Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Short description content removal rationale

@Power~enwiki, why did you make this edit? Is there a reason you want the military content out of the short description? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Active Duty is misleading; members of the military are not allowed to be on active duty while serving in Congress. It also doesn't match with how other politican summaries are handled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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 The content regards Gabbard's attempts to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed with the consent of the Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1999.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)

Science of Identity

It's surprising that this isn't even mentioned in this article [1], [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be be the same reason the Hillary Clinton article does not mention the Clinton body bags and the Obama article does not mention the dispute about his place of birth. They were unwarranted theories. An investigation by the Honolulu Civil Beat found no evidence of any connection between Gabbard and the Science of Identity Foundation.[3] TFD (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TFD: What article are you referencing? That's just a link to the site. More recent reporting still indicates that her father is connected to Chris Butler - the guy who runs the group. That doesn't mean it's necessarily worth mentioning here, but that connection seems supported. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. It should now link to the article that says, "Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee." The Daily Beast article does say her father was linked to Butler, whatever that means, although he was a Catholic and member of the Knights of Columbus. Presumably he was never a member or devotee. Probably best to see if it becomes an issue in the media at which point expect responses and informed commentary so that we can report the facts. TFD (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Civil Beat article is from 2015. The more recent New Yorker article straight-up calls her a Butler disciple. I'm a little confused by the contradiction here, but it seems like both Butler and Gabbard were actually interviewed for the New Yorker article, and Gabbard seems to acknowledge that he's a spiritual leader "...“I’ve never heard him say anything hateful, or say anything mean about anybody,” she says of Butler. “I can speak to my own personal experience and, frankly, my gratitude to him, for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me, and to so many people.” Maybe she decided to address the connection openly? I don't think this should be over-emphasized, but a major profile of her really puts quite a bit of emphasis on that connection. Nblund ^talk 02:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker article does not seem to have attracted any media attention. In Barak Obama#Religious views there is a brief mention of Reverend Wright, who became a major issue in the 2008 campaign and news media showed endless clips of Wright saying "God damn America." Obama attended his church for sixteen years. I think it is better to see whether mainstream media establish weight for the story, at which point we will be able to report the story accurately. TFD (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker article IS media attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this been covered by other major news organizations? I'm not convinced this is worthy of inclusion at this point.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hawaii papers have covered it pretty extensively. Recent coverage from Washington Monthly and the National Interest. The New Yorker profile is probably the most extensive national-level coverage she has received up to this point - and it's already cited in the article - so I'm not sure why some mention of this wouldn't be warranted in her bio. I think we should avoid discussing it in a way that implies that it is a scandal, but it seems reasonable to at least include some mention in the stuff about her early life and upbringing/personal life sections. Nblund ^talk 20:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I won't stand in anyone's way.- MrX 🖋 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I erred on the side of caution and just added one sentence on it in the section on her personal life - there's already a fairly detailed discussion of her religious views in that section so this seems like a sensible fit. This may be worth revisiting if this starts to be picked up as a major issue in her campaign, but I do think we should avoid the more sensational speculation that some of the coverage delves in to. Nblund ^talk 00:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And I erred on the side of caution and removed it for now. How notable is this "material" really and should it be included and why?? --Malerooster (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the topic of the preceding discussion, are you asking me to rehash it? I would characterize it as "fairly notable" because we have 3 different articles (including a major profile in the New Yorker) that discuss her relationship with Butler in detail. At a minimum, it seems like it is at least as notable as the other details in that section such as her Vedic-style wedding or her martial arts instruction. Nblund ^talk 00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to rehash it, thank you, maybe others can comment. Yes, those other details seem pretty trivial. The "material" about her "connection" to Butler seems more pointy, if thats a word. --Malerooster (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed "Gabbard has expressed admiration for Chris Butler, a leader of an offshoot group of Hare Krishna devotees based in Hawaii." I find the sentence inapt for an encyclopedic article. It doesn't explain who Chris Butler is, why he was controversial (or even if he was) or what the real connection was. A politician expressing admiration of someone is in itself not unusual. There are many moons until Iowa and New Hampshire and we can wait for CNN etc. to cover the controversy and then be able to cover it fairly. TFD (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's a uncontroversial statement of fact that summarizes her own quote about Butler in that profile. I'm not sure what your objection is here - but that sounds like an argument for more detail, rather than less. Her connection to the Hare Krishna movement is helpful for understanding how she came to Hinduism as a westerner. Butler appears to have been a pretty central influence in her spiritual life. It's not inherently controversial to express admiration for a new age religious leader, so why would we detail other aspects of her religious views and ignore this one? Nblund ^talk 02:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not include at least a mention of Gabbard's relationship to the religious organization headed by Chris Butler in this article? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Because this is decided through editorial consensus. What "relationship" does she have exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not really an argument. Here's more coverage today from Vox.com: "Tulsi Gabbard grew up in Butler’s movement, which has faced allegations of cult-like practices. She told the New Yorker’s Kelefa Sanneh that he shaped her Hindu identity, speaking of her “gratitude to him for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me.”". The article goes on to discuss the connection between her ties to Butler and her past views on gay rights. Nblund ^talk 17:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Vox has never been presented at RSN, but its "explanatory journalism" which explains reality from a New Democrats perspective makes it suspect. The author actually worked for Think Progress and has no education or experience in journalism outside these two questionable outlets. I don't know what he means by saying Gabbard "grew up" in a Hindu cult when she and her family were church going Catholics. But more importantly is the issue of weight, specifically the section Balancing aspects:

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.

The fact that a publication dedicated to one faction of the Democratic party chooses to run an article trashing a member of a rival faction is only noteworthy if mainstream media decide to cover it.

TFD (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Intercept article in her entry is also interesting. Looking into her crystal ball, I suspect Gabbard sees her faith and religious practice might be a campaign issue if she was already invoking JFK's position on his religion in 2017. The pull-quote that was added with the New Yorker reference is just too fun! The meat-packers best get their lobbies lorries rolling. My real question: TFD are you talking about the New Yorker or Vox? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article "How Tulsi Gabbard went from rising star to pariah — and then presidential candidate" in Vox. As I explained, for people who are extensively covered in mainstream media it violates weight to bring in "news" that is ignored by the mainstream news media. But anyone who wants to see extensive negative information in this article should take solace from the probability that mainstream media will provide it if Gabbard becomes seen as a serious contender. If she wins the nomination, watch them suddenly switch support to Trump at least until the election. TFD (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"Extensive negative coverage" seems like an odd way to characterize a single sentence paraphrase based on her own statements. I think it's probably time to try to get some outside feedback, but just so I'm clear here: you aren't disputing the factual accuracy of any of the reporting any more, but your position is still that any mention of Chris Butler is verboten in this article, because the The New Yorker doesn't count as the mainstream media? Nblund ^talk 23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I saying that (a) we don 't know what Gabbard's connection with Butler is/was and (b) the facts and opinions in The New Yorker have not received the degree of media attention that is required by weight. In fact most news media publish original stories that other outlets ignore. Can you explain how inclusion meets the requirements of the Bslancing aspects policy. TFD (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't know the precise nature of the connection, but reliable sources have reported that her parents were part of Butler's group, that Gabbard grew up around other members of the group, and that Gabbard has called him her guru and talked about his central role in her spiritual development - are you disputing the accuracy of any part of that? As Volunteer Marek already pointed out: the New Yorker article itself is media attention. Where in either WP:DUE or WP:BALASPS does it say that other outlets need to report on the reporting to qualify a due? Nblund ^talk 15:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A single source is not "the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The test is whether or not the bulk of mainstream media has paid attention to it. Also see Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which is part of the verifiability policy: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It certainly is exceptional to claim that a public figure who is a practicing Catholic was in fact a member of a Hindu cult. Bear in mind that BLP policy states, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability." TFD (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard about this. Nblund ^talk 17:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of controversy over missed Veterans hearing

Not sure of the best way to add this, but this was a really big deal for veterans considering the frequent focus of her work in congress. I would appreciate if someone could add this.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/tulsi-gabbard-surfing-111659

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/07/tulsi-gabbard-veterans-surfing_n_5948176.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.73.7 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems too trivial. I cannot find any mention in major news networks. So Gabbard once missed a senate hearing because the people she was meeting earlier were late for their appointment. And she wasn't even a senator. TFD (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed too trivial/minor for an encyclopedic biography. Aside it smacks a bit of pseudo-controversy anyhow, the classic politicking move when you can find a real controversy, manufacture one or hype some trivial stuff.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Unless this ends up generating significant coverage somewhere down the road, it doesn't appear worth mentioning based on that coverage. Nblund ^talk 01:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting news analysis of her presidential candidacy for possible content expansion

• Tulsi Gabbard the Jill Stein of 2020?

"The Democratic candidate’s perplexing, Bannonesque foreign policy and passivity toward Assad may make her radioactive. And then there is the homophobia."

• Gabbard-Hirono clash shocks Hawaii

"Tulsi Gabbard publicly criticized fellow Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono’s questioning of a judicial nominee."

• Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard accuses fellow Democrats of ‘religious bigotry’ in questioning judicial nominee

"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a potential 2020 White House contender, is accusing some of her fellow Democrats of “religious bigotry” in their questioning of one of President Trump’s judicial nominees."

• Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President

"The enigmatic congresswoman has earned substantial praise from many across the right—from Fox News star Tucker Carlson to white nationalists like David Duke."

• Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 Campaign May Be Over Before It Starts

"The congresswoman from Hawaii’s past is filled with anti-LGBTQ activism, calls for bombing Syria and endorsing torture"

• What Is Tulsi Gabbard Fighting For?

"Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, spoke highly of Gabbard during the 2016 election. A source from the transition team told the Hill that Bannon loved Gabbard and wanted to work with her “on everything.” That praise precipitated a meeting with the then-incoming president and his team at Trump Tower shortly after the election, at which time it was rumored that Gabbard was in the running for secretary of State."

- MrX 🖋 13:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There are mostly highly opinionated sources. The first one btw reminds me of National Enquirer articles. It's headline asks the question that no one was asking, "IS TULSI GABBARD THE JILL STEIN OF 2020?" It then goes on to say those fears are "probably overblown." CNN and other sources have provided analysis on Gabbard's foreign policy, early opposition to LGBT rights, etc. and are better sources. At least they try to provide various opinions. TFD (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm don't really agree, but there is a common thread of sources asking whether she is actually a viable candidate. Of course they were saying that in 2015 about another questionable candidate, so who really knows.- MrX 🖋 02:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article says, "Critics have accused her of being an “Assad shill” and therefore also a “Putin puppet”....Gabbard has offered vociferous support for India’s staunchly nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, who, as chief minister of Gujarat, was accused of complicity in a 2002 religious riot against Muslims that killed more than 1,000 people....Gabbard’s presidential aspirations are probably dead on arrival....That doesn’t leave many constituents in Gabbard’s corner—except, perhaps, RT." I guess you and I disagree on what the word "opinionated" means. I suppose you may be right that Gabbard would respond that it was a fair and accurate summary of her position. To me, I humbly submit, it is opinionated.

We could routinely mention that Clinton and Bush supported a war in which 1 million people died and the U.S. spent trillions of dollars and it was justified by intelligence rejected by every single independent commentator. That would be true and reliably sourced but probably seen as opinionated.

TFD (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Historical LGBT positions in the lead

Since we announced her candidacy in the lead, it is only reasonable to write about something closely related and widely reported.

Shortly after announcing her candidacy, she drew scrutiny for anti-gay remarks she made in the 1990s and early 2000s.

I don't see a valid reason for deleting this short sentence summarizing a significant point.- MrX 🖋 13:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As the other person pointed out what is new is not necessarily the most notable.80.111.40.28 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It was first reported in 2002. That's not new. - MrX 🖋 15:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia added every controversy a political candidate has had then leads of articles would be never-ending.80.111.40.28 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Considerable space in the body is devoted to her past anti-LGBT positions and statements which are fairly extreme for a Democrat (not just the standard 'opposed to same-sex marriage'). Seems fine to mention in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like WP:RECENTISM to me, given the focus on the present (and possibly fleeting) scrutiny of her views, rather than a focus on her views. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This should just be written up as a "X held anti-LGBT positions but changed over time". It shouldn't be framed as "she was criticized for holding anti-LGBT positions". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. She was this way but now she's that way. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with something like that, as long as we don't sugar coat the fact that she actively worked against LGBT rights.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article with weight proportionate to the body. Since there is so much about this in the rest of the article, it needs to be mentioned in the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean that we have to ignore things just because they are current events, and it's obvious from the coverage that this is going to continue to be a persistent question for her. Her LGBT views have been an issue for about as long as she has been a national figure. Nblund ^talk 17:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim that it will obviously continue, though likely, is just speculation at this point, so recentism is a valid criticism.

Another thing to note is that none of the other declared or potential candidates have a note about what they're most scrutinized for directly after the sentence stating that they're running, or anywhere in the lead for that matter. For example, Warren doesn't have a note in the lead saying she has come under scrutiny for her claims of Native American ancestry. You could also argue this will be a persistent scrutiny during her campaign. It would be an overbearing standard to include politicians' controversies in the lead, as a previous editor mentioned here.

If an addition about these older views of hers to the lead is insisted upon, I'd suggest modifying the relevant part in the previous paragraph, e.g.:

"... has called for a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, previously opposed but changed her stance to support same-sex marriage in 2012." 107.77.204.173 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

References not mentioning Gabbard at all restored

With this edit, references which had been removed from Gabbard's BLP because they do not mention Gabbard at all were restored without comment. In the next edit summary, @Dan the Plumber: wrote: this is all slanted to pint her in a very positive light. What is she most known for about khan sheikkoun. her 'scepticism' that assad regime was responsible. ffs , the article has to say that. I have restored the page to its last good version in order to let Mr. Dan see that the article does, indeed, mention that she was skeptical, but does not include links to articles that do not mention her at all. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Wikipedia is not a fact checking service and any criticisms of any person must be sourced to someone providing criticism. TFD (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A sentence about the OPCW JIM findings is not 'criticism' of Gabbard, it would be a chance for readers of the article to get some unfiltered information from the OPCW on the subject she had given her ( useless, uninformed, propagandist) opinion on. I'm sure a sentence from the OPCW findings is unwelcome to supporters of Gabbard who want this article to read like an election leaflet, an unwelcome piece of info from the world of reality, but there we are. As edited by sushi Rolls the ignorant opinion, that her opinion is as good as an OPCW JIM opinion, is furthered. She said she wanted to see evidence so a link to the OPCW report should be seen as very helpful and pertinent. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It is implicit criticism because it implies she was wrong. As you say, you want to add the information to show that her comments were "useless, uninformed, propagandist." That's criticism. Also, please don't impute the motives of other editors, which is a personal attack. TFD (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

She asked for 'evidence'. The OPCW-JIM reported. You want to censor a sentence about what the evidence , she called for, indicated. Does the OPCW-JIM report 'imply' criticism , that she was a propagandist for the Assad regime when she was so quick to express her 'scepticism'? Well, so what if it does? are you telling me any reports that emerge form the world of reality but that might offend the subject of the article, even one line reports that she herself called for when she said she wanted evidence, are to be ruled out? What is being written here? An informed , informative article that includes top sources like the OPCW-JIM , or a whitewash for this pin up of the Red/Brown Alliance? Dan the Plumber (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, if it is relevant, then you need sources that say so. Also, you need to tone down your criticisms, per biographies of living persons. It is of no relevance to the discussion what you personally believe, but what sources say. TFD (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it relevant? To her wanting to know of any evidence relating to the sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun? Well, obviously it is bloody relevant to that. I know the dangers of synthesis, and such like and I am scrupulous in what I seek to add to articles. The OPCW report won't mention Gabbard, any more than it would mention the views of Putin or Sergei Lavrov ; the OPCW looked at evidence. So much the better. You know you won't find Gabbard mentioned in the OPCW-JIM report so you are really just trying to stop this illuminating sentence from being added, and in effect to give oxygen to the idea that 'Gabbards opinion is as relevant as any other, the world has no idea what happened at Khan Sheikhoun'. But that is a lie. The OPCW-JIM report has words FOR Gabbard since she demanded evidence. It obviously has no words ABOUT Gabbard. It is this kind of information that one should be fighting for, praying that it gets set forth at wikipedia articles, not stifled. One sentence. I am saying that their report evidently is relevant to her views on the sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun, and that creative, scrupulous minds would see that adding one sentence about the OPCW findings, pertinent to Gabbard professing to be interested in that very subject, would not be objected to, and would be seen as an edit likely to improve understanding. Thats the object of these articles isn't it? Not to be whitewashed election addresses. I believe the sentence is being objected to because it jars; a splinter of reality getting into the skin of the fantasies about 'regime change' and rebel sarin attacks and endless 'false flag' stories. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

While it is not necessary that the UN report mention Gabbard you need a source that mentions both Gabbard and the report which you should have no problem in finding if the connection is "bloody relevant" to anyone but yourself. TFD (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The stated justification for including this - that it seems to address Gabbard's concerns about an independent investigation - does seem like original synthesis. The coverage at the time of Gabbard's remarks made it pretty clear that her skepticism was out-of-step with the existing evidence and mainstream views, and we can get that fact across without having to stretch and use a primary source. Nblund ^talk 16:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Khan Sheikhoun

There is as we know a lot of fake news around, and a lot of terrible ignorance and disinformation around , this is a problem of the political culture . Wikipedia shouldn't connive with this so I was wondering if , after Gabbard said she was sceptical about Khan Sheikhoun a sentence could be added at the end of that section to report the findings of the OPCW JIM. This would give readers a chance to understand where the evidence Gabbard had professed to want, led. Otherwise the section just gives the idea that the propaganda of the Fascists and cretins was in some way , decent or credible. What do people think? (Please don't just lecture aabout the WP GREAT WRONGS policy. What I want is a sentence to report what the OPCW JIM wrote about the incident so that readers of the wikipedia article on Gabbard are not just spoon fed saccharine propaganda pre digested by her supporters. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a rather big blue button labeled Khan Shaykhoun chemical attack in the section you don't like. When I see big blue buttons about things I want to know more about, I often push them. I assume most people do the same. When a candidate's bio is pushing a line, I usually smell it. There, too, I don't think I'm so unusual. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You think Gabbard supporters really want to know more about what happened at Khan Sheikhoun? No. I want an article one is currently reading to be as reliably informative as possible. I want a single sentence added. That section is pushing a line, and is made worse by your reversion of my edits imho, not better. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

russia propaganda machine discovers 2020 candidate Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Russian Propaganda

Looking to the 2020_presidential_campaign section;

The paragraph starting "On the same day, NBC reported that several news sources linked to Russian state propaganda";

I initially put some of this content in following the NBC report. I'm a little concerned that we now have a 2nd source of apparently equal weight, which seems to suggest the first NBC source is mostly nonsense. I'm a bit concerned including the whole back-and-forth in this article might not be helpful for the reader, and provide an undue amount of space to the controversy. Can we just move this content to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign? We might bring it back if more sources weigh-in on the issue. NickCT (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a story that appeared in NBC, was ignored by other mainstream media and was quickly debunked by Glenn Greenwald. If it belongs anywhere it is in the article about NBC news. I would remove it for now until it received broader attention, which now seems unlikely. TFD (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

'Now RT video runs new segment questioning NBC report. Talks about anything except the core, which compared the higher volume and more favorable tone for Gabbard vs other dem candidates on Russian media outlets. ' Im a bit concerned an editor who regards Glenn Greenwald (ffs), as some kind of ultimate arbiter seems to dictate everything on this article. Dan the Plumber (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not say he was the ultimate arbitrator. I suggest you read WP:WEIGHT. What facts or opinions you or I or any other editor consider important about a subject may differ and we resolve that problem by reflecting the relative weight provided in reliable sources. One NBC article that attracts no attention except an article by a prominent journalist and a reply from RT debunking it fails weight. TFD (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@TFD RT 'debunking' ???? 'Talks about anything except the core, which compared the higher volume and more favorable tone for Gabbard vs other dem candidates on Russian media outlets.' 'Naturally. And their guest is a sinister imbecile who accuses Syrian children under bombardment of being crisis actors.' (Ugh).Dan the Plumber (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok.... So I say move, User:The Four Deuces says delete. User:Dan the Plumber, are you a stick? NickCT (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I say move too . It's probably better placed in the Gabbard campaign article. Don't move it to the article on NBC news, (ffs) Dan the Plumber (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Unless User:The Four Deuces or someone else objects in the next few hours, I will move this content to the campaign page. NickCT (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree on moving. Yeah, as long as there is a separate article for the campaign, this probably belongs at that entry. Gabbard herself has responded to the story. Greenwald's criticism and Gabbard's response should both be included. Nblund ^talk 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions

I have asked @Snooganssnoogans: to limit themselves to making transparent changes to the article rather than making massive changes to the article. Most of the changes proposed are controversial and will need TP discussion according to the BRD process. A single example to explain the method being used... in the minimum wage section, a throwaway sentence about how TG thought both Republicans and Democrats bore some responsibility is cited to an article about Assad. Many articles about Assad are added, many articles not about Assad are removed. A counterterrorism section is relabeled "Islam" and the lawfare article they added is now removed because they don't seem to like that the article says that she had in fact cleared her trip... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Why, Snooganssnoogans, don't you think rules apply to you? You've reinstated your edits without discussion of any of the relevant questions raised above. Specifically, the deletion of the counterterrorism section, the complete respinning of the Syria section, etc., for which you would have needed to get talk page consensus. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This is what your edit summary stated: "please make major changes like this section by section; many things were deleted without comment".[4] I followed your request and did the changes "section by section". I have now self-reverted the text given that your complaint (as expressed in the edit summary) has shifted, you're now making threats, and that it's clear that you simply intended to block any and all changes made by me and force every single change to go through you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This was a general comment about your habit of making wholesale changes; it was independent of the BRD rules. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My edit can be seen in its entirety here[5]. The individual changes can also be observed on the page's history[6]. The changes are all improvements. As for the few substantive arguments provided by Sashirolls against the changes, (1) the text from a "counterterrorism" section has been moved into correct sections (most of it into a Syria section and one sentence into an "Islam" section), (2) the text sourced to the Lawfare article was misleadingly written up and falsely suggested to readers that Gabbard was sent on a fact-finding mission by Congress, (3) the text in the Syria section reflects RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 10 February 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,[7] weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[8][9] and requests that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 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[11] 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)

Saudi Arabia

This edit appears to remove a Hill article in which TG roundly criticizes Saudia Arabia with the mysterious edit summary "belongs in the s-arabia section above". No problem adding articles or massaging text within reason, by all means be bold, but please don't delete stuff without reason. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clearly and concisely explain whether you agree or disagree with the changes? The edit summary clearly shows me merging two virtually identical sections, which you somehow find to be "mysterious" (furthermore, I clearly said I was deleting "duplicated material" in my large edit). Are you upset about the edit summary or the actual changes? As for the substance, there were two extensive quotes from her about her opposition to US arms deals to S-Arabia, which basically said the same thing. I deleted one of them. This is not her campaign website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have made your desired changes (here). I chose to abridge in both places and to relegate the longer citations to the quote fields. I think as long as there is a Trump section to her page that we might as well summarize the same thing there, but there's no need to repeat the zinger quotes, I agree. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lede

I'm slowly working through Snoogs' list of changes, and have reached the proposed lead change: here it is. What do folks think? I oppose using BLPs on en.wp as a political platform.

I saw that while you were editing here someone else was adding sections about Gabbard's alleged white nationalist supporters to her 2020 campaign. I think that's actually the page you're looking for for many of your contributions in fact, Snoog, if you don't mind my saying so. This is her BLP. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a single substantive reason has been presented for opposing the changes to the lede. You're just casting aspersions. I reiterate my request that I have posted multiple times: Can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? You're literally blocking any and all changes to the article while failing to explain why. To say that you're "slowly" working through the changes is an understatement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The substance of my reasoning is simple: you want to add the dismissive text that I linked to above. You think Modi and Assad are the most important things about Tulsi Gabbard's life; (al)most (all) reasonable people will disagree with you. You think it is OK to cast aspersions on a Hawaii politician by saying she supports "Indian nationalists" rather than the Indian president or the party in power. You chose to focus on those folks you think should be removed from power, there from your browser window on the world. I think the world is a bit more complicated than that and that rather than deleting articles in which TG says that the US should not be selling arms to those who finance terrorism (see evidence in the previous section) or that the "US should not be the world's policeman" (your India edits), you might consider that what she has been quoted as saying could very well be a true^TM representation of her beliefs. It is WP:UNDUE to present only one side of a debate... if we say in the lede that TG has been accused of "supporting hindutva figures", we would also need to include that she has responded with concerns about "religious bigotry", concerns which led at least one media outlet to retract parts of its story.

tldr; I am firmly opposed to your proposed lede changes (as is) on the grounds of WP:NPOV (you only want to portray one side of any story from her life identified as potentially damaging by her enemies) and WP:UNDUE (adding both sides of every story changes the lead into a political tug of war that nobody needs, least of all, the average reader. This is an encyclopedia. It has articles that are meant to document political campaigns and the mud that gets slung during them. There's even a handy link to TG's 2020 campaign right there at the bottom of the "lede".

and here, for ambiance. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? This is not complicated. Stop with the casting of aspersions, WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and grievances about unrelated content disputes on other Wikipedia pages. Also, why are you AGAIN complaining about the removal of one of the two duplicated sections about the Saudi arms deal? - you yourself agreed that it was fine to remove the duplicated content (after a completely pointless talk page discussion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This paragraph needs rewriting

& a better topic sentence. We need to consider the quality of The HIVE (Vanity Fair?) editorial as a source, we need to either include both sides of Scoville's Logan Act article or drop it entirely. It seems to me that I already asked to drop the spokesperson's long quote with an ES "no need to quote the spokesperson", but there has been much retwiddling with this paragraph as I recall. Maybe it was in the duplicate section above about the Syria trip. This came from foreign policy > Syria.

According to Ryan Scoville, Gabbard "appear[ed] to have obtained prior authorization from the House Commi::ttee on Standards of Official Conduct" in January 2017 for a fact-finding mission to Damascus. Gabbard spokeswoman Emily Latimer said she “felt it was important to meet with a number of individuals and groups, including religious leaders, humanitarian workers, refugees, and government and community leaders.” Gabbard met government officials, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the New York Times, she is the only American official to have met Assad since his use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. 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 Zack Beauchamp, "Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."

References

Gosh the titles of some of these sure do seem like they belong on the 2020 campaign page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The text at the start of the paragraph grossly misrepresents the Lawfare article to give the false appearance that Gabbard was sent to Syria on a fact-finding mission by Congress. That text should indisputably be deleted. If the Lawfare article is to be used, the text should mirror what the source actually says. The rest of the text should all be restored, with the exception of the spokesperson quote (I'm sure a better quote from Gabbard herself can be found about this trip). This NBC News source can be used to substantiate RT's defense of her[12]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights

There is a dispute over two versions of text related to Gabbard's criticism of fellow Democrats for questioning a judicial nominee about his involvement in an anti-LGBT organization. The dispute concerns both the language used and the placement of the text (whether it belongs in the "LGBT rights" subsection or as sole item in a "Religious freedom" subsection). These are the two versions:

• A. (In the LGBT rights section) In 2019, Gabbard accused fellow Democrats, including Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, of engaging in "religious bigotry" when they questioned the Trump administration's judicial nominee Brian C. Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization which had funded anti-LGBT rights causes. Gabbard said that it was "imperative that we stand united in our commitment to protect religious freedom". Hawaii News Now reported that Gabbard's own father was a member of the Knights of Columbus.

• B. (In the Religious freedom section) During Brian C. Buescher's confirmation hearing for U.S. District Court in Nebraska, Gabbard wrote an op-ed on the Hill's Congress Blog arguing that while she opposed Buescher's nomination, opposing him on the grounds of his association with the Roman Catholic Church or the Knights of Columbus amounted to religious bigotry and violated Article VI of the US Constitution.

References

Which version do you prefer? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• A - This is clearly the version that mirrors the sources most accurately and provides the full context of Gabbard's criticism, what the fellow Democrats were questioning and what the Knights of Columbus is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• B - I prefer its more neutral placement in the religious freedom section. I agree with the person who put it there and disagree with your attempts to move it and embroider new prose.

1. As the article cited makes clear, Gabbard "did not name any names" therefore the wikitext targeting Hirono is an OR distortion of the source, unless that fact is mentioned.
2. Nowhere in the Somnez article cited is anything related to LGBT mentioned (you can check for the keyword yourself, of course, it is not there); nowhere in TG's original blogpost either. Nowhere does your prose make clear that TG opposed Beuscher, which both Somnez' article and TG's blogpost do state.
3. Why have you made so many bad edits to this page? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo source explicitly says the group funded "anti-same-sex marriage initiatives". All sources, including the ones cited, clearly note that Gabbard accused her fellow Democrats, including Hirono,[13][14][15] of religious bigotry, even though she did not name names. It's strange why you can't simply add "she did not name names but referred to..." and "funded anti-same sex marriage initiatives" if this bothered you so much, rather than indiscriminately revert the content and push this and every other change to this article to the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest C. Tulsi Gabbard wrote a blogpost about religious bigotry, pointing out that Article 6 of the US Constitution specifically forbids any religious tests for office. In that post, she mentioned she opposed Beuscher, who was being grilled about his membership in the Knights of Columbus during confirmation hearings. Many pixels flowed, especially from one wikipedian's keyboard, trying to recast TG's gentle reminder about constitutional law into an anti-LGBT position. Sadly, we can't really chose C, which would be the most informative for readers, because that Wikipedian isn't notable yet (as far as we know). (WP:TOOSOON) So, we'll have to settle for B, since TG has indicated her support for same-sex marriage and indicated that she did not support Beuscher's confirmation. — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• B A is factually wrong because it implies Gabbard named Hirona which the sources do not say. No reason why it should mention Hirono but not mention Kamala Harris. For some reason it mentions the the Knights of Columbus has funded anti-LGBT organizations, while the senators' criticism of them was for their opposition to abortion and LGBT rights. Hawaii News Now did not report that Gabbard's father was a member of the Knights of Columbus, it was one of its reporters, Chelsea Davis, and it is innuendo to mention this without specfically explaining its relevance. No mention either that a number of conservative and Catholic commentators expressed views similar to Gabbard's. B unfortunately has too few details, but wins by default. TFD (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would be entirely fine with (1) noting that Gabbard did not specifically name anyone while also noting that all RS explicitly note that this refers to the questioning by Democrats, including Hirono and Harris and (2) noting that Gabbard's criticism mirrored conservative talking points. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• neither Option B seems to take Gabbard's claim (that the opposition was based on his association with the Catholic church) at face value - but that's a contested point. I think something more along the lines of In 2019, Gabbard accused fellow Democrats of engaging in "religious bigotry" when they questioned the Trump administration's judicial nominee Brian C. Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. Sen. Mazi Hirono disputed Gabbard's characterization, and said that her questions were related to what she called Buescher's "record of anti-choice activism" rather than his religion. Or something along those lines. Mentioning her father's religious affiliations seems undue here. Nblund ^talk 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have removed the Roman Catholic Church link from the OP's text when I slimmed the text down slightly (after putting it back in the original section). If anything is said about Beuscher's positions, in fairness, it must be mentioned that TG opposed his confirmation as this is mentioned in both sources used in the text. Concerning the facts of the matter on the religious bigotry question, Beuhscher's prior positions are immaterial, what Hirono asked Beuscher was "If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?" this = (the Knights of Columbus) The citation is on page 25. So if she said Gabbard misrepresented her questions, she would have been wrong, even if the latter had named her. Bad luck! ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The claim comes from Hirono herself and is cited in the Washington Post source, she definitely said it and it's clearly relevant since it is a direct response to Gabbard. It's really not up to us to determine who is right in that dispute - we need to just impartially cover what was said. Nblund ^talk 22:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can agree to that version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresenting an article

In a very telling move, @Snooganssnoogans: has deleted what is marked out in the following sentence:

Prior to her two tours of duty in the Middle East, Gabbard opposed both civil unions and same-sex marriage.

This shouldn't be too controversial as the text itself says:

She says her transformation was spurred by spending time in countries governed by oppressive regimes during deployments to the Middle East as a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard.

“Marriage is a bond of love, and it’s spiritual and metaphysical in nature,” Tulsi told Civil Beat in an interview. “It’s a sacred bond, and that is not an area where government should be involved.”

I will not speculate as to Snoogans' motivations for misrepresenting the article being cited in the topic sentence of the paragraph, but will suggest that they are not making themselves look like someone who should be trusted to edit this BLP given their demonstrable record of one-sided editing on this page. I will ask Snoogans to self-revert. We will see if they can play fair or if their mission is contrary to en.wp's and topic-banning becomes necessary. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your text inaccurately suggested that she was only opposed to civil unions and same-sex marriage prior to 2004 (when she was deployed to Iraq) / 2008 (when she was deployed to Kuwait). She returned to the U.S. in 2009 from the overseas deployments, but came out in favor of same-sex marriage in 2012. There's nothing in any of the cited sources documenting a change on LGBT issues until 2012 (if there are any such sources, feel free to add them). If she herself attributes her 2012 change to her experiences overseas, then we should of course mention that (the article currently does so, as I pointed out to you in my edit summary: "She credited her tours of duty in the Middle East for her change in views.") But we should not be filling in gaps with original research, as you did. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice try. The article says what I cited above. You would need to show that she had voted for anti-LGBT legislation after her tours of duty in order to contradict our source, which I notice you are not doing. A topic-ban from this article would be the simplest: en.wp does itself a disservice by continuing to allow such underhanded tactics to be deployed. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans, which is why I removed the section headings that you added. Our task is not to polish up her image as it pertains to her evolution on LGBT rights. When you have to cite obscure sources and use original research, you are not serving our readers' best interests.- MrX 🖋 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For those studying this article, it is worth noting that the content Snoog cites ("She credited her tours of duty in the Middle East for her change in views.") was immediately after the topic sentence in March 2017, but was moved farther away from it in the section "LGBT issues", because the section started quite sensibly (at that time) with a topic sentence drawn from the same article: "Gabbard supports reproductive choice and LGBT rights, saying that the government should not be the "moral arbiter" in people's lives. " (Now, the article starts with her positions prior to her national and international experiences.) The long-standing content is starting with the claim that TG supports reproductive choice & LGBT rights. How much shall we bet that I will uncover (using wiki-blame) a certain prolific editor completely changing the spin of the section? Speaking of x-tools, I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon. (evidence) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Considering your unfortunate history in this topic area, I doubt you are someone who should be giving reminders, so please keep such advice to yourself, or bring evidence an any alleged misconduct to an appropriate noticeboard.- MrX 🖋 23:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The content dispute is clear. The section was written originally with TG's current position stated in the topic sentence. It was changed recently to highlight her previous position, citing a source that gives both her original & current position and the reason for her position changing. My text summarizes all three elements in a few words. Please indicate what is inappropriate about such rigorous reading of a source? You did not address the content dispute in your comment. You accuse me of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here, when the article cited is crystal clear, as is this entry's history concerning what "long-standing content" actually is. Concerning your claims about my desire not to smear to burnish TG's BLP at every turn, I think we'll just have to disagree about their appropriateness or their accuracy. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I see your point but do you think you could suggest a way to reflect what sources say, rather than edit-warring? I note that in this article all your contributions have been to remove positive information and add negative information and ask why you are doing this. TFD (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a false characterization. And the current version of the text reflects what sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, can you provide a single example where you have added positive information or removed negative information about the subject? Clearly you have not. TFD (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The content that I add neither represents her well nor poorly. Updating her beliefs to make sure that the Wikipedia page makes clear that she accepts the consensus that Assad is a genocidal dictator who used chemical weapons on his people is clearly an addition of positive information, if anything (unless of course you disagree with this consensus)[16]... but I reject that such an item is either positive or negative... like all my edits, they simply document where she stands. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

e == The 'political positions' in the lede should be expanded ==

The part of the lede that summarizes her political positions does at the moment not adequately summarize the body. Judging by both RS coverage and the length of coverage in the body, we need to cover:

• The shift from a staunch opponent of LGBT rights to becoming pro same-sex marriage in 2012. (This was discussed here[17])
• Her controversial views on Assad.
• Her support of Indian nationalists.

The lede already covers her support for Medicare-For-All (the term needs to be added to the body though) and abortion rights. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor SashiRolls just violated 1RR to restore bad changes to the lede that he made[18][19]. The editor is well-aware of the editing restrictions on this page, yet still violated 1RR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please indicate where you get talk page consensus to remove Glass-Steagall from the lede and the body on the 16th of February. By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style. Will self-revert within a few minutes. However, you need to revert your edit from the 16th of February and seek talk page consensus for your removal of long-standing content. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)