Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Quoting a Candidate' Tweets when they indicate a continued patter of illegal activity.

Stop interfering with edits that accurately describe what a candidate said, in her own words, and which indicate similar wrong doing to what was reported in the paragraph that immediately precedes the new material. There is only one possible explanation for this behavior, which is the political bias of the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The person who committed the vandalism and the disruptive activity is the one who removed a direct quote by the person whom the page is about, and who then claimed that it was some random person posting a tweet of their own. That is absurd. Reinstate the contribution immediately.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The tweet is WP:UNDUE to include. Your opinion that the tweet is illegal is your original research. Is there any secondary sourcing suggesting that she's going to face charges or dishonorable discharge for her tweet? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking primary sources (the Tweets) and quoting them next to anything you feel they are relevant to is synthesis. You cannot do that.

As you are making a contentious claim about a living person, this falls under Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I see that you have been warned on your talk page. In addition to that, I am placing a formal consensus warning on your talk page.

If you re-add the material without establishing a consensus to do you, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't give a shit if it's potentially implicating Trump in a crime - he seems safely above the law regardless. However it's WP:CRUFT and WP:UNDUE inclusion on those grounds. I have a friend who has an annoying habit of clapping back at Trump tweets then screenshotting his responses and sharing them around. I generally just put him on snooze for 30 days when they turn up too often in my feed. They're uninteresting, unfunny and unimportant. Just like this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been further discussion of this on my talk page, where the IP essentially admits the purpose of including the tweet is to suggest wrongdoing on the part of Gabbard that nobody else is suggesting. Of course, the section header here that the IP chose also shows that WP:OR bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what IP said. IP said that he stated a fact, made a direct quote, sourced to the official tweet of the person the page was about, and then YOU inferred that it implied wrongdoing because you felt that what she said was wrong. If you are going to say that I "essentially admitted" something, then quote me exactly. Show me where my contribution was either unsourced, defamatory, or constituted original research.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the entire conversation being referenced by the admin:

"Including yet another example in a series of violations of military policy by a uniformed officer by quoting her own words is not disruptive editing. Stop abusing whatever power you think you have and allowing your bias to conceal important facts about a candidate for office.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what you're doing is disruptive, and you have three editors telling you so. Stop now or you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain how exactly it met the definition of disruptive? That is a lie. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Resinserting something that another editor objected to is disruptive. I further explained the troubles with the content on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not reinserting. The other editor objected on the supposed grounds that what I said suggested that a law had been broken. All reference to the relevant law was removed. The second post was only of her own tweet and a direct quote. Now that you have been proven wrong once, explain how that was disruptive, or else restore the contribution immediately and report the editors who did this.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To what purpose did you reinsert the tweet? When do we ever include something somebody tweeted without any context? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. In the context that it is a policy position of hers, and a controversy, which are both related to her service in the military. Does every political page not include policy positions and controversies without further context? I have to say, the further I go back on your talk page, the more it looks like there is a pattern of bias in favor of liberal political parties, and the more I see liberal editors asking you to intervene on their behalf, including in relation to Tulsi Gabbard and Rashida Tlaib. That needs to stop. That is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Quoting a controversial policy position stated by a presidential candidate is not.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. The paragraph that discussed that she did something mixing the military with politics and was rebuked for it. In other words, you're still suggesting with the inclusion of the tweet that she did something wrong. This is original research, and not approproiate for inclusion. Meanwhile, your right-wing political bias is showing regarding your comments about "liberal editors". We have no "liberal editors", just people who try to uphold Wikipedia's policies including NPOV, and people who don't. Again, please stop including your disruptive material and abide by the policies Wikipedia has set out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a completely false statement. You are inferring that she did something wrong because of your interpretation of what she said. Quoting a person's own words is not research. Neither is quoting the law, but we can set that aside for now, until a third-party legal scholar does claim that she broke the law. You cannot possibly hope to convince anyone who is not heavily biased that I cannot quote what she says about the military while she is serving in the capacity of an officer in the military because quoting her would somehow constitute research. And I was referring to the paragraph above what I posted from over a year ago by a completely different editor as being the context, not anything I wrote. On what grounds do you presume to rebuke me for simply quoting an American politician accurately with a reference. Let's examine the OR policy in greater detail and see if quoting someone meets that definition. I'm copying our discussion thus far and moving it to the talk page for the article.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)" 174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)</block>

I never stated in the contribution that it was my opinion that the tweet was illegal. That was your inference. To compromise, I removed the legal quotation (I will add it again if a legal expert makes the same claim) as a compromise, but it was not original research. I replaced it with only the original quote and included her rank and the fact that she was referring to the President in her tweet. That is not disruptive. That is not undue. That is not defamatory. It is a statement of fact that is highly relevant to both her military career and her biography as a presidential candidate. The only possible explanation for your vandalism of my contribution is that you are biased politically and are deletion content in an effort to bias articles in favor of your point of view.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the contribution that several of your editors and admins insisted on vandalizing:

"On September 16th, 2019, Major Tulsi Gabbard said of her Commander in Chief: " your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit, is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country, not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia. For you to think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful, and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief.""

Either provide an explanation of why the other admins responsible for this page have allowed these violations of wikipedia policy to occur, one that has not yet already been refuted, or else restore the contribution, stop exhibiting repeated bias, and stop vandalizing Wikipedia.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is implicit synthesis to juxtapose someone's tweet with legislation: it implies that her comments were in violation of the law. You would need a reliable source that reports that conclusion. I doubt you find any because Tulsi Gabbard is a member of the Hawaii state national guard and therefore Article 88 only applies to her when she is on active duty with the U.S. armed forces, for example when she was in Indonesia recently and avoided campaigning, per Article 2 of the UCMJ. This is a good example of why editor synthesis is not allowed, since personal conclusions may be wrong. TFD (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the contribution we are discussing the vandalism of did not include any mention of any law. That item was removed, and yet the contribution was still vandalized. Second, Article 88 applies to all officers of the military. There are certain provisions that pertain only to personnel on active duty, such as the prohibition on campaigning or holding office altogether, but that is not what article 88 refers to. There is no qualifying statement that allows any uniformed U.S. military officer to make contemptuous statements about the President. The only reason the sources do not exist yet is because it has been less than 24 hours. That is a moot point, however, because we are not discussing why I can't post the law that might pertain to the statement she made or not. We are discussing why I cannot post the statement she made itself.

Since you are not giving me a reason, I will assume that I am free to re-contribute this contribution, unless you clearly show why I cannot, and your argument is supported by a real policy, and that it would not constitute vandalism on your part if you removed it (again). Original contribution follows (again):

"On September 16th, 2019, Major Tulsi Gabbard said of her Commander in Chief: " your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit, is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country, not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia. For you to think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful, and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief."" 174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you are not "free to reinsert" you haven't even tried to answer how this wP:CRUFT is WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore this page is under WP:1RR and an enforced, 24 hour WP:BRD cycle. So hold your horses there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

On September 16th Donald Trump was not her commander-in-chief, according to U.S. military law. TFD (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

They actually gave reasons. These are that you aren't citing Wikipedia:Reliable sources that comment on Gabbard's tweet, and say that it is important. Politicians say or tweet stupid things all the time, if we quoted every potentially stupid thing that Joe Biden or even Donald Trump ever said or tweeted on their page, it would take six days to read. So in general, we only write about stupid things that politicians say that Reliable sources comment on. Honestly, there are usually enough of those. When reliable sources comment on this tweet Gabbard made, and say that it's important, we'll write about it. Not until then. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if it has had passing mention in reliable sources, it has not been established that this particular comment is WP:DUE mention by this article; does this comment have any WP:LASTING significance? Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, officers in the national guard are not subject to the U.S. military code except when they are training with or on active service with the U.S. military. TFD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Her opposition to the "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine" and spending money on wars is unique for a Democrat?

In an egregious example of WP:SYNTH, her meager 'political positions' section misleadingly suggests that what makes her different from other Democrats is her criticism of the ""neoliberal/neoconservative war machine", which pushes for US involvement in "wasteful foreign wars". She has said that the money spent on war should be redirected to serve domestic needs." These are not aspects that distinguish her from other Democrats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Her views are unique to the democratic party which, for example, during Obama era armed terrorists in Syria, Iraq and Libya.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) Obama didnt arm terrorists. (2) This guy just reverted all the changes indiscriminately, including restoring the mundane notion that she has spoken out against nursing shortages (WHO ISN'T AGAINST NURSING SHORTAGES???). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that her position is different from other Democrats. (It may be but I haven't investigated and haven't seen any other Democrats come out that strongly on the issue). However, her position is noteworthy by itself even if all other Democrats have the same position. I have placed the matter you refer to in its own paragraph to distinguish it from the previous sentence which gave the impression that other Democrats had a different view.Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your change was fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many problems with Snooganssnoogans edits. They are obviously pushing a POV. Like removing the word "accusation", referring the Syrian President as dictator. I would like to hear a response for that POV editting.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) Assad used chemical weapons. (2) Assad is a dictator. (3) No explanation for any of the other reverting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Assad is a dictator", "Assad used chemical weapons"; Once again you proved that you hold a POV and that you are totally unaware of what you are talking about.

"No explanation for any other revert" also why didn't did you move up that she met with the Syrian President? It is not the most notable thing in her Political views; seems like a smearing issue. Also the Obama administration did in fact arm terrorists in the middle East.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I moved up her meeting with Assad (because it's a clear issue where she differs from mainstream Democrats). I don't understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant why did you move it up. It is not a notable thing in her political position, she and the media don't bring that up all the time. Her notable views is that she is against regime change wars. Her meeting with Assad is the least notable thing about her.

That Assad used chemical weapons is still under investigation so we can't say that Assad did use chemical weapons without saying that these are accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you can suggest another phrasing rather than removing text that differentiates Gabbard's positions from candidates we find more acceptable. Obama isn't running in this election, so there is no need for us to whitewash his legacy. Note that Snopes rated as true "The Obama administration approved the transfer of funding to the Islamic Relief Agency, a Sudan-based organization with ties to Al-Qaeda". While you and I know that it was the correct thing to do, we should say that and not pretend it didn't happen. There may be situations where funding terrorists is the moral thing to do. TFD (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the same thing as "arming terrorists". I don't think the phrase "neoliberal war machine" is remotely helpful, or particularly illuminating for understanding her positions. Does any candidate say they favor the "war machine"? Nblund ^talk 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

LGBT positions

I'm not seeing consensus for removing this from the lead. Her anti-LGBT positions have been widely reported and are a significant part of her story. Removing it seems like an attempt to polish her image.- MrX 🖋 11:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ETA: Consensus was established for this material here: talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 1#Historical LGBT positions in the lead - MrX 🖋 11:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I don't think that should be in the lead since she has changed her views long time ago so that is WP:RECENT.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And that's not a strong consensus for inclusion. 2-3 like-minded editors agree with eachother is not a strong consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "like-minded editors" SharabSalam? Most of the eight participants in that discussion expressed policy-based reasoning. Let's see if their views about this have changed in the past nine months. Pinging 80.111.40.28, Muboshgu, Snooganssnoogans, Binksternet, Jonathunder, Nblund, and 107.77.204.173. - MrX 🖋 13:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I still hold the same position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason for removing historically significant facts from the lead section. Old political stances don't go away when you shift position; instead, the story is about you having held a particular position A until a certain turning point, then you changed your stance to B. It seems dishonest to try and erase a much-commented-on former position. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that generally comes up in coverage of her campaign - it was a big problem in her rollout. I also think this edit is a more accurate reflection of the controversy over her Syria position: I don't believe even the most hawkish members of the Democratic caucus openly supported forcibly removing Assad, and this version is more consistent with the description given in profiles like this one in the Guardian. Nblund ^talk 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation

I removed for examination re ‘contentious’ material per WP:BLP.

Tulsi Gabbard has a number of ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, a religious sect in Hawaii that has been described as a cult. In 2015 Gabbard referred to Chris Butler, the founder of the sect, as her “guru dev" or spiritual master. Tulsi Gabbard's husband, Abraham Williams, has strong family connections to Butler. His mother, Anya Anthony, works with Wai Lana Productions LLC, a company associated with Butler’s wife; Anthony runs Gabbard's political office in Honolulu. Gabbard's father, Mike Gabbard, said in 2004: “Although I’m not a member of the Science of Identity Foundation, I’m eternally thankful to Chris Butler;" both he and Tulsi Gabbard's mother served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation. Tulsi Gabbard has not answered questions about her family ties to the sect.

Will return to discuss. Humanengr (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr. Though I respect the need to discuss this, I think it's more contentious NOT to include this issue and it should not be removed from the page. The New Yorker article shows it to be a legitimate issue. If anything, much more info from the articles could be summarized in this section (the business ties, for example). Removing this is like removing Jeremiah Wright from Barack Obama's page, or removing "The Apprentice" from Trump's page. Perhaps a section on "religious views" with this info? Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

First consideration: characterization as "cult" (both here and on Science of Identity Foundation page) carries subjectively applied, derogatory connotations:

In the English-speaking world the word "cult" often carries derogatory connotations. It has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.

Hi Localemediamonitor — I'll respond to your comments above as I can later today. Humanengr (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Localemediamonitor, further re 'cult', see WP:LABEL. Also, any ties to the 'Science of Identity Foundation' that are not hers specifically are not allowed per WP:BLPBALANCE. Humanengr (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So remove the word "cult" then. Again, it's inconceivable that this issue does not merit inclusion on the page when the New Yorker and other publications have covered it extensively, and when Gabbard herself has referred to the religious/sect leader as her "guru dev" (spiritual master). Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans?Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading through the New Yorker reference, I'd say the disputed content was a POV violation representing a POV not in the reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So Ronz would you vote for reverting the removal while cutting out the word "cult" then? Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No.

Some mention seems due given the New Yorker ref, a complete rewrite would probably be best. I cannot access the Star Advertiser ref, so have no idea on what guidance it gives us. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a review of the the "New Yorker" article by Aseem Shukla [2]. After NPR quoted the New Yorker article towards Gabbard, reviews about that were done by Vamsee Juluri [3] and by The Hill [4]. Historical context: The Nazis prosecuted family members of a person which was found guilty via Sippenhaft, which is what Localemediamonitor's text does. Wikipedia should not re-enact Nazi habits. Localemediamonitor's text uses relatives of Tulsi Gabbard to construct her guilt by association in an attempt to disparage Gabbard. See also: Sippenhaft. I hereby request a topic ban against Localemediamonitor with the scope of everything related to Tulsi Gabbard. Xenagoras (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: that's not how a topic ban works, you would need to open up an WP:ANI thread about that. And your own editing in this topic area would also be scrutinized. Please don't compare other editors to Nazis.

I've previously discussed this issue, and I continue to believe that a very brief (three sentence max) mention of Gabbard's relationship with Butler is warranted in the section on her personal life. The discussion in this New York Times profile seems like a decent model. It's simply a fact about her religious upbringing. I think a start would be to simply say that: Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called The Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing. We might add one sentence that mentions why some people have questioned these ties, and also one sentence that explains her response.Nblund ^talk 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I was considering that your first line "Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called The Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing” might be appropriate for inclusion. But now I see that you had previously opened the topic of Gabbard's relationship to the Science of Identity Foundation topic at the BLP Noticeboard and the consensus after discussion appeared to be against inclusion.Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article cited by Nblund (as well as other major coverage of the matter, see below) dates from after that BLPN discussion, which changes the equation. The sentence proposed above is absolutely fine to include in the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be excluded per 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. The fact that it is absent from mainstream news media is reason to exclude. The Reverend Wright story had extensive media coverage, became an issue in the 2008 campaign and Obama made a speech about it. But we don't mention every paranoid conspiracy theory about Obama that was reported in Fox News or right-wing media. Note too the phrasing uses weasel-wording, i.e., "has been described as a cult." And Barack Obama has been described as a Muslim and not really the president during his terms in office. I suggest that you write to the moderators at the next debate and ask them to raise the question. Then Gabbard would provide an answer and fact-checkers could get onto the case. TFD (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's entirely off-base to compare well-documented facts about Gabbard's upbringing and family with Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. A much better comparison would be to the section Barack Obama#Religious views, which does in fact mention each of his parents' religious attachments and quotes the article subject himself about his more contemporaneous religious influences - things you appear to be fighting tooth and nail to exclude from this article in the present case. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"quotes the article subject himself about his more contemporaneous religious influences" This is the important argument to be considered and this procedure is followed in the articles about all 2020 candidates and beyond. Only direct quotes by the article subject about it's current religious views are contained in the 2020 candidates' articles. Xenagoras (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The source situation has changed considerably since that BLP noticeboard discussion in January 2019. For example, the issue has now received extensive coverage in a New York Magazine profile (which seems a very thoroughly researched and balanced piece to me).

The above mentioned New York Times article from August has a newer statement from Gabbard on the matter, which essentially confirms the 2015 New Yorker quote (while pushing back on the "cult" criticism):

She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.

“Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”

Also, it points out the continuing influence on her biography in other ways:

[Gabbard and her current husband] had met years before as part of the tight-knit community around the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler.

I think there is no question that a serious biographical encyclopedia article about Gabbard needs to cover Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation in some form.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@HaeB, Pls see my response to MrX referencing your comment. Humanengr (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This content belongs. Well-sourced and DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Face on Mars controversy. It is human nature to make connections based on one's experiences and belief systems. But seriously, all Gabbard is saying is that Butler is a guru (which I suppose he is) and has taught her. practice meditation. Gabbard by thr way practices Yoga. There's nothing in any other political biography about fitness trainers. It's pretty propagandistic to mention Butler without first mentioning Gabbard's fitness routine and all the people who have helped her. TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing inherently scandalous about it. So then why we would handle it any differently from any other aspect of her bio? We discuss other aspects of her faith, her martial arts practices, and her veganism, but we don't describe an aspect of her faith that has been covered in depth by two major magazines, and mentioned in profiles in The Guardian, the New York Times, and a number of others. It seems kind of propagandistic to mention Butler as though he's a fitness instructor - that's not what a "guru" is, and no reliable source covers him that way. He's an important spiritual influence. Nblund ^talk 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"why we would handle it any differently from any other aspect of her bio?" Because religion is (beside sexuality) the most sensitive aspect of human nature and therefore enjoying the strongest legal protection. Only direct/authorized quotes by the article subject itself about it's current religious views are contained in all 2020 candidates' articles. Gabbard's political opponents make her religion into a scandal: Gabbard's Republican competitor Kaaihue described her as "worshipping the devil".[5] This happened in 2016, not in 1616. Religious bigotry is a huge problem in the US, and you Nblund repeatedly deleting coverage about bigoted smears against Gabbard [6][7][8] is not helpful. Xenagoras (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Bernie_Sanders#Religion,_heritage,_and_values contains a lengthy discussion of his Jewishness. It quotes Sanders, but it also quotes a number of other sources discussing his beliefs and Judaism. I don't believe its true of any major candidate BLP that we only use quotes. We are not responsible for protecting Gabbard from the things that her political opponents write about her.Nblund ^talk 00:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're seeing a face on Mars where I only see rocks. Gabbard said nothing about Butler that connects him to her religious belief system and in fact she was never a member of his group (or sect or cult). TFD (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I read the "early life" and "personal life" sections of all 25 former and current 2020 presidential candidates. All of them follow the rule that only quotes by the article subject on their current religious views are included (with rare deviations I'll elaborate below). It's not difficult to understand why this rule applies (besides WP:BLP): A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives. Holding this against the child (here: Tulsi Gabbard) violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM and is one of the reasons I deleted it.[9] Therefore the topic of religion before adulthood is totally off limits, and Tulsi Gabbard has called this type of "questions" about her religion during childhood "very religious bigoted and offensive".[10][11] You know that since you have deleted this information two times already.[12][13] What you do is deleting text where Gabbard defends herself or gets defended against bigoted attacks and you prevent the removal of such bigoted attacks there:[14] We are responsible for protecting Gabbard and any other living person against WP:BLP violations like religious bigoted personal attacks. Read WP:BLP then WP:LIBEL.

Sanders' "religion" section gives way too much WP:UNDUE weight to his religious views. The length of that section is ludicrous. It is also the only candidate where not 100% of the content is quoted by Sanders himself. Did you know that "Brad Marshall, chief financial officer of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), considered raising the question of whether Sanders is an atheist in the hope of costing him votes in the primary contest against Hillary Clinton"? [15] Maybe that is one reason why the section on Sanders' religion is so absurdly long, giving religion way too much WP:UNDUE weight. Xenagoras (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: She described him as "essentially a Vaishnava Hindu pastor", and a "guru dev" who gave her a gift of a "wonderful spiritual practice" . Multiple reliable sources describe him as an important influence on her religious upbringing. One of your concerns in the previous discussion was that mainstream broadsheet newspapers hadn't covered this. But we have five high quality broadsheets now: Miami Herald, Telegraph, New York Times, The Guardian,Star Advertiser.

@Xenagoras: that isn't a rule, and you've not made any edits outside of this topic area, so I'm not sure that you have a very good sense of how policies are generally applied around these issues. If we include criticism of Gabbard, then it is warranted to include Gabbard's response. But you're trying to include an accusation that NPR participated in a "Hinduphobic smear campaign" while simultaneously insisting that we can't discuss what NPR actually said. It's just not a defensible position. Nblund ^talk 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Only 1% of my article edits are about the Science of Identity Foundation in relation to Tulsi Gabbard.

The rule is WP:AVOIDVICTIM: A child has no control over the spiritual/religious teaching it receives or the behaviour of it's teacher and therefore a person must never be disparaged/accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher, see also WP:GUILT: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.". Localemediamonitor first inserted the text [16], "Tulsi Gabbard has a number of ties to the Science of Identity Foundation", which violated WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. He continued, SoIF were "a religious sect in Hawaii that has been described as a cult" which violates WP:BLPSTYLE and by implying Tulsi Gabbard were a member of a sect/cult it violated WP:LIBEL. Furthermore he attempted to "prove" Gabbard's "number of ties to the cult" (her WP:GUILT) via claims that rely on guilt by association with other people which he also claimed to have "ties to the cult". In Localemediamonitor's second attempt[17] he inserted, "the controversial socially conservative guru" which violates WP:BLPSTYLE, and via "Gabbard was brought up in part on the teachings of the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler and has said that Butler's work is an influence on her" Localemediamonitor implied Gabbard were also "controversial socially conservative" which violated WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION because Gabbard has repeatedly stated that her world views have drastically changed from childhood to adulthood. It also violated WP:BLPBALANCE,WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM.

I know very well how to read, understand and interpret policies and their spirit, and you should not question my capabilities to follow policies.

I never insisted that "we can't discuss what NPR actually said". The opposite is true, because my original text version [18] that you deleted [19] (by falsely claiming that WP:N applies to content in the article) contained: "NPR suggested in an interview with Gabbard that her religion Vaishnava Hinduism equates to a "cult" and she would "worship images of a cult leader whose preachings are anti-science". In this interview NPR also confronted Gabbard with various other types of accusations that got published since her campaign start." Xenagoras (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. If you want to have a discussion about edits I made on other pages, please open up a discussion on the relevant talk page. If you want to accuse other editors of libel (you shouldn't, but if you insist) then take it to WP:ANI Nblund ^talk 21:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So I made a new version of the addition, much shorter, drawing only on points from the NYT and New Yorker. Localemediamonitor (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss potential versions here, rather than edit-warring to include them. Thanks.

I agree with removal of this latest version. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because of violation of WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM (see also my answer above to Nblund). Xenagoras (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think some coverage is warranted, but @Localemediamonitor: we need to hammer out a wording and gain consensus here before adding to the page. Nblund ^talk 17:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I read the Telegraph article which says, "The cult is seen as having influenced her conservative stance on social issues early in her career, such as her opposition to gay rights....She has since reversed her position and is now a member of the House of Representatives LGBT Equality Caucus." Notice the difference in tone from their phrasing and yours. In their version it was an influence she very early on rejected, while in your version Butler has a Rasputin like influence on her. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. TFD (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not really worth my time to keep changing the wording just to have it removed again and again. If the serious people here can't figure out a way to simply edit the passage satisfactorily to get this extremely relevant and well-sourced info onto the page in some form (as many agree, such as HaeB, Snooganssnoogans and even Nblund), especially in the context of all the other politicians' pages that have similar info (as cited above ad nauseum), then that's the way it is. It makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid though, and like it's hiding something.Localemediamonitor (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"It makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid though, and like it's hiding something." You are hiding critique and advice about your WP:BLP violations. [20] Xenagoras (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm wondering if you've confused my edit for someone else's. The wording I proposed above only said he influenced her upbringing. I don't believe I have proposed anything resembling a "Rasputin-like influence", and The Telegraph really goes a step further than I would by calling Butler's group a "cult" and suggesting that it shaped her early political positions. I'm totally open to hearing an alternate wording. None of the sources I've cited are tabloids. Nblund ^talk 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

References

NY Times article of possible interest:
“As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.”

• Lerer, Lisa (12 October 2019). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times.

—40.142.140.74 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Could I get a rough sense of where editors stand regarding how to word this stuff?

1. No mention of Butler (status quo)
2. Mention Butler as an important religious influence in her early life in the "personal life" section (like the wording I proposed here)
3. Mention Butler and the link to her early opposition to gay marriage (following The Telegraph and TFD's framing above)
4. Mention Butler with one sentence on the controversy (accusations of "cult") and one sentence on Gabbard's response (eg.: the questions are rooted in religious bigotry). Similar to the framing from Vox, or this paragraph from yesterday's New York Times article.

For my part, I think option 4 would be ideal — we might as well just be forthright about the discussion — but I think option 2 and 3 would be fine as well. I'm open to alternatives, but at a minimum I'd like to get a sense of how many editors outright oppose any mention of Butler at this point. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely 2 and 3. Given the problems with using "cult", I'd like to see specific wording for 4, but in the context of religious bigotry and political attacks, something seems to deserve mention. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This could probably be a paragraph with the topic sentence: Tulsi Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, both through her immediate family and her husband's. Also, this article by Nick Grube should probably be included: [21], this one from India Post probably shouldn't be: [22] (misspelled headline, etc.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP should be applied with “a high degree of sensitivity”. We should avoid guilt by association (as noted by Xenagoras and TFD above) through vague allegations of “strong ties” at second-degree. There is documented interest of some to smear her with innuendo of cult association. Therefore, statements for a WP BLP need clear evidential support of her individual current (or at least recent) beliefs and activities. Humanengr (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... (ISKCON guru system#Siddhaswarupa). I agree sensitivity and caution are needed, however there does appear to be a lot of information coming out about the SoI. Some is likely opposition research, we should certainly only add things that pass WP:V. It does appear that she grew up "under the influence" of Butler and her parents. Can anyone find the *name* of the high school she attended? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely was not a Christian missionary school, it was the Baguio Boarding School that Butler established so children of his followers could be taught somewhere with no oversight after clashes with authorities in other countries. This is noted in this New Yorker article and in a Hawaii Free Press expose series on Butler as well as other sources. Despite what some dedicated editors are trying to insist on it's clear that she has strong connections to Butler and hiding them in this article doesn't maintain neutrality, it conceals fact. JamesG5 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, re "there does appear to be a lot of information coming out about the SoI. Some is likely opposition research, we should certainly only add things that pass WP:V.": Agree re the news and likely opposition research. The question is what, under policies, should or should not be in WP about a living individual as opposed to in an article about the Foundation per se. Humanengr (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: she says Butler's work "still guides her", so I think we have that indication of recent personal beliefs. I agree that we should handle this delicately, but Wikipedia describes disputes. In my view, the best way to avoid innuendo is by briefly stating the facts and the arguments without taking a side. Gabbard's campaign adviser has compared her relationship with Butler to Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. If we take that comparison as valid, then we could follow the same model followed in the final paragraph of Barack_Obama#Religious_views: state the relationship, mention the criticism, and state the response. It avoids innuendo, but also still notifies readers of the existence of a controversy. Nblund ^talk 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, re "still guides her": I can't find such an assertion from her in the article. What she did say was "… he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." That arguably could be included in her bio page but I note TFD's comment here. Humanengr (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That is the characterization offered by the New York Times, which is generally considered a reliable source. I'm open to rewording, but she compares him to a pastor or Imam, and elsewhere refers to him as her "guru dev" (New Yorker), or "diksha guru" (this interview). I don't think it is appropriate to characterize yoga and meditation as part of a "fitness" regiment for Hinduism.Nblund ^talk 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What does “Butler’s work still guides her” refer to — political opinions, business arrangements, meditation practices, or other? The reporter’s inference leaves that open and invites speculation of possibly sinister control inappropriate for a BLP. Relying on secondary source inference from an article where there is a direct quote available seems inappropriate, especially when subject to wide interpretation. Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It obviously refers to her spiritual life. So does calling him a "guru". Secondary sources are preferable, but I don't have any problem with also including Gabbard's characterization of her relationship to Butler. What I do have a problem with is simply leaving out noteworthy information simply because some editors think there is something "sinister" about any affiliation with a new religious movement. Nblund ^talk 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 1 because of policy. Chris Butler was Gabbard's religion teacher during her childhood. Some people (especially Gabbard's political opponents) claim that Chris Butler is "bad" (labeled "controversial") because he has "bad behavior" (e.g. labeled "guru" or "master") or teaches "bad religion" (e.g. labeled "cult"). They draw this painting of the "bad Chris Butler" to use it to copy his "badness" onto Gabbard via guilt by association. A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives or the behavior of it's teacher, therefore a person must never be disparaged or accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher. Wikipedia policy prohibits this via WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization." This is why only quotes by the article subject about their religious views during adulthood are admissible. WP:GUILT defines: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." A child cannot prevent the conduct of it's teacher or the teaching it receives, therefore everything related to Gabbard's religious teaching or her teacher during her childhood is off limits.

The notorious [23] NPR interview [24] [25] has Gabbard explaining the media situation and her religious views: "What I would love to do is for our conversation to be focused on me, not my parents. ... Ask me about what I have said and done." ... "Vaishnava Hinduism, the practice that I follow, is a monotheistic branch of Hinduism that is centered around love. Love for god and love for others, and how we can be best pleasing to god through the practice of Karma yoga which means taking action to serve others, to protect our planet, and to develop my own personal loving relationship with god." There are several other interviews where Gabbard explains her religious views in much more detail like [26] and [27] There are also speeches from Gabbard at Hinduism conferences where she explains her religion even more detailed and a lot of videos from town halls where Gabbard explains the pillars of her philosophy. Somehow nobody seems to be interested in writing Gabbard's actual current religious or philosophical views into her article, but only her alleged "ties" with the "controversial cult leader" seem of interest to some people.

Regarding the Options 2, 3 and 4 there are additional problems. The article Science of Identity Foundation cannot be used as link in Gabbard's article because it contains several factual errors and outdated information, the sources are contradicting each other, and it severely violates WP:BLP in many ways. The article Science of Identity Foundation was created minutes before it's content was used to insert defamatory text into Gabbard's article. It is an attack page that should be deleted per WP:G10.

Gabbard's opposition to gay marriage until 2004 (when she was 23) is already described twice in both the lead and "political positions" section. (It should not be in the lead because it's an outdated stance.) Adding the name of Butler or his "cult" would add no information about Gabbard's outdated or current political views, but only add guilt by association with anything "bad" some people connect with Butler or his "cult".

The controversy about Gabbard's religion is not a one time event since Gabbard has been the target of religious bigoted attacks many times over the years, and she has taken a stance on religious issues on her own behalf and on behalf of others several times. Religious discrimination#United_States would be a starting point for interested people. Xenagoras (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 4. JamesG5 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I think the Grube article could be included as an additional source just for the Butler stuff. (Where can I sign up for that job?) I agree that the IndiaPost article is unhelpful.

@Ronz: here's what I had in mind for option 4:

1.Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called the Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing.

2. Her affiliation with the foundation has been scrutinized due to what some have described as anti-gay views and authoritarian leadership the group's leader.

3.Gabbard has described Butler as a 'essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor' and characterized the interest in her relationship with him as anti-Hindu bigotry.

Sentence 1 could be replaced with SashiRoll's suggestion above, but "ties" might be seen as a bit suggestive. Sources like the New York Times simply avoided the use of the term "cult" altogether, so I think "authoritarian leadership" is a less loaded way of describing it. Open to suggestions here. Nblund ^talk 19:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how much I should be indenting here. After further (re)reading, my impression is that the main point of the Grube article is campaign-specific. It could be added first to the campaign entry and then probably also to the subsection on the campaign, here? Still I would encourage using less accusatory terms than Grube does, at times, in his article. (He's never been a fan, I don't think) I think we need to keep in mind that by the time she was born, her family was already into this group, and so her responsibility for the community into which she was born does remain somewhat limited. I wonder what her endgame is... that story of the reclusive Washingtonian reminds me of Kerouac & Gary Snyder. Cf. Desolation Peak (Washington) ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am still seeing this as innuendo, opposition research trying to show a connection without explaining what it is. One editor compared the issue to the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years, he married him and his wife and baptized their children, and Obama took the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright's sermons. Obama's connection with Wright became a major 2008 campaign controversy. Here's how the Barack Obama article covers the story: "Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Jeremiah Wright in October 1987 and became a member of Trinity in 1992. During Obama's first presidential campaign in May 2008, he resigned from Trinity after some of Wright's statements were criticized." But Gabbard's connection with Butler is much weaker and has not really attracted controversy in the campaign. It's more like the Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy, which is not mentioned in Obama's article.

Maybe it will be brought up at tonight's debate and dominate the news cycle for the next month. In that case we can add it to the Gabbard campaign article and add a brief mention in this article that Gabbard knows Butler, consistent with how we treated the Wright controversy.

TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Then can you propose a version that avoids innuendo? The comparison to Reverend Wright was made by Gabbard's campaign staffer during her interview with the New York Times. Nothing in this article has "dominated the news cycle" for a month. She's not going to get that level of news coverage. Nblund ^talk 17:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see enough coverage yet for inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You previously suggested we needed broadsheet and cable news coverage. We have both.

What else are you looking for, exactly? Because it kind of seems like you've set a moving target that requires one of the least-covered primary candidates to become a top news story. If that's the standard then this whole article should be a stub. Nblund ^talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not Option 1. Gabbard was affiliated with Chris Butler up to at least 2015, when she explicitly called him her "guru". She chose to be connected with him for a majority of her adult life. There is no valid reason to omit this information from her article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that Gabbard was "affiliated" with Butler? Thanks. (p.s. Cambridge defines "affiliated" as: "to be officially connected with or controlled by another, usually larger, company or organization" OR "to become part of or form a close relationship with a group or organization"). I don't see any evidence of such a thing in the video you adduced as evidence (that video is discussed below extensively). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First Hindu, first Samoan, ethnicity

[The first Hindu / first Samoan American edits have gone back-and-forth a few times so I'm creating this §. Ronz reverted my recent attempt and left a msg on my talk page; I'm continuing here for ease of reference.]

Hi Ronz — That ethnicelebs page cites PBS's Finding Your Roots, which is available only via KQED Passport. So it would seem reliable as a factual transcript of that material; maybe include the PBS link as well? Also, re the "As is typical …" sentence, we can include this Pew cite, if you think that's needed. I had left that cite out to reduce clutter.

Re 'first Samoan-American', that characterization doesn't seem to merit inclusion in the lede. She was two years old when she left and the Roots genetic analysis didn't specifically indicate any fraction as 'Samoan'. Re the checkyourfact cite for that sentence, my intent was to dissuade further back-and-forth on this as, in the preceding edit, 'first Hindu' was removed. Humanengr (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the website Ethnicity of Celebs, the show says she is over 25% Samoan.[28] It is significant because her father was raised there and she grew up in Hawaii, whose aboriginal population have a related culture. Also, it is significant that she was born outside the U.S., in common with George Romney, John McCain and Ted Cruz and in conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. So if elected she would be the first president ever elected who was not born in the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Ronz, in the edit identified above on my talk page, noted that ethniccelebs.com was not considered RS. (For further on that, see this.) I referred to it only for transcription of genetic testing info from PBS episode. Re "born outside the U.S.", that is not correct: she was born in "American Samoa" (per that same cite as well as https://www.tulsi2020.com/es/node/184). Your raising that issue here — and describing it in the terms you did — iiuc, violates WP:BLPCOI. (withdrawn — see below) Humanengr (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I know it is not reliable, but it is reporting what PBS said. In fact it says that PBS reported that 25% of her ancestry was south east Asian, which Samoans are. And American Samoa is outside the United States. (Gabbard was born a U.S citizen because one or both of her parents were.) TFD (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't notice there was a dispute. I simply removed the the poor sources and saw that the article already has multiple sources for the basic information in the lede.

If you want to reference PBS, do so directly. Note that three of the the sources the ethnicelebs identify, geni.com and familysearch.org, are also not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are more than 1.03 billion Hindus in the world, and only 500–600,000 Samoans. I'd say based on those numbers alone, it is much more relevant that Gabbard is the first Hindu member of Congress than first Samoan. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are 1.03 billion Hindus in the world and only 0.33 billion Americans. TFD (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, Sorry, you are correct that she was born outside the United States in that she was born in the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. Per Natural-born-citizen_clause#Tulsi_Gabbard, she was a citizen at birth through both of her parents being citizens.Humanengr (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

'Samoan American' (Samoan-American?) is an ambiguous designation. How about ending the lede para with "Elected in 2012, Gabbard became the first Hindu member of Congress. She was also the first member of Congress of Samoan heritage (through her paternal grandparents)." Humanengr (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fine. TFD (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Heritage" is also ambiguous, and doesn't convey that she was born there. It's also a bit long for the lede. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, 'ancestry' instead of 'heritage'?. Without some qualifier showing that the Samoan genetic heritage is small compared to European, it's misleading to call her a 'Samoan-American'. She left before she was 3, so having been born there is interesting but not compelling for the lede. Humanengr (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I prefer ancestry to heritage and would leave out genetics. But her South Pacific ancestry is important to her identity in the same way that black ancestry is to African American politicians. Notice that she says aloha and wears a lei. That would be unusual if she had no South Pacific ancestry or if she did it because there was a family story that generations ago one of her ancestors was Samoan and she took a DNA test to prove it. TFD (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I skimmed a few refs and didn't see any that use such detail. Probably best to follow the references, and address ambiguities in the article body rather than worry about the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, So the lede para would end with: "Elected in 2012, Gabbard became the first Hindu member of Congress." and ancestry info would be in the body, correct? Humanengr (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Leave it as is. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, I changed ethniceleb to PBS per your suggestion; also added a ref to 1st sentence below; so insert after 1st sentence of Early life and education?:

As is typical of many residents of Hawaii, she is of mixed ethnicity. She is of Southeast Asian (25.6%) French and German (24.6%), and Polynesian descent—as well as a mixture of 9 other ethnicities.

Humanengr (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Too much detail. Note too that we inherit genes unevenly from our ancestors, which is why Warren's test showed she was between 1/64 and 1/1024 Native American ancestry. I would say that Gabbard is of mixed European and Samoan ancestry. While Southeast Asian include Samoans and Hawaiians, most people would think of Vietnam and surrounding countries. And culture is more important than genetics. We think of Ralph Fiennes as English for example, rather than Norman French. TFD (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Too much detail, focusing upon genetic testing rather than culture and influences. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Ronz: Agreed that the genetic test material may be overly technical, but I would like to get something more about the breadth of her ancestry in. I believe the second sentence of Early life and education at some point read “Tulsi is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent." (The search is not working properly so I can’t double-check.) In any case, I propose we (re-)introduce this language consistent with her own view of her genetic background on https://gabbard.house.gov/about. Humanengr (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Samoan is a subgroup of Polynesian while Polynesian is a subgroup of South Asian. The genetic findings are entirely consistent with all her South Asian and Polynesian ancestry being Samoan. It's like saying that genetic testing of an Irishman showed genetics consistent with 25% European and 75% Caucasian ancestry. It wouldn't rebut the fact that he had Irish ancestry. TFD (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, plus the reliability of such genetic tests is very poor. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• comment I feel like I should note that race is a social construct, and we assign it based on arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with DNA. Gabbard is identified as Samoan despite the fact that her mom is from Kansas for the same reason that Barack Obama was identified as black despite his mixed heritage. It has nothing to do with genes. Wikipedia doesn't need to delve in to this, we can just defer to what sources say. The Guardian describes her as "the first American Samoan and the first Hindu member of the US Congress", ABCNews does the same. We should follow suit. Nblund ^talk 15:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • See 23andMe "Reference Populations & Regions": East Asian & Native American includes Chinese & Southeast Asian, which includes Filipino & Austronesian, which includes American Samoa.[29] The tests are not as precise as one might wish for various reasons. But Gabbard is not using her DNA text to prove her ancestry, it is proved by her family history and her upbringing. And I agree that race is a social construct and Gabbard identifies and is identified as American Samoan. She has described herself as mixed race, but that is fairly common for American Samoans, just as it is for African Americans. And of course her birth in American Samoa is noteworthy because it is outside the United States, and no president has ever been born outside the U.S. or the original 13 colonies. TFD (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to include Gabbard’s own racial identification from her campaign page is peculiar at best and racist at worst.

The Early life and education § of Kamala Harris's bio page says "She identifies as black and Indian.” I suggest we accord Gabbard’s identification the same respect as Harris’s. Humanengr (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

So what is the self-ID here? I don't believe its racist to afford her the same coverage that we afford everyone else. We defer to reliable secondary sources. Nblund ^talk 18:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Harris’s page asserts her own identification. The text I proposed above: "Tulsi is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent.” follows Gabbard’s own identification on her house.gov page. If this self-identification were not available, secondary sources could be relied on, but refusing to let her self-identity would need more justification. Humanengr (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In general, reliable, independent, third party sources are the preferred sources for Wikipedia. Gabbard's self descriptions can be included, but it isn't correct to say that we're required to prioritize her self-descriptions over the descriptions of high-quality sources. The opposite is really true. Gabbard's ancestry might warrant mention in the body, but the lead should reflect what the sources generally say.Nblund ^talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t for changing the lead. As with Harris’s bio, it should be in the 'Early life and education' section. I suggest including the language that follows her house.gov page: "Tulsi is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent” in the 2nd para there after "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household.” Humanengr (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Polynesians are Asians, it makes no sense to say that Polynesian and Asian is an ancestry mixture. It would be more precise to say she is of mixed Samoan and European anccestry. We generally do not refer to American Samoans, Hawaiians, Eskimos and American Indians as Asians, although they are included in the Chinese and East Asian grouping in DNA tests. Similarly, Caucasian is too broad: TFD (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two ways to approach this, one is to respect her own views — which I think is the way to go on an issue as sensitive as race/ethnicity — partly genetic, partly a social construct, but mainly a right of self-identification. Or one can look at the technical genetic results and classification schemes. Below is what the PBS show presented and the ethniceleb article reported:

• 25.6% Southeast Asian
• 24.6% French and German
• 21.4% British and Irish
• 15% Broadly Northwestern European
• 3.8% Broadly Oceanian
• 2.5% Eastern European
• 2% Iberian
• 2% Broadly European
• 1.1% Broadly East Asian
• 1% Broadly Southern European
• 0.8% Unmatched
• 0.2% Ashkenazi Jewish

Samoan is a subgroup of ‘Broadly Oceanian’ in this scheme. Humanengr (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, your response to my 19:47, 15 October reply above? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems like an excessive level of detail. I don't necessarily have a problem with saying "According to her campaign website, Gabbard is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent", as long as it isn't presented as though it conflicts with "Samoan". Nblund ^talk 22:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx … In thinking about where to place this, I realized it was not appropriate under 'Early life and education'. In addition, there was no current statement that she is a practicing Hindu anywhere in the article. I think both those are facts about her that are of the highest general interest to people checking her out on WP. So I suggest putting them together as the second sentence of the lede: "Gabbard is a practicing Hindu of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent." That also grounds the assertion in the last sentence of the lede that she became the first Hindu member of Congress. Humanengr (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr, Samoan is also a subgroup of Southeast Asian and Broadly East Asian, and even Unmatched. So Gabbard could have received as much as 31.3% {25.6+3.8+1.1+0.8) of her DNA from Samoan ancestors, making her between one quarter and one third Samoan ancestry, consistent with her family tree. TFD (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That is one plausible technical argument. But what about respecting her self-identification? Humanengr (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I was merely commenting on the DNA test. As I wrote above, "race is a social construct and Gabbard identifies and is identified as American Samoan. She has described herself as mixed race, but that is fairly common for American Samoans, just as it is for African Americans." (02:01, 14 October 2019) There is no reason to include the test since it does not provide any new information and is a primary source that requires interpretation. TFD (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the test anymore. The proposed text above is from how she describes herself in the first line of the house.gov site. This complements the 'Samoan-American' identification which is clearly a strong part of her roots as well. Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I think MOS:ETHNICITY is the relevant guideline here. Her status as the first Hindu and Samoan member of Congress is an important point that reliable sources emphasize, but the specifics of her ancestry are not all that significant. Barack Obama is mentioned as the first African American US POTUS, but his mixed race heritage is not mentioned until the section on his early life. I think this is a good precedent to follow. Nblund ^talk 20:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

References

On the subject of "cute nicknames"

This is silly trivia. It's not even the only place with this nickname, and it is only one nickname for this place (see also Bombaconda). If we want to say that she earned her Combat Medical Badge on her first tour, or saw combat, or came under mortar fire then we should say that. We shouldn't imply something or another through a sideways reference to a cute name someone came up with for LSA Anaconda one day. GMG^talk 18:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems more like a campaign trail anecdote than an encyclopedic detail about her life. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard: High School.

Do we need an RfC to include where Tulsi Gabbard went to high school? I read Xeno's comments about Nblund's proposals above claiming that they violated WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which starts: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events... I don't think an elected state rep, US rep, presidential candidate would quite count.

The article has inaccurately stated for years that she went to a Christian missionary school for two years during high school. (At least, the source did not say it was a Christian missionary school. That is embarrassing (or should be) for all of us who have worked on the page.)

We don't need to go into all the particulars in a BLP, keep all the primary mud-throwing on the campaign page, sure, but high school attendance is pretty standard info for a BLP. And if it just so happens that you spent 2 years abroad, readers of most biographies like to know why.

WP:GUILT is a decision in an ArbCom case about pretty unrelated matters, if you take the time to read the case. It is clear that it does not shed much light on whether best practices are to say which communities TG grew up in or not.

@Humanengr:, you've claimed a BLP exception quoting Xeno's comments, which preceded my edits. You did this in order to violate 1RR. I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Now, the RSitude of Hawai'i Free Press, that I would see perhaps as a legitimate question, but not all this all-caps-all-the-time drama. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)1

High School Info
Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, both of her parents having been involved with the foundation. Her father was a teacher and headmaster of the SIF-affiliated Ponomauloa School from 1983-1987. Gabbard herself was home-schooled through high school with the exception of two years spent at "informal schools run by followers of Butler" in the Philippines. References

Yeah, the ArbCom case concerned significant quantities of content detailing thinly-sourced allegations of sexual abuse against a pastor. The well-sourced and limited information on Gabbard's undisputed religious background is not analogous. Readers might also be interested having some context for why a person with no Indian ancestry might have been exposed to Vaishnavism as a teen. She's not a victim, nor is she guilty of anything. I'm open to an RfC if that's what it takes, but I really don't think one should be necessary if editors can just offer a little bit of constructive compromise. Nblund ^talk 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, Per SashiRolls's suggestion, I am researching prior treatment of these policies. Humanengr (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument that Gabbard's being sent to boarding school as a minor falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM parallels the use of that policy on Richard Dawkin’s bio page. Dawkins even more than Gabbard does not fall under the “noteworthy only for one or two events” criterion; but that was not an impediment to following the policy. From the Dawkin’s talk page: "Remember this is a biography of a living person. WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies even if Dawkins has written a line or two about an incident in his past that he needn't have disclosed. To expand on such a disclosure here is not appropriate. As far as we know the incident has had little bearing on Dawkins' life and work, and to speculate otherwise would just be unfair considering he was a youth at the time and it was beyond his control.” (here) Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a seven year old discussion from a different page would be considered relevant here. Attending boarding school is not analogous to sexual abuse. Nblund ^talk 01:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Being sent as a child to a boarding school run by a “cult” (in the language of the sources here and in the titles of sources on the SoIF page) is analogous to sexual abuse and is inappropriate for a BLP. As was argued for Dawkins, she was "a youth at the time and it was beyond [her] control”. Humanengr (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The text of our article does not call it a cult, and that's frankly a pretty offensive way to describe her religious background, which she has never characterized that way and which she does not disavow as an adult. Our articles cover instances of juvenile delinquency, witnesses of child sexual abuse, and drug and alcohol addiction. Bill Clinton's turbulent childhood is covered in detail on his BLP. All of the links I'm citing are designated WP:GOOD articles, which means they're generally seen by the community as high quality entries. Nblund ^talk 01:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

None of your examples apply — those are all cases of the individual themselves opening up about those issues. In the Dawkin’s case, it was decided that even though he had brought it up himself, it was not appropriate for his bio page as a characterization of him.

I am not using the ‘cult’ label, but 3 of the 4 cites on the BLP do, including one in the title:

• NYMag — “The classes,” says Kurt, “gradually evolved into a full-fledged cult.”
• Hawaii Free Press article titled Gabbard Political Career Begins in Cult School — "Ranson now runs the website Rama Ranson vs. the Cult"
• New Yorker — "survivors of an abusive cult"

4 of the 4 references on the SoIF page use the ‘cult’ word (2 in the title):

• WBUR — "Chris Butler [linked to the NYMag article], a man widely referred to as a cult leader”
• Stuff article titled 'I survived a Krishna cult’
• Honolulu Civil Beat article titled Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard

These references, together with the text you want to include, amount to both victimizing her now for things in her environment as a child and guilt by association. As Xenagoras quoted from WP:GUILT: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.” Humanengr (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Weight applies. There's very little mention of the school in reliable sources and in fact most biographical articles rarely mention where people went to school for 2 years. One exception is Barack Obama, who attended a Muslim school, which became a campaign issue. All his article says is "From age six to ten, he then attended local Indonesian-language schools: Sekolah Dasar Katolik Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Elementary School) for two years and Sekolah Dasar Negeri Menteng 01 (State Elementary School Menteng 01/Besuki school) for one and a half years, supplemented by English-language Calvert School homeschooling by his mother." TFD (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the New Yorker article I cited above which mentions she spent 2 years in the Philippines in a school established for Butler's followers is a RS. As noted the mention of her attending some sort of Christian school is clearly incorrect. JamesG5 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not say it wasn't. RS and Weight are two separate policies and both are required for inclusion. RS merely means that the source has a reputation for accuracy sufficient to use as a source. Weight determines which reliably sourced information should be included. The reason we do not mention every primary school in most biographies is not that they cannot be reliably sourced, but because the bulk of sources provide little coverage of them. The Joe Biden article for example does not mention any of his elementary schools. As Wikipedia:Too much detail says, "Advocates of adding a lot of details may argue that all of these details are reliably sourced. Even though the details may be reliably sourced, one must not lose sight of the need for balance. In an article about a famous actor, every detail about her wedding ceremony (who attended, the type of ring, etc.) may be excessive detail, as the article is supposed to focus on her achievements as an actor." TFD (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A quick survey of the candidates show that all of them have at least three sentences about their family members, their religious community, and at least the name of their high schools in all cases, cf. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Cory Booker. There is no mention of primary schools in the proposed text about Tulsi Gabbard.

As for the wiki-litigation which tries to portray adding encyclopedic info as some sort of BLP violation, it is baseless: both pages cited have nothing to do with whether or not Gabbard's high school & family religious background should be mentioned. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, re “There is no mention of primary schools in the proposed text about Tulsi Gabbard.”: Why the reference to “primary schools”? And what does “both pages” refer to? Humanengr (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Read the comment above mine. You accused me of violating two wiki-laws in your edit summaries and text above Humanengr, which isn't the best way to win friends. ^^ FWIW, I have also read this blog and do not intend to support a general hijacking of the BLP. I will agree linking to Gralow's republished blogpost without linking to girlygrrrl's (or forum rumblings or a youtube video or two) is a bit provocative, but the latter hasn't been picked up by a more significant outlet. cf. Hawaii Free Press usage on en.wp. Hope you're well. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why didn’t you respond to my post here? It seemed you just went ahead and re-inserted the following day apparently ignoring my post. Hope all is well with you too. Humanengr (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't understand that it was related to my proposed text as you didn't say anything about the proposed text. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As for the 'wiki-laws', did you see my response to Nblund here? Humanengr (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course. But it doesn't make much sense to me all this wiki-litigating about other unrelated pages. It does seem to me that it is mistake to not make any mention of Butler, given all the words that have been typed about it (often in non-RS) that Gogol serves up for anyone^tm who looks. Maybe an RfC is the best idea, no need to rush, I suppose. On the other hand, Butler's section (§) could stand improvement, as could the SIF article. I've removed some poor sourcing, but the 1977 story that Civil Beat scanned looks like it might have some info of interest.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I just re-read the two sources and they seem vague for our purposes. The New Yorker article says that Gabbard attended Butler's school in the Philippines for 2 years but doesn't say when she attended or how they know this. The Hawaii Free Press sources the New Yorker and adds that former male students believe Gabbard attended the girls' school although only two of them knew her and they had no interaction with the girls' school. Most of the article is about student recollections of the school. The message is that Gabbard was brainwashed by Butler when still a child and be activated by him if she reaches the White House. TFD (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We're at the point where an RFC is warranted. It doesn't seem like the real objection is to any particular wording here, right? Would it be fair to frame the RFC as simply asking whether or not any mention of Butler is warranted? I think if we had an answer on that the other stuff would not be controversial. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's too bad that we find ourselves at such an impasse, judged unable to compromise so quickly. ^^ There is no deadline, etc. Still, we could add something like Tulsi Gabbard has significant ties to the Science of Identity community, though after extensive study of forum postings, Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it". [30] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Will respond tomorrow. Humanengr (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that say when she attended the school? TFD (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, No, I haven't found anything other than the two sources that you noted were vague.

@Nblund, Can you clarify what has changed since this was last weighed here and at BLP/N? Do you have a new argument to raise? Humanengr (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we should include it when only two sources have mentioned it and the information is vague. Perhaps Snoogs & co. could get mainstream media to look into it and then we could mention it. TFD (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, Gabbard was quoted in Oct 2015 saying, "When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night." This would seem to prove that she went to high school and was not only ever homeschooled. ^^ [31] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I had the impression that Gabbard would have attended the school during her elementary education. In any case, one doesn't necessarily need to have been a student to make such a comment. Someone might say for example that Trump reminds theme of Hitler, although they never met Hitler. TFD (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough to raise the Hitler point. I'd thought about changing "prove" to "suggest". Oh, well. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clinton comments

Clinton made her remarks without presenting any evidence. Especially the "grooming" comment. This needs to be made clear, as it is an egregious smear to make that comment about Gabbard without any proof. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

These are only assertions without evidence if your head is in the sand. There has been substantial RS coverage of extensive Russian bot and state media support for Gabbard's candidacy. Your repeated additions of your original research that Clinton said X "without evidence" is a BLP violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Present your evidence of Russia grooming Gabbard, which is what the quote says. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans is incorrect here. The Guardian explicitly states that Clinton did not give any evidence[32]: “I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” the former secretary of state told David Plouffe in his “Campaign HQ” podcast without providing evidence. I hope Snoogans isn't claiming we should treat The Guardian as non-reliable. --Pudeo (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Washington Post: Clinton did not provide any evidence for her claim [33] --Pudeo (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear: neither of these sources were cited in the article when the "without evidence" text was added. But they can certainly be added to the article, unless there is a disagreement among RS. Furthermore, both of these RS are totally wrong, but that's a not a reason for removing the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources that do not refer to Clinton's claims as "evidence-free": AP[34], Reuters[35], DW[36], WaPo[37], NYT[38], Des Moines Register[39]. In the context of this spat, Reuters refers to Gabbard as "a favorite of Russian state media", and says she has received praise from "Russian state media and its online surrogates."[40] In the context of this spat, NBC News noted both its own reporting and that of the NYT have shown that "Russian news sites and social media linked to the Kremlin" have promoted Gabbard's candidacy.[41] In the context of this spat, NYT notes that Gabbard is being pushed by RT and Twitter bot activity[42]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clinton's comments implied an active intelligence operation ("grooming") directly influencing Gabbard. None of these references back that up. Furthermore, the fact that some news organizations missed information and didn't state the alternate isn't proof. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Grooming implies no such thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Grooming implies that Gabbard is responding or interacting to Russian influence. We have no evidence of that, and should be careful anyways when using that term, as it is usually used in reference to internet creeps and children. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is no evidences of Russian influence! It is a HOAX. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I argue Wikipedia to be aware of the mentality of some democrats who are accusing their opponents of being Russian agents.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie I think Snooganssnoogans is correct. Someone can groom someone without that person's knowledge. Both meanings are possible, being voluntarily groomed or being groomed by someone without knowing it. Sort of like "developed". The Russian are developing her as an asset (for example). In fact, Clinton's comment implies this meaning, since she said the Russians have "got their eye on" her, not working with her: ""got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." Localemediamonitor (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

President Barack Obama received praise from Vladimir Putin, Russian state media and its online surrogates,[43], [44], [45], [46], [47] the Russians have "got their eye on" him and worked with him[48] but I don't think Obama was a Russian asset and Putin's puppet, I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The comparison is specious. There is no credible allegation that Obama was groomed or supported by Putin or the Russian gov, especially as a candidate, and Obama proved to be harsh on Russia vis a vis sanctions, etc, whereas there is plenty of evidence of Russian media supporting Gabbard all out of proportion for a minor candidate. Localemediamonitor (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no evidence of Russian media "supporting" Gabbard, just McCarthy-like smears. But there is plenty of evidence of Russian gov and Kremlin-linked banks supporting Hillary and Bill Clinton.[49], [50], [51], [52], [53] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence at all. Even fake news CNN says that Clinton didn't provide any proofs or evidences for her allegation.[54] The US president who democratically won against Clinton in 2016 elections said that "[Clinton is] accusing everyone of being a Russian agent." Also I agree with Tobby. If I was Putin I would support Hillary Clinton.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX please see this section and self revert. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: What is you want me to see? Some WP:OR? All claims must be directly verifiable in reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's wrong to frame Russian support as a Clinton accusation

RS coverage of Russian support for Gabbard's candidacy predates Clinton's comments. If this content is to be covered, it should start with the RS coverage which (1) notes extensive Russian bot and state media support for Gabbard, (2) notes Gabbard's response to it, (3) Clinton's claims, and (4) Gabbard's response. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

No, digging up unrelated news stories about Russian bots from a year ago is improper WP:SYNTH. In the section above, it's pointed out that The Guardian described Clinton hinting that "without providing evidence". On the contrary, The Hill's piece from today notes there is no evidence for the bot networks being tied to the campaign: Twitter has said it did not uncover any significant bot activity around the hashtag and there is no evidence that the campaign was involved with spreading the hashtag. [55] --Pudeo (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about a week-old report by the NYT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post frames this as part and parcel of other accusations against Gabbard. It seems silly to pretend that this is separate from other stories that alleged exactly the same thing. Clinton is one additional person making an accusation that others have made as well. We don't need to believe that accusation is valid in order to accurately describe the debate. Nblund ^talk 14:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The NBC story predates any substantive mention of Clinton. I agree with Snooganssnoogans outline of how this topic should be presented. - MrX 🖋 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be OR. If it is relevant it should be in the articles reporting what Clinton said. The Mel Gibson article quotes him as saying "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." We don't report all the evidence that anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists use to support this view. TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It is. Here's the Guardian: US media analysis has shown that sites tied to Russia have celebrated Gabbard’s campaign launch, defended her controversial 2017 meeting with the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and attacked people who have suggested Gabbard is a pawn for Moscow. There is a significant difference between being supported by Russian online bots and trolls, and “grooming”, however. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

RS coverage of Russian support for Gabbard is the same as batshit insane anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? There is really no limit to the amount and depth of false equivalency that you are capable of bringing to the table. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Intercept: NBC News published a predictably viral story Friday, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.” But the whole story was a sham: The only “expert” cited by NBC in support of its key claim was the firm New Knowledge, which just got caught by the New York Times fabricating Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to manufacture false accusations that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Tobby72 That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald's The Intercept. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Localemediamonitor. Greenwald has a certain bias when it comes to certain subjects, and Russia is near the top of the list.- MrX 🖋 11:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Washington Post: Facebook has suspended the account of Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of a top social media research firm, after reports that he and others engaged in an operation to spread disinformation during the special election in Alabama last year. ... Morgan’s efforts have stirred controversy because of his role at New Knowledge. Here's the Fox News: The secret project, which had a budget of just $100,000 and was carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was revealed after the New York Times obtained an internal report detailing the efforts. ... The project also involved creating thousands of fake Russian accounts on Twitter that began following Moore. This effort attracted attention from local and national media, falsely suggesting Russia is backing Moore’s candidacy. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was using a worst case example. When people make assertions we don't try to bolster them by adding what we think is supportive evidence. It doesn't matter if they are batshit crazy or what we believe or in this case both. That is a clear violation of synthesis. Anyway, check your in box, because the mainstream is backing away from Clinton's assertions, which they think are divisive and ultimately will harm Democrats. In fact independent Congressman Justin Amash says this shows Clinton is a Trump asset - you could his comment to Clinton's article. TFD (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So are we just going to pretend that other reliable sources didn't also bring up the stuff about Russian bots? The question of whether or not Clinton made a valid argument has no bearing on how we cover the dispute. Nblund ^talk 20:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

One source brought it up, it's been debunked and no other mainstream media covered it. But assuming it actually was worthy of inclusion, it would be a clear violation of synthesis to use it to bolster Clinton's argument. We would need a secondary source that did that. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The heading of this section is itself stating (concluding) that there is "Russian support." There may be chatter, but references are not solid enough to clear the cause or reasoning of the chatter. There is not enough citation to reach this conclusion independently. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That sometimes happens on this page, that a header is a bit oriented. Anyway, to the subject at hand, there hasn't been any prior RS coverage of Putin grooming Gabbard for a third-party run, at least that I can recall. Clinton should get full credit for her comments on "grooming". Back on Groundhog Day, neither Windrem nor Popken used the words "groom" or even "third" in their article. They did mention a party. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I think we are in agreement. There is no reason to synthesize a connection between the "grooming" charge and previous articles discussing Russian chatter. Non sequitor. That was my point. -- Ingyhere (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Clinton herself didnt mention Gabbard's name. Yea, It is absolutely wrong to do WP:SYNTH and original research. most of Democrats are russophobes, it is not the first time they accused their opponents of being Russian assets and it ended being a total hoax last time.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Science of Identity Foundation

Should the article mention Gabbard's association with the Science of Identity Foundation or the SIF community? (Example of press coverage: 1, 2)

Suggestions regarding the wording are welcome, but the key sticking point is whether any mention of Butler is warranted. See previous TP discussion here, and older older BLPN discussion here Nblund ^talk 14:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Include some mention of Butler. Her ties to the group have been the primary focus of two feature length articles in respected sources(The New Yorker,New York Mag) and are consistently mentioned in profiles of her campaign (Miami Herald, The Guardian, New York Times, Telegraph). The Hawaiian press has been covering her families ties to Butler since she entered politics (Star Advertiser, Honolulu Civil Beat). And Butler's anti-gay views are thought to have influenced Tulsi and Mike Gabbard's anti-gay organizing in the early 2000s. If this detail is not due for inclusion, I really don't know how anything in the article could be considered WP:DUE Nblund ^talk 14:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No... though it could mention her association with the SIF community. The problem is the unwarranted use of the word "affiliated". Suggest redrafting, Nblund. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

okay, I've changed affiliated to "associated". Again, the core question is whether or not we can mention SIF here. Nblund ^talk 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include, but treat her association with a community she grew up in and then later out of respectfully, i.e. without assuming she is brainwashed by A Man who has some sort of secret mission to make us all repeatedly watch youtube videos of her wedding while chanting "go team blue". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to remove my vote for the time being, as I am convinced that this will be treated inappropriately. I do not wish to give Gabbard's opponents carte blanche to smear her for someone else's opinions. It's amazing that one cannot speak of the community someone grew up in without people trying to insinuate that the community controls the person. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include some mention of this community There are good examples to follow in the better sources, especially the New Yorker piece. I'll reexamine all the potential sources and comment about them later. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No The RfC is too vague. You need to say what you actually want the article to say. ust saying she has connections with the group without saying what they are is tendentious. TFD (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked about the framing of this RfC, and you ignored the question. I also asked you directly to offer any version of a wording that you would support, and you said you thought it just wasn't due for inclusion. Why do you care about the specificity of the proposal if you're going to oppose it no matter what? Nblund ^talk 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to me to write what you propose to add, nor would I reject something before I read it. In any case you should have some idea about what information you intend to add before holding an RfC about it. Regardless of how you think I will respond, there are other editors who will come to contribute. TFD (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's some version of this that you would support, feel free to propose it below. Nblund ^talk 17:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include, between family connections, obvious influences on her own previous, and possibly some current, policy positions, her own naming of him as an influence, the links to her education, etc it more than warrants mention. JamesG5 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No This remains an invalid RfC. What does 'some mention' mean? What does 'association' mean? The devil is in the details here. The sticking point is not "whether any mention of Butler is warranted" but what specifically is being proposed for inclusion so it can be assessed. Would it be mention of 'Chris Butler' or of 'Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa'? If you will present proposed text, rationale, and proposed evidence, then there will be something to comment on. It may turn out to be appropriate to have a whole section on this. So voting on whether there should be 'some mention' is vacuous. As it stands, this RfC amounts to WP:CANVAS to open the door to vague insinuation on a BLP. Humanengr (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, Can you please append "if the material and sources relied upon satisfies policy" to the first sentence of the RfC (prior to the question mark?) Humanengr (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to continue editing the wording of the RFC given how many people have already participated, but any text we add would need to conform to existing policies. Nblund ^talk 17:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take that as included by reference. Humanengr (talk)

• Include per Nblund's arguments and the two excellent feature articles that discuss this at length. Contrary to what a couple of users claim, this is a perfectly valid RfC.- MrX 🖋 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

17:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Plenty of source material to draw from on this issue. If our sources talk it about then we know it's important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include Excellent sources with outstanding reputations for accuracy and fact checking have reported on her long term connections with this group. It should be discussed neutrally in her biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude It smells like innuendo. Please see quote below from a reputable source. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Ingyhere: Except a) that source also details that basically everyone on her staff and in a relationship with her is part of the group and are devotees, and b) it ignores the whole "private school run by Butler's group" documented elsewhere herein, this quote "“No,” she said. But there is, in fact, a teacher who has played a central role in her life—a teacher whom Gabbard referred to, in a 2015 video, as her “guru dev,” which means, roughly, “spiritual master.”" from a reliable source (and it's on video anyway), etc. JamesG5 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude: Because what is this? The 1980's? Are we seriously engaging in this narrow minded, moral panic? Grow up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.24.194.62 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)— 35.24.194.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Include and here is my proposal:

  Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization and Butler include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

• Include It has been reported by legitimate sources and could further provide more insights regarding her Hindu beliefs. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include Well referenced and goes into her beliefs. As a public political figure in national news its more than fitting on their Wikipedia page. ContentEditman (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• No because of policy. Gabbard is the victim of various character assassination attempts (e.g. NYT's accusations against Gabbard of being a "Russian asset", a "Trojan horse", a "white nationalist idol", and so on), and this attempt of using Gabbard's religion teacher for "tieing" Gabbard to a "cult" also only serves the same purpose via creating a guilt by association. Wikipedia prohibits this via WP:V and WP:LIBEL: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee.[56] It is also prohibited via WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization (being victim of another's actions, e.g. libel)." None of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda. Some have been arguing that the whole idea of examining Butler’s influence reeks of religious bigotry. The minority faiths of politicians have at times been singled out and met with bigoted backlash. Gabbard experienced this in the 2012 campaign.[57] and in 2016: Some of Gabbard's political opponents called her a "devil worshipper" and her faith "incompatible with the constitution".[58] It's obvious Gabbard's religion gets abused as political weapon by her opponents.

Chris Butler was Gabbard's religion teacher during her childhood. Some people (especially Gabbard's political opponents) claim that Chris Butler is "bad" (labeled "controversial") because he has "bad behavior" (e.g. labeled "guru" or "master" or "authoritarian") or teaches "bad religion" (e.g. labeled "cult"). They draw this painting of the "bad Chris Butler" to use it to copy his "badness" onto Gabbard via guilt by association. A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives or the behavior of it's teacher, therefore a person must never be disparaged or accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher. Wikipedia policy prohibits this via WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization." Anything "bad" Butler may have said or done to anyone while Gabbard was a child is not admissible for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is why only quotes by the article subject about their religious views during adulthood are admissible. WP:GUILT defines: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." A child cannot prevent the conduct of it's teacher or the teaching it receives, therefore everything related to Gabbard's religious teaching or her teacher during her childhood is off limits.

The main "bad religion/behavior" Butler has been accused of is an anti gay marriage stance. Even that is outdated: Nowadays, Butler seems to have deëmphasized homosexuality: there is no mention of homosexuality on his foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings.[59], which means attempting to justify Butler's inclusion for this anti gay marriage stance violates the WP:OUTDATED policy. Also, Gabbard has a 100% pro-LGBTQ voting record in Congress. Elaborating on Gabbard's outdated gay marriage stance in the lead and the "policies" section already gives this topic WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, Gabbard's Catholic father Mike was an anti-gay marriage activist which very well may have shaped Tulsi Gabbard's anti gay marriage stance in her youth up to 23 years (in 2004). Claiming that it was not her father but Butler who shaped her early anti gay marriage stance is therefore also just a claim.

The notorious [60] NPR interview [61] [62] has Gabbard explaining the media situation and her religious views: "What I would love to do is for our conversation to be focused on me, not my parents. ... Ask me about what I have said and done." ... "Vaishnava Hinduism, the practice that I follow, is a monotheistic branch of Hinduism that is centered around love. Love for god and love for others, and how we can be best pleasing to god through the practice of Karma yoga which means taking action to serve others, to protect our planet, and to develop my own personal loving relationship with god." There are several other interviews where Gabbard explains her religious views in much more detail like [63] and [64] There are also speeches from Gabbard at Hinduism conferences where she explains her religion even more detailed and a lot of other videos where Gabbard explains her religion and philosophy.[65] How about writing about Gabbard's inter-religious stances with Catholics[66], Muslims[67] and Jews[68]? Somehow nobody has been interest to use these hours of material on her actual current religious views for her article, but only her alleged "ties" with the "controversial cult leader" seem of interest to some people. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Honolulu Civil Beat is a poor source. It seems like your argument rests on trusting its reporting far more than the reliable reporting from national news publications. New York Magazine refers to "Gabbards’ known involvement with the Science of Identity". There are many sources that establish Gabbard's parents' involvement with SIF. Although WP:GUILT is not actually a policy, it correctly states that "At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." There are sources that firmly establish Mike Gabbard as the nexus of Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with her father's anti-LGBT organization, and her parents involvement in another anti-LGBT organization that was co-counded by SIF. In other words, her family and her guru are how she is associated. Since the RfC merely proposes that we "mention Gabbard's association with the Science of Identity Foundation" we are good, because we no one is proposing that we speak of her guilt (assuming there is any).- MrX 🖋 13:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Re WP:GUILT: Are you saying Tulsi "could have prevented" her parents or anybody else from espousing “controversial socially conservative views”? Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: No, I'm not saying that.- MrX 🖋 11:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Re: "how she is associated": Guilt by association is precisely what is prohibited, not what one is trying to establish. Merely asserting an association (however phrased) with the sinister and titillating designation "controversial socially conservative guru" is a canonical example of the prohibited practice.

Contentious appellations, like fact-free allegations about a 'cult' from a few individuals with questionable motives, are not appropriate for inclusion in WP in any event. (Per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all.") But even if it passed those tests, what would the nexus be that would justify including such language in Tulsi Gabbard's BLP? A 'nexus' is not merely an 'association': it is a causal connection in a chain of events, or in the WP policy language you quote above, "a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject". Humanengr (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, I did not assert that she is guilty of anything, nor does this proposal. If we simply reflect what the sources say, then we are in good shape. HaeB covers this in their comment of October 10 on this page.- MrX 🖋 11:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, You wrote: ‘If we simply reflect what the sources say, then we are in good shape.’ This statement is false and a shocking abrogation of editorial responsibility under WP policies. The New Yorker, NY Mag and NYT may generally be considered reliable sources because of their reputations for ‘fact-checking’ news stories. But this merely sets up a rebuttable presumption of reliability, and there is ample evidence that these articles do not warrant ‘reliable source’ treatment. For one thing, they are all ‘human interest’ stories, and WP:NEWSORG advises that "human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting”. From this caution alone, editors lose the ability to claim that 'simply reflecting what the sources say' is adequate.

Even as human interest stories, however, one is struck by their snide, bigoted tone and weak sourcing. Each of these pieces apparently relied on the last and so they were infected from one to the next to spread innuendo and rumor in a Grapevine fashion. The first two are particularly rife with inflammatory and misleading language, asserting easily rebuttable false – and sometimes defamatory – statements. They mainly rely on fact-free allegations from anonymous or no sources other than the opinions of the writers, which hardly rise to the level of material appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. One of the likely anonymous sources for the New Yorker is an individual in the NY Mag piece who is not only on record making contradictory, outrageous and defamatory claims about the subject of his ‘testimony’, but who is under an injunction not to continue that behavior. Some minimal degree of journalistic integrity would have led these authors (and their editors, if there indeed were editors involved who cared about ‘fact-checking’) to reject such sources for their sensationalistic and bigoted essays. WP editors who are actually functioning as editors under the policies certainly should reject them. There should not only be no material added to Tulsi Gabbard’s BLP that would draw attention to them and their smear campaigns, but they should be excluded from the reference section altogether. Humanengr (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting the savvy melting of the Russian Red Republican Red background into Gabbard's clothes in the photo illustrating the article in the Intelligencer (NY Mag) when evaluating its neuterality. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX, Honolulu Civil Beat is a reliable source, it is an investigative news website that practices watchdog journalism: fact-checking, interviewing, beat reporting and investigative journalism. Honolulu Civil Beat has been awarded best news site in Hawaii by the Society of Professional Journalists each year since 2011. Please do not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources. You have a habit of doing that, e.g against Glenn Greenwald's writing in The Intercept if that writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia ("Greenwald was simply not objective in his reporting", "We're not obligated to print his misinformation", Localemediamonitor:"That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald." MrX:"I agree."). You claimed a widespread perception that Gabbard were trading favors with Russia ("The viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant") 5 months before Gabbard's opponents (Clinton et.al.) began making a similar claim by defaming her as "Russian asset" [69] and 4 months before the same rhetoric of "quid pro quo" was used to justify impeachment inquiry against Trump.[70] Your most blatant disregard for the neutral point of view policy regarding sources for Gabbard-articles can be read here: "(Sources that talk about a DNC/media campaign to marginalize Gabbard) are not reliable sources." You are judging the reliability of sources by how well they support your desired viewpoint and reject sources if their writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard (or Russia). This constitutes a pattern of systematic neutral point of view policy violation towards a BLP. Also, do not argue about the number of citations by the sources as you did there:[71].

Localemediamonitor also disparages reliable sources if they write non-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia "That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald." and he conducted severe WP:BLP violations regarding Gabbard [72] [73], which I explained.[74]

My arguments rest on policies and guidelines and for this article especially on policies for biographies of living persons. When choosing and quoting sources, beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or promotional content. Sources may use words to be avoided or even loaded language to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes in the audience (e.g bigotry), which must be especially guarded against in BLPs. The NYMag article uses weasel words like "known involvement" without giving any explanation what the "involvement" is (innuendo to elicit bigotry) or evidence for why it is "known" (fallacy of proof by assertion). There is much more to criticize about that NYMag article. A Wiki article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. Besides being inadmissible because of WP:GUILT and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, events/persons during Gabbard's childhood are clearly such a minor aspect of Gabbard's BLP. Additionally, Chris Butler is a low-profile individual who has been avoiding public attention, interviews and photographs since several decades.[75] Butler and his Science of Identity Foundation both have zero news coverage outside the context of Gabbard's political career. This means both Butler and his Foundation are not notable enough to have an article. Both are abused exclusively to attack Gabbard's reputation.[76] [77] Wikipedia prohibits Scandal mongering. Every sentence that argues with "...Gabbard is associated / affiliated with bad person/group X..." is violating policy because it comprises guilt by association. WP:GUILT states, "...At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject." This means the minimum requirement to begin considering inclusion of negative information about another person is that the article subject had the same negative conduct as the other person and their conduct was directly related (e.g. they acted together or in support of each other). Negative information about Gabbard's father is already part of the article via the sentence, "In 1998, at age 17, she campaigned for an anti-gay rights organization founded by her father", although this violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM because at age 17 she was a minor that lived dependent and under the authority of her parents and therefore she could not act independently from her father. Xenagoras (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This editor is a single-purpose account created two months ago who near-exclusively edits pages that relate to Gabbard and her presidential campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, 70% of my article edits are about other topics than Gabbard. Please refrain from calling me a "single-purpose account". You used an ad hominem argument against my vote, which constitutes the fallacy of attacking the author (me) instead of refuting the arguments. I feel belittled by your comment and ask you to strike through your comment. Xenagoras (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You're a two-month old account who has only edited pages related to Gabbard and her controversies (this includes Hindu nationalism and 2020 primary polling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The motivation for the WP:SPA suggestion is to ensure that policies for balanced and neutral treatment of material appropriate for an encyclopedia are followed. Where can you point to a specific instance where Xenagoras has done anything other than maintain the highest standards of scholarship? Humanengr (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you have ignored my petition for striking out your unwarranted SPA-comment I feel belittled by, and instead repeated that comment. Additionally you uttered an unwarranted and false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest.[78] These two things serve an attempt to damage my reputation. My impression is that you are attempting to bait me into retaliating with aggression. This constitutes uncivil behavior on your part. Please be civil. Xenagoras (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include I agree with SashiRolls. It should be included, but context should be given toward the association if she is no longer associated with the group. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

For info, I've changed my vote. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that is an interesting point. Thinking about it from the perspective of Tulsi Gabbard herself and the perspective of anyone in this type of scenario the community you are raised in doesn't always create lasting impacts on someone's entire life. I maintain my vote, but emphasize the fact that the context needs to be taken into consideration. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - not inclined to give carte blanche to undefined edits, particularly when it looks a bit tabloidish, and actually this feels UNDUE. BLP guidanece is towards restraint, suggest this is something to restrain. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Reliably sourced and DUE. Basic bio info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include. As to what exactly, anything that's reliably sourced and DUE, per Snooganssnoogans --В²C ☎ 00:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC is malformed and would be best withdrawn and rewritten. An RfC is not a place for working on potential versions. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative. To reiterate what I said above: the question whether any mention of the SIF is warranted. There's no point in discussing potential versions as long as there's no consensus regarding any mention at all. Nblund ^talk 15:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the potential version. That works. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:The Four Deuces & User:Humanengr: I proposed this RfC framing in the discussion section above, and neither of you offered any objection to it. Multiple editors have offered a variety of potential wordings ([79], [80] [81], [82], [83]). You have rejected every suggested wording, and neither of you have offered any alternate proposals, or even given a hint as to what sort of text you might support, despite repeated requests. If you're opposed to any mention of Butler, then this RfC is warranted. If you support some mention of Butler then simply vote "yes" and then suggest a wording or give some indication as to what you want to see. Nblund ^talk 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)   

I am not at all opposed to text that is focused on and supported by evidence of, e.g., Tulsi’s -personal- membership in SIF as an adult, but such has not been proposed. The text I have seen *ignores* rather than addresses the substantive issues of policy violations that have been raised. Another policy violation: using ‘Chris Butler’ rather than Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa is a clear example of deadnaming, intended to shame and ridicule the subject. Even if there was evidence of Gabbard’s adult membership in SIF that would in fact be relevant to her BLP, ‘Chris Butler’ as an individual has privacy rights protected by WP policies. The New Yorker piece which is the supposed ‘reliable source’ for the cult accusations engages in deadnaming over 50 times, while the NY Mag article that relies on it has over 30 instances. There is a serious question of whether those articles should be cited in a BLP at all. You seem to be attempting to make WP a conduit for material intended to harm that incites racism and religious bigotry. Do you really want to continue down this path of dragging WP through the mud? Humanengr (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: IMO that's a misuse of the deadnaming policy. And from some of the reading I've done since I stumbled on this mess 2 weeks ago the guy uses multiple different names but "Chris Butler" is still his legal name AND he still uses it on official documents. Comparing that to someone who's transitioned is borderline insulting. Not saying you meant it maliciously, but you might want to reconsider that comparison. Most importantly, the SIF's OWN SITE uses his name as seen here so this is a dead end argument. No violations. JamesG5 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is some pretty creative free association; but Humanengr does have a point, we can blue-link from the full name she actually said in her recording, that's fine. It's respectful, and it's how you find his section at the ISKCON guru system page on en.wp. That said, reading the secondary sources, titles & deeds still seem to be in Butler's boring old dead-name. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Fair, altho like I said his own website uses both names interchangably, including in the header of his bio page so it's hardly a deadname. JamesG5 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee. And we could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it." -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Ingyhere: The story you're citing is 2015, BTW. The same publication, cited below, in 2019 acknowledges the closer ties AND includes the quote from 2015, again on video, of her calling Butler her Dev Guru. So the whole "no ties" thing has been debunked since the 2015 article. JamesG5 (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have noticed I suggested we include this sentence in the bio. Cf. infra and supra.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard grew up surrounded by Butler's sect, her parents were on the board and speak highly of Butler's sect, Gabbard's husband works for Butler's businesses, and Gabbard herself refers to Butler as her guru. But somehow none of this can be put into Gabbard's wiki page. Bizarre.Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

She actually referred to Butler as "my gurudev." What facts are presented in articles and the depth of coverage is not based on what we consider important, but on the degree of coverage in reliable sources relative to the subject. For example, Barack Obama was an active member of Rev. Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright's church for 20 years and had a close personal relationship before Obama threw him under the bus 2008. That has been distilled into, "Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Jeremiah Wright in October 1987 and became a member of Trinity in 1992. During Obama's first presidential campaign in May 2008, he resigned from Trinity after some of Wright's statements were criticized."

While I shouldn't have to defend policy, the advantage of having extensive coverage would be that we would understand what Gabbard meant, we would have her response and then informed opinion. As it is all we have is a sound clip.

I am confused about Mike Gabbard's relationship with Butler because Mr. Gabbard is a lector at a Catholic church and a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, where he won a Lifetime Achievement Award. (Tulsi Gabbard has also been attacked for having a father with extreme Catholic views, particularly on same sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh came under attack for his membership in the Knights of Columbus.) One cannot be a member of a Hindu sect and an officer of the Catholic church at the same time.

TFD (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rev. Wright story is brief in Obama's BLP because we have an entire standalone article on it. Mike Gabbard describes himself as an "enigmatic Catholic" who values ancient Yoga scriptures and Christian practices. He says that Butler's teachings brought him closer to God. He's not a "member" of SiF, but he was listed as a teacher for the group and he's open about being influenced by Butler's teachings. Some people just have complex religious beliefs. We don't have to get inside anyone's head in order to report the basic facts. Nblund ^talk 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Spinning out part of an article is no reason to remove material that meets weight for inclusion. Note that there are separate articles for Obama's early ife and career, Illinois legislative career, 2004 Senate campaign, Senate career, presidential campaigns and his presidency, but all of those sections reflect the same weight as if the spun out articles did not exist. The reality is that despite intensive coverage of the Wright story, it is like Butler a fairly minor issue except with opponents.

Note too that this article is about Tulsi not Mike Gabbard. And what incidentally was the influence Butler had one him?

TFD (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue of religious bigotry used against politicians is not to be treated lightly. If material on this topic is to be inserted, it should be ‘sensitive’, ‘conservative’, ‘neutral’ and ‘balanced’ per policies. A few lines isn’t sufficient to achieve that once innuendo is raised. I’m adding a version 2 below including additional material which can be cut down but should be incorporated for context. Humanengr (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)<

Again, here is my proposed version, which I don't see any problem with. Drawn directly from legit sources:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization and Butler include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to remove the weasel-wording. British, Canadian and Australian editors have longstanding ties to Elizabeth II, since she is their sovereign and they are her subjects. But using that description would probably give a misleading description. Karl Marx has been an influence on all subsequent economists, but we would normally not use that phrasing. I would like to see too an explanation of the term my gurudev in a reliable source. In this context did it have any special meaning or is it how one refers to Hindu clergyman?

I am having a little trouble with Chris Butler's chronology based on the scant sources available about him, and their general level of reliability. As I understand it, he was born in Texas, lived in Hawaii in the 60s and 70s, then moved to New Zealand, Australia and back to New Zealand, where Alec Neill denounced him in the NZ parliamebt on March 20, 1996. At some point he was apparently residing in the Philipinnes. Tulsi Gabbard was born in 1981. When was she in contact with Butler?

TFD (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed wordings

(Note: The RfC above is only concerned with whether or not some mention of Butler is warranted. Proposals regarding the text to be added are encouraged. )

v.1

Tulsi Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation community. In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".

Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a start, but it seems like it obscures the fact that Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa is Butler. Is that unintentional? Also: do you prefer to avoid mentioning the controversy around Butler? From my perspective, it comes off as more sinister to reference the digging from the Civil Beat without explaining why they care. Nblund ^talk 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, hm... The name Butler is in the text and I link to the only mention of him I found on en.wp (if you mouseover Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa you'll find his name in the first sentence of that section). I think they care because there was a whole lot of forum noise about it generated by opponents. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This will not work. The second sentence is questionably-sourced (see my comments below) and gives WP:UNDUE prominence to their "investigative" findings. Honolulu Civil Beat is not an acceptable source for controversial BLP content anyway. We should also avoid the Hare Krsna TV YouTube video, because it's a primary source. There are plenty of high-quality secondary sources available. - MrX 🖋 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure there are. In fact, there are lots of sources that cherry-pick the one rapid mention (3 seconds) of Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa in the 5 minute video which is not about Butler... (but you know that). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, she has deflected questions about her guru-dev, probably because she thought it would hurt her politically.[84][85] Her aunt even tried to distance her from this association.[86] - MrX 🖋 14:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

v.2

[withdrawn per MrX stating the Civil Beat piece should not be relied upon, and additional concerns by Sashi Rolls]

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation community centered around the yoga and meditation teachings of Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa (born ‘Chris Butler’). Gabbard has referred to him as one of several teachers she has learned from.

Opponents of Gabbard and her father, State Senator Mike Gabbard, have long sought to find something in this association that could be used against them politically, and online forums have been dedicated to that purpose.

In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings, the public record, and conducting interviews, Honolulu Civil Beat found no evidence that Gabbard is or ever was a "devotee of Butler":

Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. …

To some, all this attention to Gabbard’s faith is troubling. In fact, they have been arguing that the whole idea of examining Butler’s influence reeks of religious bigotry.

Historically speaking, they may have that argument on their side. After all, the minority faiths of politicians — be it Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, Joe Lieberman’s Judaism or John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism — have at times been singled out and met with bigoted backlash.

Gabbard experienced this firsthand in the run-up to the 2012 campaign when her GOP opponent, Kawika Crowley, told CNN that Gabbard’s Hinduism “doesn’t align with the constitutional foundation of the U.S. government."

References

As indicated above, cutting down quotes while retaining their substance would be reasonable. Humanengr (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This will not work. The third sentence is not supported by either of the cited sources, and Honolulu Civil Beat is not an acceptable source for controversial BLP content anyway. Obviously, WP:OR is not allowed. The fourth sentence and quote are poorly-sourced and way WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

v.THREE

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife.

References

??? Isn't that it? It's a plain and simple statement of the facts drawn directly from legit sources. What could possible be wrong with it?  Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This version looks best to me. We should keep it short and factual. We should also try to avoid sources like Honolulu Civil Beat.- MrX 🖋 22:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: There are 98 entries containing civilbeat.org on en.wp, including this entry. Are you saying those 2 links currently in the entry (one of which is just a link to the "Tulsi Gabbard" keyword at the paper) should be removed? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to remove links as long as the Honolulu Civil Beat is not being relied on for controversial information (which it would be in this case). It should be avoided as a source for BLPs for all but the most mundane facts. Like it says in WP:BLPSOURCES, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There is little value in elevating a minor local news website, when much better national sources are available such as The New York Times which is used 266,863 in Wikipedia; The New Yorker which is used 14,177 times; and New York Magazine which is used 8,197 times. By the way Localemediamonitor, the correct link for the New York Magazine article is [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html].- MrX 🖋 12:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Re WP:GUILT: Are you saying Tulsi "could have prevented" her parents or anybody else from espousing “controversial socially conservative views”? Humanengr (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Diff?- MrX 🖋 23:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced — will relocate above. Humanengr (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This version would need to have the bit about her parents serving on the board removed as it is not in any of the three sources.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I edited this version to include the bit about her parents serving on the board and added sources. Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles from mention her mother's position as secretary and founder of the Science of Identity Foundation, as well as filing of financial disclosure forms reflecting that. Public notices in the Arizona Daily Sun in 1989 list Mike Gabbard as secretary of the Science of Identity Foundation. Also worth noting as part of this discussion that her first husband, Eduardo Tamayo, was a part of the SIF community. Samp4ngeles ^{t · c} 03:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Heavy, Tamayo "is an employee of a group that helped run a school affiliated with Chris Butler," although he "was self-employed while they were married." However, "Not much is known about Tamayo. [87] If this were a gossip column, I'd say go for it, but do a little more research first. TFD (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Even for a gossip forum, it would be irresponsible and likely defamatory to include an article titled "Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself from gay-related school board issues" when 1) the article is not freely available, 2) it's not clear from the title that it refers to Carol not Tulsi Gabbard, and 3) that Carol Gabbard was cleared of any wrongdoing — and that is public record if you do your research (per TFD). Humanengr (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Using ‘controversial’ without specific facts is a naked attempt to circumvent the decision to keep the word ‘cult’ out of this BLP. By definition this fact-free introduction of ‘controversy’ into a BLP is a flagrant violation of the WP:BLP direction to “Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves”. Beyond that there are numerous vague and sinister misrepresentations of the source facts such as ‘influence’ and ‘spiritual master’ that are at best due to ignorance of Hinduism and at worst deliberate attempts to stir up racism and religious bigotry. Humanengr (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

As is, to a lesser extent, "ties". --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be accurate to describe SIF as either a cult-like Hare Krishna splinter group (see [88]) or a fringe yogic sect, primarily due to its virulently homophobic and Islamophic teachings. Samp4ngeles ^{t · c} 04:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "grew up in" the SIF community better? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Samp4ngeles, regarding cult-like, fringe, and virulently homophobic and Islamophic: No. I fail to see how those are verified by the source you indicate, let alone represent a neutral presentation of the best sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ms. Gralow

I see that some new text was added concerning Ms. Gralow, but which began gratuitously naming a lot of people unrelated to Tulsi Gabbard. Better sourcing than a forum post is needed for this last item in "political positions" (it is obviously not a "political position"). It also needs to stick to the subject of Tulsi Gabbard and not wander off babbling about (not-so-randomly chosen) Potomac Square Group clients.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It was text concerning Chris Cooper. Hiring Chris Cooper might be considered something that flows from her general political positions. And why obliterate Bill Browders quote. If people of great renown and repute like Browder comment on her in this way it is worth considering including for aiding readers get a rounded picture of her politics. This article isn't meant to be like an election leaflet from her just saying how great her politics are . Is it? Bulldog Antz (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This content is not remotely acceptable for a BLP. WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources like Twitter and Democratic Underground can't be used for contentious content about a living person. Even if other sourcing exists, we need to hold off on mentioning Butler in any capacity until the ongoing RfC is resolved. Also, when you're dealing with contentious content about living people, don't ask editors to "be patient sources to follow" in your edit summaries. WP:BLP requires us to promptly remove unsourced material. Nblund ^talk 16:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who Butler is, I added the content because I saw Bill Browders twitter comment. I hope Chris Cooper is mentioned somewhere in the article as that is relevant for a BLP, who she works with, hires.

Bill Browder : 'Very interesting. Tulsi Gabbard, the only Democratic presidential candidate who has full Kremlin support and who praised Syria's Assad, has hired Chris Cooper of Potomac Square Group, the same DC fixer who the Russians hired to smear me and Sergei Magnitsky in 2016. Coincidence?'Bulldog Antz (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The same DC fixer whose company worked for Jerry Brown and Howard Dean, according to an article in The Daily Caller.[89] If I put on a tin foil hat, it might all make sense. Gabbard apparently hired Cooper to deal with articles by Christine Gralow. I don't know how credible Gralow is. She tweeted, "I was not fired from Honolulu Mag, I was not paid by a pedophile to write my series, & I do not have a restraining order for stalking the Gabbards."[90] That's nice to hear, but it's not enough to meet SELFPUB. TFD (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The same DC fixer who worked for Rinat Akhmetshin, russia gun for hire washington lobbying magnitsky browder. Bulldog Antz (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not going in the article unless you can supply WP:Reliable source (not a tweet or a blog post) that explicitly discusses Gabbard's links to this person. It probably shouldn't even be on the talk page. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Its out there, bill browder tulsi gabbard russianasset Bulldog Antz (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsmax is rated no consensus for reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. An article in a conservative website doesn't establish weight. I'm sure that Cooper works for lots of horrible people. So do defense lawyers, but we don't prejudge clients by who the other clients were. TFD (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wordplay

From the start of the page: She supports Medicare for All and strengthening the reproductive rights framework of Roe v Wade by codifying it into federal law

- you mean she supports abortion, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:412B:6300:D1BC:8F80:CE62:75E0 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

She supports reproductive rights, as the sentence says. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

In the Early Life and Education section, delete this sentence (he was sworn in as a state senator in 2007, when Tulsi Gabbard was an adult): Her father is a member of the Hawaii Senate.

And make this similar change below, due to no evidence that her father or mother's current religions were the same as those they practiced during her childhood (in fact, there is substantial evidence against that).

Change: Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry and an active lector at his Catholic church. Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of German descent and a practicing Hindu.

To: Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry. Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of German descent. 50.242.180.209 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I removed the mention of Carol Gabbard. since none of the provided sources mention where he was born or her ancestry. Based on her surname (Porter) it seems the statement about her ancestry is inaccurate. The original editor may have confused her with Tulsi's father, who has some German ancestry. Gabbard is a variation of Gephart, which is German. TFD (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

PBS Roots shows Carol born in Indiana and of a little more than half documented German ancestry. The Porter line is English-Scottish and other unknown European. So one could revert the text and add of 'primarily' German descent. For parallelism, we could add where Mike Gabbard was born. Humanengr (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Most articles say something like this: "HIllary Clinton's Her mother, Dorothy Howell, was a homemaker of Dutch, English, French Canadian (from Quebec), Scottish and Welsh descent." I don't see the purpose of this unless someone retains ethnic identity as for example the Kennedys and Irishness. So I suggest we just say European or if you think it is really really important where in Europe Gabbard's ancestors lived centuries ago, to include all the countries. TFD (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

semi protected edit request: Republicans are grooming Gabbard - NYTimes

The article says that Russia is grooming Gabbard as a 3rd party candidate. The NY Times reports that it's the Republicans grooming Gabbard https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html Another sign of Trump-Russia collusion, but the article should reflect reliable sourcing. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is wrong. Anyone can listen to Clinton’s words themselves. She clearly stated Russians. This is a sad attempt by a so called RS to rewrite the narrative. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear: there are now numerous reliable sources that state that Clinton was referring to Republicans, regardless of what she said. An essay points out how to handle this sort of thing, and the Republican claim must now be included per WP:NPOV and WP:V. It helps to notice that one cite now has a host of corrections at the bottom, and another calls Clinton's claims about Gabbard "unsubstantiated", and a third one has corrections at the top stating that Clinton was referring to Rebublicans. These is not a sad attempt by a so called RS to rewrite the narrative, this is the position of several reliable sources. 173.84.210.56 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE?

MrX, Using primary sources is not undue. Undue means that in case there is more than one point of view we give each point of view the same weight. Also using primary sources is allowed in Wikipedia in some cases. This is one of them. We are not using a primary source from Tulsi herself but from the organizations that she worked for. --SharabSalam (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there was one secondary source that I did not see. We should always have at least one secondary source for anything other that a basic fact. As this is an encyclopedia, the contents of article should be noteworthy, not simple a collection of links to private entities and self-authored House bios that heap glowing praise upon the subject.- MrX 🖋 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX, OKay. Please calm down. I am seeing you removing a major stuff from this article without discussing it first.

For the evidence part ,

The Atlantic While it’s not clear if that’s what Clinton meant to say, her phrasing was at best sloppy and at worst making an inflammatory accusation against Gabbard (and Stein) without real evidence.

Vox her phrasing was at best sloppy and at worst making an inflammatory accusation against Gabbard (and Stein) without real evidence.

Also CNN in one of their videos put "Without evidence" in the screen. I watched it once and will try to find it. I am not a native speaker but I dont see how evidence differs from proof.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, thank you. I did not remove a single substantial bit of content. Here ya go: evidence vs. proof. Proof is a much higher standard.- MrX 🖋 19:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, there are reports that after all the criticism from republicans and democrats, someone who works for Clinton said that Clinton when she said "they got their eyes" she meant the republicans not the Russians. I found this in the daily mail.[91]--20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharabSalam (talk • contribs)

Using primary sources alone is almost certainly UNDUE at a minimum. That includes self-published sources

without discussing it first Please review WP:BLP, which requires high-quality sources, strict adherence to all content policies, and consensus for inclusion of disputed content. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail should not be considered or used anywhere in Wikipedia, let alone a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yea. I know dailymail should not be used, I was just saying. Also I don't believe UNDUE is relevant here since this is not a matter of point of views. Primary sources can be used in some cases like a newspaper or organization saying that X Person works for the newspaper or organization. Like for example Gatestone institute is used in many BLP articles. Back to the recent reports there is CNN Youtube video. Today they added this at the end (see 3:28).--SharabSalam (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up a deprecated source like that seems disruptive if you were aware of it's status.

this is not a matter of point of views That's not what POV is about.

Best to make a clear statement about what you want changed, indicating reliable sources. The burden is on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going to add it to the article for Gods sake. The article says that Clinton said that Russians were grooming Tulsi to run as a third party. That turns out to be not true. However, in another place Hillary Clinton said broadly without evidences that Tulsi is a Russian asset. Instead Hillary was talking about the republicans not the Russians.[92] We need more sources for this. Actually in the video that is out of context Hillary Clinton didnt mention Russia or Russians so I think we should change that paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Another source (Buzz feed) confirm that Hillary meant Republicans not Russians. I can't edit that area again because I have already made a revert.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I rewatched Hillary Clinton clip. She clearly said the Russians. It seems that these newspapers are trying to whitewash what Hillary Clinton did.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The opinion piece by Becket Adams who writes for the pro-Clinton Media Matters for America is not a reliable source. Note he says that mainstream media is wrong. We can't just reject what mainstream media say just because some columnist disagrees. The clip of the interview is not btw a reliable source, since we have no idea if it is edited. Even if it is not, it requires analysis to come to a conclusion, which requires a reliable source. It seems to me that Clinton is implying that the Republicans are colluding with the Russians or else she abruptly switched from talking about the Republicans to talking about the Russians. Her spokesperson initially confirmed she was talking about Russians, before it all backfired. Maybe Clinton forgot what year it was and was speaking about Shirley Chisholm, who her fellow McGovern supporters thought would take votes away from him. TFD (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusing Military History

The text as written now reads In July 2004 she volunteered for a 12-month tour in Iraq, serving in a field medical unit as a specialist with the 29th Support Battalion medical company. Specialist is a tank, she was an officer. It would help greatly to identify what she specialized in (specialist in internal medicine or whatever) or remove the words as a specialist. As it reads now, it implies she was enlisted.

The text as written reads "She was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009. There, as a primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was among the first women ever to set foot inside a Kuwait military facility." This isn't true, I was stationed in Kuwait in the 1990's for Operation Southern Watch on a Kuwaiti Air Base, we had SEVERAL females with us, we also had several females with us in 2003 when we kicked off Operation Iraqi Freedom from a Kuwaiti Air Base. This either needs to be removed, or clarified better. As it reads now, it implies we had no females there until 2008/2009.

I removed those lines from the page for now. There was only 1 reference that stated that and I do not believe its a reliable reference. The other 3 references did not support it and I can't find any other sources to support it either. ContentEditman (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

She probably had the rank of specialist because she did not enter officer candidate school until 2007. Also You did not mention which air bases you were at or whether they were under allied or Kuwaiti control at the time. Military btw can mean army rather than naval or air. TFD (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi born as Tulasi

@Samp4ngeles, In an early reference on Mike Gabbard running for office, she appears as Tulasi; other sources seem to use the names interchangeably in the same piece — not sure if that’s a matter of transliteration. She clearly is known by Tulsi in her recent public life. Changed lede to back to your edit. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You need a source that it was her name at birth before the article can say that. It could for example have been a nickname used at the time. Even if sources are found, it's lacks weight for inclusion in the lead or info-box, especially when it is not mentioned in the body. TFD (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine either way if you want to revert it or leave it and wait for Samp4ngeles to produce the mentioned source? Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I will revert per WP:BLP. There should not be any unsourced material. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re Tulasi vs Tulsi: The earlier references I found had Tulasi, while she has recently gone by Tulsi. But this may be a distinction without a difference, coming down to the Tamil vs Sanskrit: “In Sanskrit, we have two categorized Tulsi such as Rama Tulsi and Krsna Tulsi. In Malayalam it is called Trittavu. In Marathi as Tulshi, Tulasi in Tamil, Thulsi in Telugu and finally Holy Basil in English.“ https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-basil-and-tulsi Humanengr (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr @TFD The very first mention of Tulsi in a newspaper was on July 18, 2002, in an article in the Honolulu-Star Bulletin about her father, which said, "Gabbard, 54, was flanked by his wife, Carol, a member of the state Board of Education, and daughter, Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo, who will be running for state House District 42." On July 24, 2002, the Star-Bulletin published a list of candidates for public office, listing Tulsi as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo running for State House District 42. This would have reflected the name in her filing papers. On September 8, 2002, the Star-Bulletin again published a list of candidates showing her as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo. On September 13, 2002, a different newspaper, The Honolulu Advertiser, profiled her as Tulasi Gabbard Tamayo. On October 27, 2002, after the primary, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin again published her name as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo. Other articles beginning on September 8, 2002, and subsequently, began referring to her as Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo. In her 2006 divorce decree, however, she was listed as Tulsi G. Tamayo divorce decree. Then on April 30, 2011, a public notice appeared in in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, saying, "In the Matter of the Petition of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO For Change of Name . . . the Name of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO shall be changed to TULASI GABBARD. The same name notice appeared again on May 3, 2011. A 2019 profile of Gabbard's childhood in New York Magazine indicates that her three older siblings, Bhakti, Jai, and Narayan, had other names at birth -- but that Tulsi and her younger sister, Vrindavan, were born into the Science of Identity Foundation. I will change it in the lead to Tulasi "Tulsi" Gabbard, in line with other articles (e.g., Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke and John Ellis "Jeb" Bush) as well as other options presented in WP:NAMES. Up to you as whether to use it in as her birth name in the info-box.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

You need a secondary source first so that we can accept the information as true and secondly to establish weight. There are secondary sources that say what Bush and O'Rourke's legal names are, it's been discussed in secondary sources and hence we mention it. But Tulsi's legal first name is Tulsi. There has been lots of discussion at RSN about how we cannot use primary legal sources. TFD (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, The legal documents you cite do not say what you claim: the later notice is not the same as the earlier one. This is the second time you have misrepresented the record, apparently as part of a deliberate smear campaign to stir up bigotry (as also indicated by your ridiculous 'born into' claim). I'm not sure what the difference is between your behavior and that of the 'cottage industry' of crackpots and ex-cons who have been waging a vendetta misrepresenting both the SIF and the Gabbards. Your efforts show again why conscientious editors need to be scrupulously careful to follow the policies and not allow tabloid misrepresentations and sensationalism to slip into this BLP.Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, Revert your repeated insertion, per above. Humanengr (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019

@Humanengr I would suggest you read WP:PA before making the sort of comments you just made. The legal documents support exactly what I explained above -- as factually as possible. This is in no way an attempt to smear Gabbard. On the contrary, it is out of a desire to portray this information factually, in accordance with WP:BLP. Excluding this information from the article leaves a major gap. The "born into" language is merely to distinguish between Hindi naming conventions of Mike and Carol Gabbard's children before and after they began following Kris Butler. The New York Magazine article [93] makes this clear. It would be similar to describing someone as being born into Catholicism or Judaism if their parents had changed their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, You proposed a citation for Tulsi Gabbard’s BLP whose title began with "Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself …”. This positioning not only smeared Tulsi Gabbard by failing to make clear it was Carol Gabbard who was the subject of that article, but it failed to state that Carol Gabbard was herself cleared. The introduction of this article introduced contentious material against two living people, and it should be stricken from this Talk page.

Next you attempted to amplify on an unreliable defamatory source by misrepresenting the legal record of the May 3 article.

Then you added some material slurring both Gabbard and a religious organization – to be treated with sensitivity as a small group per WP policies – inserting your own judgment, though I assume you are not a scholar of either Hinduism or US case law on what constitutes a ‘cult’. For this you cite caravanmagazine.in, another ‘human interest’ publication improper as a source for a BLP which has been called out for hinduphobia.

Your wanting to insert more on Gabbard’s first husband also seems to be an inappropriately targeted effort: he is a low-profile individual, who has been covered only because of his connection with a single event. (See WP:BLPNAME.)

If you are genuinely trying to do competent and neutral editing work, it would help if you did not carry out actions like the above. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As a first step, look more closely at the May 3 publication and revert your edits. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr Uh, you're reading a lot into based on what appear to be your own biases. Don't try to smear me. I have simply inserted her actual name in based on RS and what has been published in newspapers and is in the public record. You have produced no evidence to the contrary.Samp4ngeles (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: which one of these (WP:SECONDARY) sources say that her legal name is "Tulasi"? Also, please don't reinstate this material until you have the consensus of the editors in this discussion, otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX All of these secondary sources:

And all of this is corroborated by primary sources (divorced and name change) referenced in other secondary sources.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

When this is taken to a noticeboard, Samp4ngeles' extensive editing at Mike Gabbard's BLP should also be mentioned. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls which was all excellent editing, by the way.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Samp4ngeles has been reported to Admins for edit warring. [94] Policy- or guideline violating editing or conduct can also be reported at other venues, e.g. the BLP noticeboard.[95] Xenagoras (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, unless you can provide a single reliable secondary source that her legal name at birth was Tulasi, it is a violation of WP:BLP to add it. If you don't have one, then we should close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four DeucesProviding a source that references her legal name *at birth* is not a requirement for WP:BLP. I have provided multiple secondary sources, including:

And all of this is corroborated by primary sources (divorced and name change) referenced in other secondary sources.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI just background information for editors: “… that the name of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO shall be changed to TULSI GABBARD upon a single publication in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, a newspaper of the general circulation in the State of Hawaii, published at Honolulu, Hawaii” Star-Advertiser May 3, 2011 (accessed through newspapers.com) Humanengr (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr That is an inaccurate quote from the citation. The legal notice you cite changed her name from TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO to TULASI GABBARD (emphasis added).Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Avoid misuse of primary sources" applies: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." For all we know Tulasi could be a typo or perhaps she changed her name to Tulasi, perhaps by accident, rather than having the name on her birth certificate or whatever they call it in Hawaii. And as we know from the birther controversy, those documents are not readily available. TFD (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. I presented the content so other editors would understand the basis of my saying that Samp4ngeles was misrepresenting his (unusable) primary source. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces @Humanengr We're no longer talking about proving that it was her name at birth (it's irrelevant to having it in the lead). The primary question here is whether Tulasi is her legal name, which it is. The WP:SECONDARY sources are sufficient to establish that Tulasi was her official name in the early 2000s. WP:PSTS states that primary sources can be relied on "to a lesser extent." The 2011 name change notice published in the Honolulu-Star-Advertiser indicate that Tulasi remained her legal name in 2011. If you want to go deeper than that, her 2006 divorce record (notable due to reference in multiple secondary sources) also lists her legal name as Tulasi. Conversely, there are no RS that indicate that "Tulsi" is either her birth name or legal name and this therefore violates WP:V. The 2002 secondary sources alone are sufficient to establish her legal name, though.(talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)