months ago and readily make edits with it just to spread "conspiracies" about Tulsi Gabbard that first started circulating, what, a week ago? That would be some incredible foresight on Cirt's part.

Secondly, I'm just using "mate" in the same way that one would use "dude" or "man".

Thirdly, you're... accusing me of gaslighting now? That just proves my point about the persecution complex. You're assuming that I'm "out to get you" for some reason. If you want proof that I'm left-wing, look at my edit history. Notice how almost all, if not all, of the political pages that I've edited have been about Democrats? Silver181 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say I thought you were the CIRT.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this needs such an inflammatory heading, but let me attempt to respond to your concerns. The link to cyberwarfare by Russia is not unreasonable, but not ideal per WP:EGG. I don't know Cirt, but if you have concerns about sock puppetry, SPI is the place you oughta be.

Concerning the material under crime, I don't see a major issue, but I do think the content I wrote under 'Marijuana' was more informative. Silver181 can you explain why you removed the detail about the bill?

The word "debunk/debunked" is not the article, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Gabbard did dismiss the reporting about pro-Russia contributions as fake news, which is accurately reflected in the article. Am I missing something?- MrX 🖋 20:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote: I don't know Cirt, which is just really funny since you worked so closely with them on so many articles: (interaction analyzer).~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Sagecandor! Yes, he was a good editor. I wonder why I haven't seen him around lately.- MrX 🖋 20:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought that the marijuana thing was just leftover from an old edit. Didn't realize that you just added it. I can merge it with the "Crime" section. Silver181 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems odd that you agree with retaining negative information from the Daily Beast, which is rated as "no consensus" under Perennial sources, yet you removed reliably sourced information that Kamala Harris's "has been met with opposition by fellow members of the African American community...."[11] You wrote, "It does not matter if it was sourced, it is highly biased and the person who originally made the edits appears to have an agenda against Harris. Some random singer opposing Harris is not relevant information." Is there any reason why we should apply a different standard to Gabbard than to Harris? TFD (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No, they should be held to the same standards, but I don't consider the scenarios to be the same. The person who added the edits to Harris' page legitimately had an agenda against Harris. He had made numerous edits that were thinly-veiled insults on her main page and her campaign page (for example, he added a comment saying something akin to "she only supported legalizing marijuana after it became popular", which is clearly meant as an insult). I also did not feel as though the "criticism" that the user added is on the same level as the info about Gabbard. He literally said that a single musician opposed Harris. Like... so what? That isn't enough to make a sweeping claim that she's unpopular amongst many black people. The accusations against Gabbard are actual news stories that are being pushed by the media, and I'd consider them an important chapter of her campaign, especially since so little has occured. With Harris, the editor made some comment about Harris' actions as attorney general of Cali, not as a presidential candidate. I feel that those comments would better fit her main page, where her tenure as AG is actually discussed. I'd also like to note that I gave the editor who made the edits advice on how to incorporate the info into the article in a more neutral way, but he never did so, and instead resorted to insulting me on my user talk page. Silver181 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The contributions by three "Russian sympathizers" is not being pushed by the media, it's being pushed by a highly partisan source with dubious reliability, according to Wikipedia editors,. Also, using your criteria, I don't see how three out of tens of thousands of donors are really, really important, while a named singer is not. Besides, you also removed that Harris' actions as AG had been criticized by a number of Democratic politicians and the ACLU. In any case, it does not matter what editors consider to be important but what reliable sources do, per weight. TFD (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Harris's presidential campaign has been met with opposition by fellow members of the African American community..."

That is what the editor typed. Would you not consider this to be a loaded statement, given the fact that he only cited a musician as evidence? Notice how he didn't even say some fellow members of the African-American community, he just said members. That's an incredible stretch that gives a clear implication of Harris having received widespread condemnation from African-Americans.

"In particular, her actions concerning police brutality against minorities under her tenure as Attorney General of California are of concern."

A single opinion article. A few weeks ago, the conservative (and, to some extent, neo-liberal) media was really pushing the whole "Bernie Sanders went on a honeymoon in the Soviet Union in the 80s, which proves he's a communist!" narrative. I could easily take an opinion article from, say, Fox News and add it to Bernie Sanders' page with a message like "Sanders' visit to the Soviet Union in the 1980s is a matter of concern", even though it's a mostly unimportant opinion piece being largely spread by people who are openly opposed to Sanders. I agree that most of the Gabbard controversy is overblown. However, some in the (supposedly) "neutral" media are legitimately accusing Gabbard of having Russian support, just like how some in the media accused Andrew Yang of having alt-right support. Progressives dislike Kamala Harris, sure. A non-opinion article stating something like "Progressives are pushing back against Kamala Harris" or something would be much better than an opinion piece.

"In 2015, Harris opposed a bill requiring the Attorney General's office to investigate officer-involved shootings. She then objected to enforcing California law regulating the use of body cameras by law enforcement. These moves were criticized by many left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a San Franciscan elected public defender."

Something that occurred while she was AG. This could possibly fit into a policy section, but there would have to be some relevance to her current campaign. If I recall correctly, Harris opposed weed legalization as AG, but has made support for legalization part of her 2020 platform. This situation is pretty common with 2020 candidates, but virtually all of their pages state their current position on the issue. Has she addressed the issue of body cameras again on the campaign trail, or since she even became a Senator?

"A much more accurate statement would be something like "Harris has received criticism from some progressives for her criminal justice record" or something along those lines. At the same time, if you make a statement like that, you also would need to cite examples of people or groups that have supported her. Only mentioning criticism of her (while also greatly exaggerating the extent of that criticism) without mentioning support that she has received is why I removed your edits in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place for you to vent your frustration with candidates or promote your agenda. If we're going to talk about criticism of her- which, don't get me wrong, we should, as some progressives have, indeed, already targeted her- we need to balance it out with mentions of support."

What I said to the editor on the talk page. I gave him or her advice on how to phrase it better and even encouraged him or her to add info about it. But he or she thought it would be better to vandalize my talk page. An as for the "balance it out with support" thing, that's what's been done on this article. We have articles from journalists denouncing the allegations as hit pieces/smears/etc. and Gabbard's own response. I'd say the article is currently very neutral in that regard and doesn't give more credence to either side. We could maybe add a quote or something from one of the articles that specifically addresses a part of the allegations. Silver181 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References