Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Anti-gay advocacy.

With respect to this edit [1] (yes, there was a "valid reason for changing this") it is important to not that the focus of the article (and many more like it), say that Gabbard apologized after she decided to run for President. Yes, she did apologize in 2012 (not 2011) also, but that is not what sources have highlighted. I would also note that including her previous anti-gay advocacy, lobbying, and legislating has previous consensus. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, your version describes better what the sources say, and it is important to write properly. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As the Choi article specifically mentions this 2012 apology, I have added it to wiki-text as a compromise solution. It may also be worth noting that your first source is blocked in Europe for legal reasons (presumably GDPR).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your edit [2] grossly misrepresents Gabbard's stance on LGBT issues because it removed from the article lede any mention that Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012. This violates also WP:AGE MATTERS because you made the lede present Gabbard's views from before 2012 but these have been obsolete since 2012. This problem is easily solvable as there is a trove of sources supporting her pro-LGBT record since 2012, e.g. [3]. You chose to not insert a source link (or ask other editors to insert one), instead you deleted easily fixable content. Therefore there was no valid reason for your change. Additionally, you made [4] Gabbard appear to be an opportunist by her "apologizing and changing her mind on LGBT after starting her presidential campaign in 2019". This also violates WP:V because she changed her mind in 2011 and apologized in 2012. That's another reason why there was no valid reason for your change. The current text in the LGBT section also gives undue weight to obsolete info. Additionally it violates WP:NPOV because at the time when Gabbard advocated against LGBT in Hawaii, this represented the majority view and she found majority votes in the Hawaii Referendum in 1998 and in the House of Representatives in 2004. Xenagoras (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint Xenagoras. There is no misrepresentation at all. The text from the very edit you linked is "but in 2012 Gabbard she apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"." which is almost exactly what articles on the subject say, and it certainly is not contrary to the idea that Gabbard "has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012", although that tends to overstate her recent change of heart. As I mentioned before, consensus has already been established (and is even evident in this discussion), that we must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose these changes by Xenagoras which distances Gabbard from her past anti-LGBT activism, and completely buries the fact it was not only related to same sex marriage. The previous wording is carefully balance and chronological, and was in the article for quite a while before it was polished up. - MrX 🖋 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the lead is bit off. She did not simply lobby agains same sex marriage. See was full on anti-LGBT rights. Also, her 2019 apology came shortly after her campaign announcement, a fact which has been highlighted by many sources. - MrX 🖋 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your edit [5] removed from the article lede any mention that Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012. You changed the lede to say, "She voted and lobbied against LGBT rights in Hawaii prior to her first tour of duty, but in 2012 Gabbard she apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"". But Gabbard has been a supporter of LGBT rights since 2012 [6], a fact you removed from the lede. This violates WP:AGE MATTERS because you made the lede present Gabbard's views from before 2012 but these have been obsolete since 2012. You grossly misrepresented Gabbard's stance of LGBT issues. Gabbard said in 2011 that she changed her mind on LGBT issues.[7] This was 9 years ago and is therefore certainly not "recently" as you claim. Writing in the lede that "Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012" certainly is not "overstating" the change of her stance as you claim, because Gabbard received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for her legislative efforts to support the LGBT community.[8] I did not question and I did not change whether both Gabbard's anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT activities have to be presented in the article. You wrote, "We must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead", but you are the one who removed the pro-LGBT part from the lede. How about you actually honor what you claim to honor? Besides that, regarding your claim, "consensus has already been established": consensus can change over time. You write you oppose my change [9], because it "distances Gabbard from her past anti-LGBT activism." The things that distance Gabbard from her past are the time period of 9 years that has passed since she lobbied against same sex marriage and the reversion of her stance from anti- to pro-LGBT legislation. Gabbard's actions regarding LGBT and the time passed have distanced Gabbard from her past. What you did was you erased Gabbard's present stance to emphasize the obsolete past stance. That will not stick. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We should be clear about both Gabbard's past anti-LGBT activity as well as her more recent change of heart. I believe that my edit made that sufficiently clear, but if not, it can be revised. However, let's be clear that it was not merely opposition to same sex marriage.- MrX 🖋 03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems per 19 Jan, 2020

Lede: LGBT rights vs same-sex marriage

MrX, you wrote, my edit [10] "completely buries the fact [Gabbard's anti-LGBT activism] was not only related to same sex marriage." Unless you can name any other LGBT rights other than same-sex marriage that Gabbard voted against, the text "she lobbied and voted against LGBT rights" cannot stay and has to be replaced with "she lobbied and voted against same-sex marriage". Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2002 vow to amend constitution

MrX inserted the text: "In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, she vowed to "pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."" This is fake news from Vox.[11], because Gabbard never made such a vow. What really happened is described in the text I previously put in the article [12] and which you removed.[13]: "In 1998 she supported her father's successful campaign to amend the Constitution of Hawaii to give lawmakers the power to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples." This amendment passed with an overwhelming majority in a referendum in Hawaii in 1998.[14] In 2002, Gabbard said her work to campaign with her father to get this amendment passed qualifies her as legislator in Hawaii.[15] (a fact that ABC News and all other outlets except Vox reported correctly in 2019.[16]) "Funny" how you manage to cite the only news outlet that failed to report this fact correctly. Even "funnier", how you can insert this false statement of fact into the article although you also inserted the proof that it is false:[17] [18] Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hawaii school related text and redundant content fork vs brief summary

MrX also put into the article, "[Gabbard] disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination." This is misrepresenting the source article [19], because your text makes it appear as fact that in 2004 "anti-gay discrimination was rampant at Hawaii schools." But the article states the opposite: "Few gays report harassment at school. ... only a small number of student harassment complaints in Hawai'i public schools involve sexual orientation... 16, or 1.1 percent of the 1,435 harassment incidents [were] related to sexual orientation.". That is clearly not "rampant". The source states further, "Tulsi Gabbard ... said the figures ... contradict a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment ... and show that our schools are not rampant with anti-gay harassment." We cannot give the appearance that Gabbard disputed a fact of "rampant gay discrimination" when the source states there was no "rampant gay discrimination". This makes the sentence "She disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" a misleading "information", a nothingburger that reduces the quality of the article and should be left out if we are not gonna explain in detail what the facts are (as I did). Additionally, the Political positions section of this article is not supposed to contain everything Gabbard ever said or did, and especially because there is another article that is dedicated to Gabbard's political positions, this section of the BLP is supposed to contain a brief summary, because otherwise it would be a redundant content fork. We should shorten all sub-sections in the Political positions section so that they are indeed a brief summary of their main article. And therefore, the text "Around the same time, she opposed Hawaii undertaking research on LGBT students and disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" should be left out in this article. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

LGBT caucus membership

MrX removed [20] information that Gabbard first joined the LGBT caucus in 2013 during the 113th Congress and again in the 115th Congress and 116th Congress and changed the article to "Gabbard joined the House LGBT Equality Caucus in 2019". This grossly misrepresents the history of Gabbard's LGBT Caucus membership. I propose changing "Gabbard joined the House LGBT Equality Caucus in 2019" to "Gabbard has been member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus during her first [21], third [22] and fourth [23] terms in Congress." Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue weighting of obsolete vs current stance

The LGBT rights section weighs the obsolete stance of Gabbard from before 2012 with twice as much space in the section as her current stance and thus gives it undue weight. E.g. that section lists legislative efforts as well as minor details from before 2012 but none of Gabbard's legislative efforts from after 2012.[24] I propose using the text that I previously put into the article as basis and shorten it to follow the brief summary guideline. [25] Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I think you should not hesitate to make the changes. MrX has continually been working the LGBT section from his earliest contributions here, and you lay out very clear argumentation above showing why this really should not be permitted. How much time did you have to invest in these clear explanations? And how long did it take MrX to "do what he does"? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to use the information and arguments I provided to make changes to the article. I have no interest or plan for an edit war. What I presented here serves the community as input to improve the article. Xenagoras (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for verifying all of that and laying everything out so clearly. My apologies if I've missed anything. Maybe the template in the LGBT section, but in principle I could get dragged to wikicourt now for reverting you, so I'd better not risk it. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. You probably refer to that revert? That one does not count because you undid that revert.[26] You worked to solve the article's problems that I highligthed.[27], thank's for that. I added the undue weight template and hereby state that your changes warrant removal of the template (meaning: I would not drag you to wikicourt for removing it now) with 2 caveats: Firstly, I noted that the LGBT section lists legislative efforts ... from before 2012 but none ... from after 2012. Perhaps a couple of words from this article could balance this aspect. Secondly, we should keep that template for at least 24 hours to ensure interested parties have acknowledged its existence and the ensuing content changes, so that a new consensus gets established before removing the template. Xenagoras (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Her opposition to anti-bullying research

This removal of Gabbard's history of anti-LGBT activism in opposition to research into bullying of LGBT students seems to be an attempt to whitewash her past. The edit summary is incorrect. There is no misrepresentation at all.

"A state Board of Education member whose family has fought against gay rights said that only a small number of student harassment complaints in Hawai'i public schools involve sexual orientation."

"State Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, D-42nd (Waipahu, Honouliuli, 'Ewa), Gabbard's daughter, said the figures released by her mother contradict a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment."
— http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/18/ln/ln12a.html]

Additional sources: [28][29][30][31]. - MrX 🖋 12:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why the insistance of bringing her mom and dad in the article ? This undue and of bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: You only showed one contemporaneous reliable source for this material. The 2017 New Yorker human interest piece is not a credible source for facts on this event, being inconsistent with the tone and substance of the 2004 source. 1) The text you inserted did misrepresent the facts as reported in the one reliable source. 2) You are misusing the phrase 'statistically significant', which does not occur, substituting that characterization for the data in the source showing that "1.1% of the harassment incidents related to sexual orientation.” 3) You substituted the “aim of reducing bullying” for the actual resolution in the article, leaving out Gabbard’s understandable privacy concern and creating the false impression that she was simply opposed to reducing bullying of LGBT for no reason.

A BLP-compliant form – which would still be UNDUE, especially for the lead – would be:

“In the same year, she opposed a resolution requiring the Hawaii department of education to study the demographics and needs of LGBT students as well as how well the department’s anti-harassment rule was being implemented. She noted recent data showing 16 of 1,435 harassment incidents related to sexual orientation, while a study asking students questions about their sexuality would be a violation of student privacy.“

Humanengr (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

That's cherry-picked, and asserting it up as WP:BLP-compliant does not make the other version non-BLP complaint. Let's stick to how the most prominent source (several of which were removed from the article (!) have wrote. They did not get into the weeds to make Gabbard look like a good statistician when in fact she was simply trying to pass legislation that adversely affected LGBT people. - MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right Humanengr, the privacy concerns should be added if this is added to the Political positions page. I was only focusing on the data question when I rewrote the text. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

One remark about the sources you gave. New Yorker is a source for Gabbard's opposition to a study on LGBT research, whereas Politico, Fox and National review copy-pasted the text from the New Yorker. Even more irritating is that I could not find any corroborating source for some of the New Yorker's (2017) indirect Gabbard quotes on that study, whereas the Honolulu Advertiser article from 2004 contains several long direct quotes from the day of the event. Xenagoras (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The change by SashiRolls from:

... she opposed legislation to curtail bullying of LGBT students saying "inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth."

To:

... she opposed legislation aimed at reducing bullying of LGBT students, saying that the problem was not statistically significant and that the proposed law was being used by "homosexual-advocacy organizations [...] to promote their agenda" in Hawaii schools."

seems intended to polish her image and hide this aspect of her anti-LGBT advocacy. Removing supporting references is a move in that same direction. - MrX 🖋 13:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This gives undue weight to minor aspects and controversies in a section that has to follow summary style. As I wrote [32] before: The Political positions section of this article is not supposed to contain everything Gabbard ever said or did, and especially because there is another article that is dedicated to Gabbard's political positions, this section of the BLP is supposed to contain a brief summary, because otherwise it would be a redundant content fork. We should shorten all sub-sections in the Political positions section so that they are indeed a brief summary of their main article. And therefore, the text "Around the same time, she opposed Hawaii undertaking research on LGBT students and disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" should be left out in this article. Xenagoras (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The material is highly relevant to her career and the evolution of her political views. Activism against LGBT rights is not a "minor aspect" in my opinion. She stands out among Democrats for her views regarding same sex marriage and anti bullying legislation. She was very vocal about it in a state that was at the vanguard of the same sex marriage movement in the US. - MrX 🖋 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You should really read WP:SPINOFF and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The material you refer to is not revelant to her evolution on LGBT issues. Relevant for her evolution is her experience in the military, especially during deployment in Iraq. [33] [34] [35] She perhaps stands out among Democrats for her views regarding same sex marriage and anti bullying legislation because she received a 100% rating in her third term (improving from 88% and 92% in her previous two terms) for pro-LGBT legislation. [36] Voters in her home state Hawaii voted with 69% for the Constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage she campaigned for in 1998. [37] And the House did not approve a bill on same-sex marriage she opposed in 2004. [38] Gabbard represented the majority view in Hawaii on same-sex marriage until 2004. Xenagoras (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don' see it that way, but I don't thing back and forth reverting is resolving this issue. I will wait to see if other editors weight in on the Gabbard's anti-anti-bullying activism. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

People not named MrX would get in trouble for painting caricatures of the intentions behind contributions. In fact, I intended to more accurately represent the text. I do not know why you have been so interested in this particular question for TG's BLP (but not for her political positions page). I understand that Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard has only 2% of the pageviews of this page; however, this is not an excuse for dramatizing a political position she no longer holds in stronger terms than the single 15 year old source describing it does. Insofar as this is not on the Political positions page, it should be removed from the BLP section summarizing that page.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I can look at the history of your constant removal of the LGBT material, removing sources, and now mangling direct quotes from the subject and reasonably conclude that you don't want Gabbard's unpleasant anti-LGBT activism in the article. The reason I am focused on the LGBT aspect is because it has been extensively covered; it stands our among the otherwise sparse coverage of the subject. The approach I'm taking to this article is that it should reflect the feature articles in high quality sources that have explored her life in depth. It should not look like a campaign pamphlet that gushes about her modest military service or her zingers directed at Hillary Clinton. - MrX 🖋 02:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What prestivarications are these MrX? I don't believe I've been a great deleter, go ahead & dig, I'm curious. Again, if you want this on her biography put it in political positions entry first. Stay focused on the question at hand, don't distract us with smoke and zingers.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Further comment: it is true that to be entirely accurate the text should read: she opposed legislation aimed at reducing bullying of LGBT students, because data from the state Board of Education "contradict[ed] a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment." In fact that data showed "1.1% of the harassment incidents related to sexual orientation." -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what is said above by the two editors. This content probably belongs to "political positions" but certainly does not belong in this BLP article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I added that content to the Political positions article, reworked that section there to increase precision and chronological order, and made minor changes to the section here. Xenagoras (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I heard that this anti-gay past content is still in the lead section? Why is that? Reliable sources about this issue are literally RECENT. There are only two dates when newspapers made converge of this, one in January 2019 when apologized and two when she said that her deployment to the middle East changed her view on LGTB. I am shocked to hear that this stuff is in the lead section. This stuff should not be even in this article, its recent in this biographical article. Should definitely be removed. Do the 10 years test if it's not clear how recent is this. We don't mention that Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war in the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I am sure that mentioning stuff about a mistake that was done in the past in the lead section of a biographical article is RECENT and UNDUE, it's not neutral. We don't mention that Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war in the lead of his article because he then said it was a mistake. We don't mention that Ilhan Omar made some tweets that were viewed as anti-Semitic in lead of her article because she apologized. Why would we mention that Tulsi Gabbard lobbied against same marriage when she apologized for that? Humans make mistakes. When they apologize, their mistakes become RECENT.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a consensus to include this a long time ago. As for what goes into leads on other articles (which is not relevant to anything in this article), the criticism that Omar engages in Anti-Semitic discourse should obviously be in her lead (just as it would be for Republicans who do it), and I do not particularly object to mentioning that Biden voted for the Iraq War in his lead, but it depends on whether that's prominent enough to mention in the lead of someone who was a Senator for nearly 40 years, VP for 8 years, and is currently the Democratic front-runner for the 2020 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

One's past doesn't disappear because they describe it as a mistake after deciding to run for president. I've already show numerous sources to show that the material is WP:DUE, including two feature length source articles. Regarding Omar: I could care less what happens at articles that I'm not interested in editing. There is also a vast difference between tweeting, and legislating/lobbying. I shouldn't even have to point that out.- MrX 🖋 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the pre-existing consensus that this misrepresentation of a story about privacy and 1.1% self-reported school harassment data and 2004 state legislation should be included in the entry. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I took the time to fact-check the two links provided in edit summaries to previous TP discussions here and here. When Snoogans says, There was a consensus to include this a long time ago. this should absolutely not be understood as being related to the story about legislation encouraging asking public school students about their sexual preferences. There is no pre-existing consensus about including this content in the entry or in the lede and it is misleading to suggest that this has been previously discussed. (likely just another "mistake") -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly object to Humanengr's edits to the LGBT material, per the many previous discussion about the material. - MrX 🖋 13:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Disparity of treatment between candidate's BLPs

It is outrageous and offensive that Gabbard being the first Samoan-American voting member of Congress was deleted from her BLP lead by MrX with the edit summary "rm trivia. It's easy to be the first at something minor. The combinations are almost limitless."

Kamala Harris's BLP lead states that she is "California's third female U.S. Senator, and the first of either Jamaican or Indian ancestry." See also the leads of other candidate BLPs, e.g.: Biden ("sixth-youngest senator in American history"); Buttigieg ("first openly gay person to seek the Democratic nomination"); Klobuchar ("Minnesota's first elected female United States Senator"); Warren ("the first female Senator from Massachusetts").

Are these to be deleted as well as "trivial, promotional and self-serving"? Or is Gabbard the only candidate subjected to that treatment?

Candidate BLPs must be held to one uniform standard if WP is to maintain its advertised identity as an encyclopedic, unbiased information source.

See also this comment by MrX. Humanengr (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is notable and should be included. The two references linked to this in the lead do not mention this however. I have seen other references which describe her as the first Samoan-American member of Congress. What is the function of adding the word "voting" in the description? Have there been non-voting Samoan-American members of Congress? Burrobert (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the lack of cite. The 'voting member' refers to the fact that American Samoa is represented by a non-voting delegate in Congress. The "first voting member" is how she is referenced here, so I'm adding that. Humanengr (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am not very familiar with the intricacies of the US system so wasn't aware of that. Burrobert (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Please don't emotional about what is merely good writing structure/style. Just because other articles include useless trivia in their leads doesn't mean we should adopt such an amateurish style. I have removed such trivia from other candidates articles. You are wrong that "Candidate BLPs must be held to one uniform" but you are welcome to start an RfC at WP:BLPN or WP:VPP is you think you can get the community to agree with you. Also, haven't you been repeatedly reminded that about how WP:OTHERSTUFF is a not a valid argument?

I don't find that her being the first American-Samoan voting member of congress is at all significant. When you combine multiple random attributes (office, state, voting status, heritage, gender, sexual orientation), of course just about everyone will be the first, second, or third of those combined attributes. - MrX 🖋 14:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been in the lead since December 2012, so a bit over 7 years. I think it should be kept there. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Gabbard being the first American-Samoan voting member of congress is due for inclusion, as this is a unique feature of Gabbard that RS have reported on many times. The WP:OTHERSTUFF essay concerns creation and deletion of articles and therefore does not apply here. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think a so-called "unique feature" qualifies something for the lead. The Wikipedia standard is "significance" which means impact, importance, or noteworthiness. Anyway, it looks like consensus is not on my side at the moment, so I will leave the material alone, except for my next edit. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The uniqueness of a feature defines its noteworthiness. Uniqueness separates a feature from trivial stuff. Its reporting in reliable sources defines its reliability and due weight for inclusion. Xenagoras (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be standard to mention place of birth for U.S. politicians who were born outside the United States. There is no reason why this article should be any different. TFD (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Political positions

Somebody wants a citation below {{main|Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard}}, so please add 3 of the 6 main references (updated):

<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/ 
|title=Tulsi Gabbard Views on 2020 Issues: A Voter's Guide 
|date=August 23, 2019 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=February 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web 
|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right
|title=Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right 
|last=McCarthy |first=Tom |date=May 13, 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=February 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/06/tulsi_gabbard_ad_neoliberals_and_neocons_sing_from_the_same_songsheet_war_war_war.html 
|title=Tulsi Gabbard Ad: Neoliberals And Neocons Sing From The Same Songsheet, War War War 
|last=Hains |first=Tim |date=May 6, 2019|work=[[Real Clear Politics]] |access-date=February 10, 2020}}</ref>

PoC:

"Tulsi Gabbard Views on 2020 Issues: A Voter's Guide". Politico. August 23, 2019. Retrieved February 10, 2020.

McCarthy, Tom (May 13, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". The Guardian. Retrieved February 10, 2020.

Hains, Tim (May 6, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Ad: Neoliberals And Neocons Sing From The Same Songsheet, War War War". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved February 10, 2020.

–84.46.52.123 (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interstellarity (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Bad sources

We should not be using questionable sources in this, or any other bio. Sources like reason.com, votetulsi.com, and expression808.com are s few examples of low quality sources. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The other candidates’ bios follow the WP:ABOUTSELF policy of allowing exceptions to the strict RS rules when 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I guess it’s time to escalate this as you suggested to see whether policy should be applied with parity across candidates’ bios. Humanengr (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Some of the other candidate's bio are in terrible shape. We should be using them as the prototype. We should always look for the most reputable sources for any material. If material can only be found in press releases, newsletters, blogs, primary source documents, or the subject's own website, it should almost always be left out. Any editor who wants to to include such marginally sourced content needs to make the case on the talk page per WP:ONUS. An example of where this is problematic is the self-sourced claim that she "led an effort to pass legislation to assist victims of military sexual trauma". The reality is that she only co-introduced it into the house. Also, the resulting senate bill has been criticized for doing the opposite of what Gabbard gushed about in her press release.[39] - MrX 🖋 14:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr. Reason.com, the website of the Reason Magazine, is a reliable source. There is a list of their staff: [40]. MrX, you have no support in policy for your claim about which material should almost always be left out. You wrote [41], we should always look for the most reputable sources for any material, but you inserted the same factually false claim into this BLP four times [42] [43] [44] [45] although I had explained [46] to you why the claim is false and although you previously also inserted sources disproving that claim.[47] [48] You never attempted to build consensus before inserting false or otherwise inappropriate (obsolete or non neutral) content, or before deleting pertinent reliably sourced content. You claimed to edit WP:BOLDly instead. Therefore don't argue that other editors have the WP:ONUS to build consensus with you before adding material. WP:POTKETTLE The policy which determines which true factual statements should be included is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Xenagoras (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, having a staff does not make a blog reliable. I'm relating my experience discussion that sources with other editors. Be careful with the accusations of bad faith. I added material that was properly sourced to Vox. Removing all of the anti-LGBT material or reversing the order in which it occurred is not the solution to fixing a minor wording issue. I don't know why you didn't you simply correct the wording as I suggested at RSN. By the way, several other other editors have expressed support for this material in the past. - MrX 🖋 02:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, having a large staff of editors, reporters, producers and directors defines a news media organization and distinguishes it from a blog. I have never accused anybody of bad faith. Stop lecturing [49] me to not make accusations of bad faith. I raised [50] the problem of factually false information repeatedly being inserted into a WP:BLP and reverted your large edit series [51] because it contained too many policy violations. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Vox article issue was corrected as soon as you raised the issue. What other specific "policy violations" are you referring to, keeping in mind that most of our policies are subject to broad interpretation? If there are violations, let's discuss how to fix them, one at a time, (like we did with Vox) rather than just bulk reverting. - MrX 🖋 17:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you wholesale reverted all my edits,[52] Xenagoras. Why don't we discuss the content, item by item, and see if we can come to a compromise or concession. Kind of like how I compromised on the wording of the LGBT material in the lead, and conceded on military service in the lead, Samoan-American in the lead, and many other such disputed items. And please, no accusations of bad faith or wrongdoing. We're all trying to make the article better. - MrX 🖋 03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, because you changed a lot of things that caused a lot of policy violations as I wrote in my revert summary: WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS AGE. Also violated were: WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:RFC (you inserted [53] material without a consensus from the workshop that was decreed by a RfC). I agree that we should discuss each of the pieces of content respectively policy problems. You did not compromise on the wording of the LGBT material in the lead as you claim [54]. You repeatedly removed [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Gabbard's current pro-LGBT stance from the lead to leave only her obsolete anti-LGBT stance in the lead to misrepresent a living person. The community spends more time cleaning up your mistakes and educating you about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Saying someone is violating policy means noting if you do not articulate what they have violated. MrXs edits seem well written and supported, even on the TALK as well. ContentEditman (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both editors, Xenagoras and Humanengr arguments. The sources are of low quality. BLP should only be using high quality sources(WP:BLPSOURCES) Also, challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus(WP:BLP).-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you wrote "Challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus." Then why did you just re-add [63] the Equality Caucus material; the Gabbard-sourced "very socially conservative home" material; the Distinguished Honor graduate material; the self-congratulatory (and self-sourced) military sexual trauma material; and the intertwined material? That is exactly the opposite of what you claimed here and in your edit summary. - MrX 🖋 04:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the balancing stuff like Since 2013 she has been a member of the LGBT Equality caucus in Congress. and removed some weak sources like indianweekender.co.nz . I made a revert to whole edit that removed balancing content and added weak sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

SharabSalam You wrote that "challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus(WP:BLP)", yet you -re-added challenged material without consensus. In what way does exaggerating Gabbard's role in in house bill that arguably does the opposite of what she claims balance the article? How does removing her comments about her zeal for fighting against LGBT rights balance the article? It seems like you didn't actually examine each of these edits and read the sources. It seems like you just pressed revert. - MrX 🖋 13:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I reverted to this revision [64]. You need to seek consensus for your additions if they are challenged.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I did not ask what version you reverted to, since I obviously already know that. I am asking why you restored material that was challenged, without first obtaining consensus for including it? I even gave very specific examples that I researched. It would be awesome if you would please address the substance of my comments with respect to the underlying content and sources. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing duplicate material and reordering LGBT section

@ContentEditman:: You reverted my edit. Your edit summary said: “This was discussed on the TALK page in depth. You also did not just reorganize, but changed the language as well without consensus”.

What does “This” refer to? Also, pls provide link to specific prior “discussion in depth”.

And what is the argument for starting the political positions of an actual candidate‘s bio page with any material other than their current political positions? In particular, what is the basis for starting the political positions section of their BLP with material from 21 years ago when she was a minor child that duplicates material that is included elsewhere in the bio. Humanengr Humanengr (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Please stop trying to improve her image by removing information about her anti-LGBT activism. If you look, you'll see that I commented about this upthread earlier today.- MrX 🖋 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, please stop trying to damage her image by removing information about her pro-LGBT activism and replacing it with her obsolete anti-LGBT activism as you did again. [65] Xenagoras (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As said above you removed information that has been discussed here before under the guise of a reorganization. ContentEditman (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX and ContentEditman: The 1998 material is already covered in Early life; the 2004 material is covered in both the Early life and Hawaii House of Representatives (2002–2004) sections. That material remains. Please point to where the issue of duplication of this material with that in other sections has been discussed. Also, as I asked above, where was the issue of ordering the material to -start- the political positions section of the bio with material from 21 years ago when she was a minor child discussed? Humanengr (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not duplicate material. I'm sure you are as capable as I of reading the previous discussion on this page and int he archive in which there has been strong support to including the Gabbard's entire history with regard to LGBT rights. I don't know what you are referring to when you write "she was minor child". Perhaps show some source for that? The anti-bullying material needs to be restored as well. - MrX 🖋 13:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We don't start the political positions sections of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren with what they once believed when they were conservative Republicans or Trump when he was a liberal Democrat. TFD (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read those pages? Elizabeth Warren's very first line under political positions is "In 2012,...". So yes other pages do start out with older information, not the most recent. Yet Gabbards political positions section starts with "Gabbard's political positions are broadly similar to those of other 2020...". So your example seems backwards from your statement. ContentEditman (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the complete sentence? Elizabeth Warren#Political positions begins, "In 2012, the UK magazine New Statesman named Warren among the "top 20 US progressives"." IOW, we don't start the political positions section of Elizabeth Warren with what she once believed when was a conservative Republican. We begin with what she is now, one of the leading U.S. progressives. TFD (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That section has mixed chronological order. Also, Warren didn't fight against civil rights and then support the exact opposite when she sought national office. 🍎🍊 - MrX 🖋 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

ContentEditman, you grossly misrepresent Warren's article. As TFD quoted, the begin of her political positions section explains her current position as a progressive leftist, not her obsolete previous positions as Republican. Xenagoras (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The material is not in strict chronological order. If you want to add something relevant to Warren's positions—past, present, or future—feel free. This is not the venue to debate it. - MrX 🖋 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's the WP:OTHERSTUFF that needs to be fixed. Biographies are usually written in chronological order. I see no reason to turn that upside down. Now, if I were writing a campaign brochure, I might reverse the order, especially if the more recent material was favorable to my campaign. - MrX 🖋 14:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

But we're talking about the "Political positions" section, which is not typically written in chronological order, but rather emphasizes their positions during the period of their greatest notability. A reader looking for Reagan's political positions who be primarily interested in what they were when he was president not what they were in the 1830s. Someone reading about Karl Marx would be more interested in knowing about what he believed when he was socialist rather than a liberal. People reading about Hayek and Mises are more interested in their free market theories than what they believed when they were socialists. TFD (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean like the foreign affairs section? I'm not aware that there is a Wikipedia-wide convention as you suggest, and I believe that in a biography, the content should generally be chronological because it's easier for readers to follow. In a separate political positions article, I could perhaps be convinced that content should be arranged according to some other criteria, such as WP:WEIGHT. If we did arrange the LGBT rights section in this article according the weight, the anti-LGBT activism would still be covered first anyway. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind, this is an encyclopedic article, not a tabloid. TFD (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have always been aware of that. - MrX 🖋 13:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Cmts re use of Version (4)

[Version (4) refers to this option for wording "mention of the SIF" after an RfC asking whether there should be mention was closed in favor.]

@MrX: The Bowles article is not a reliable source — in particular for the phrase "still guides her" (quoted in MrX's insertion, et seq) at it is, as Xenagoras noted, "very vague and misrepresents what Gabbard actually said." Its meaning in the original is not at all clear. If intended there as a paraphrase of the paragraph that follows, it is a poor paraphrase. Its use here is misleading. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: The article in the New York Times says

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.

The phrase "whose work she said still guides her" is equivalent to "she is influence by". If you have a reliable source that says the New York Times got it wrong, please show it. You cannot substitute WP:OR for WP:V. In other words, you can't take at a direct quote of the subject and use your own interpretation of that quote to negate what a highly reputable newspaper has stated as a matter of fact. If you don't believe me, we can take it WP:ORN right now. Since you referred to the article in the New York Times as "not a reliable source", shall we take that to WP:RSN as well? - MrX 🖋 13:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you requested, if you have a reliable source that says the New York Times got it wrong, please show it. The NYT claim that Gabbard says that Butler's work still guides her [66] is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. It is not supported by the direct quote of Gabbard in the NYT article and is even contradicted in the very same article: The socially conservative guru Chris Butler. ... The progressive movement have always had their share of peaceniks [like Gabbard]. It is dubious how a "socially conservative" person can guide a "progressive" person. Other sources make the contradiction more obvious. "I was raised in a very socially conservative household with views and beliefs I no longer hold today. Like most of the country, my views have evolved." [67] Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—“perhaps, a while ago.” She says, “It’s something that we don’t agree on.” [68] Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee. [69] A "devotee" is "an ardent follower" [70]. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, when you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source. The original document is the direct quote by Gabbard in the NYT article and I recommend using that in the BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: I see WP:OR says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” My comment concerns evaluation of article content.

What we have in the article is Bowles making a summary statement followed by the quoted material from Gabbard. Why are we not using the latter? Are you asserting that Bowles's summary statement is more authoritative than the quote itself? Humanengr (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Two reasons: 1) There is no indication that one is referring to the other; and 2) The analysis by the journalist is far more encyclopedic than the musings of the subject herself. Let me know when you're ready to go to RSN to get some outside opinions about whether the NYT article is a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 21:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: If there is a consensus to get into this topic, opinions of reporters with no expertise in Hindu spiritual practices are not appropriate RS. There are sources where Gabbard has spoken publicly in some detail about the guru dev role such as Yoga Hawaii Magazine. Humanengr (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I gave two sound reasons why Bowles New York Times reporting is more appropriate than Gabbard's reflections. Your response is to present a yoga magazine? Am I on candid camera? - MrX 🖋 02:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." What does "raised in part by the teachings of" actually mean? Which teachings? Which part? I was raised in part by the teachings of Lord Baden-Powell because as a 10 year old I attended a few cub meetings and recited DYB DYB DYB DOB DOB DOB. Of course I had other influences, many contradictory, and think it would be absolutely misleading to say that I was influenced in part by Lord Baden-Powell without providing information about other influences. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait a second. Didn't some editors fight like mad to get "raised in a multicultural household" and "mixed ethnicity" added to the article? This material dovetails beautifully into that same narrative. Help me understand: is there something toxic about being associated with Butler's work? Has Gabbard ever spoken against how she was represented in the New York Times article? If so, that would be worth factoring in. - MrX 🖋 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not following you. I don't know what "raised in part by the teachings of" actually means. Can you please explain to me what the influence was and what part it was? Why do you think that mentioning Chris Butler dovetails into multicultural household? Since everyone has an ethnicity, your idea that we should include anyone with ethnicity would dovetail into adding anyone and everyone. TFD (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The full quote is in the green box above. In context, it means that she was raised in a multicultural environment, which included Butler's teaching, which continue to influence her. I think that's perfectly clear—every bit as much as "Gabbard embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager." (did she actually hug it?). For clarification, "multicultural" does not exclusively refer to ethnicity. Spiritual views are often interwoven with cultural background and ethnicity. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How does Butler's teachings continue to influence her? If you know we can put that in, otherwise it's just weasel-wording. I posted the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea. I suppose you could ask her, or the New York Times reported. I disagree that it has anything to do with WP:WEASEL. - MrX 🖋 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

So you don't know what the influence was but think it's important enough to include. It's similar to the types of statements Trump has been criticized for: “I don't know his father. I met him once. I think he's a lovely guy. All I did is point out the fact that on the cover of the National Enquirer there was a picture of him and crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast.” TFD (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it speaks to her spiritual background, and I don't view it as a negative. Other editors have supported this material as well (see archives). I'm genuinely curious why you don't object to similar material in that section like "embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager" or "multicultural". - MrX 🖋 16:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

They other things you mention are unambiguous statements. Stating someone's religion is not weasel-wording nor is mentioning their ethnicity. If asked what we mean, we could say that her father had mixed Samoan and European ancestry and grew up in American Samoa while her mother was of European ancestry and grew up in the United States. That would substitute for and elaborate on the statement about multiculturalism. But you cannot restate or explain the weasel-wording about Butler because it is weasel-wording. TFD (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

But I did explain my interpretation: ("it means that she was raised in a multicultural environment, which included Butler's teaching, which continue to influence her."). Other readers could interpret it slightly differently, I suppose. I think we disagree about what is ambiguous, vague, or otherwise. Hopefully we can get more outside input from WP:BLPN. - MrX 🖋 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What teachings are those and how does it influence her? Dear in mind that unlike polemical writing, encyclopedic articles must be explicit in what they say and avoid weasel-wording. TFD (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It is most definitely not weasel wording. The text in question is "She has said Butler's work still guides her." which is a directly reported fact from an impeccable source. So far, only one uninvolved editor has commented at WP:BLPN. We can take this to WP:ORN or WP:RSN if you think thing there would be support for your view that the New York Times erred in it's reporting, or that the material in the article doesn't faithfully reflect what is written in the New York Times. - MrX 🖋 17:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's extremely difficult to follow the discussions here. I can't figure out what "Version (4)" refers to...

The New York Times attributed the last bit to Gabbard ("she said still guides her"), rather than go into detail. In that context, it's weasel-wording. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

[@Hipal: Version (4) refers to this option for wording "mention of the SIF" after an RfC asking whether there should be mention was closed in favor. Humanengr (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)]

What definition of "weasel-wording" are you using? - MrX 🖋 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." TFD (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

From WP:WEASEL: "...phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." In this case, [the work of the SIF guru Butler] "still guides her" is the "vague and ambiguous claim", which "gives the impression that something specific and meaningful has been said", namely that Gabbard is somehow directed by SIF guru Butler. -Darouet (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That is meaningless objection. You think the word "guide" will be misread as "direct"?? What? SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange that you find this to be a "meaningless" objection, when so many other editors are pointing this out to you in other words, and when the OED states that most plausible synonyms of "guide" include "steer," "lead," "govern" and "administer." According to the OED it's not a misreading of accurate text, but an accurate reading of misleading text. Unless there's some other linguistic standard you're referring to?

Do you object to just quoting Gabbard directly on the issue, or do you really favor this one particular wording SPECIFICO? If the latter case, why? -Darouet (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you object to quoting the New York Times reporter's factual reporting? - MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please allow me to explain the English term "to guide someone" to you: The Oxford dictionary defines it as, [to] direct or have an influence on the course of action of (someone or something). Synonyms are: direct, steer, control, manage, command, lead, ... have control of, ... supervise, oversee as well as advise, counsel, direct, give direction to, make recommendations to, make suggestions to, ... [71]. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as, to direct, supervise, or influence usually to a particular end as well as to superintend [72]. The Cambridge dictionary defines it as, to give someone advice or help on how to do or understand something as well as to control or influence a person [73]. Xenagoras (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to explain your explaining to the NY Times, who are the source for that word. WP reflects the content of RS references. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I unfortunately had to explain the term to you, because you dismissed Darouet's objection that "Gabbard is being guided" could be misread as "Gabbard is being directed". And I have to kindly ask you to read WP:BLP, which defines various conditions and restrictions to the usage of material by secondary sources and self published material. Xenagoras (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh good grief, WP:WEASEL is shortcut to a page in Wikipedia's style manual that pertains to how we write Wikipedia articles. It does not extend to how the New York Times writes their articles.- MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's your obligation as an editor to write biographies carefully, which means that even with ordinarily strong sources, you don't abdicate your critical reasoning faculties, and strive to get it right. You have written above that you don't think the text you're proposing has negative connotations. Surely you can devise an alternative wording that avoids a potentially misleading claim. -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I assure you, I have not abdicated any of my reasoning abilities, although my patience is on life support. This is very straightforward material that is not contested by any other reliable source that I'm aware of. I have not seen a shred of evidence that the New York Times misrepresented what Gabbard communicated to the New York Times journalist. No one has demonstrated that it is "a potentially misleading claim". We are obligated to stay as close the source as possible without plagiarizing. I'm not inclined to "devise an alternative wording" that will introduce something into the article that is not actually verifiable. This is not creative writing. - MrX 🖋 19:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, WP:WEASEL states, [weasel words] may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe ... should be clearly attributed. The NYT claims that "Gabbard says that Butler's works still guides her", but the NYT does not prove that claim with a clearly attributed quote from Gabbard. Xenagoras (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. Adding or taking something from it would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Are you saying that the NYT is not a reliable source? ContentEditman (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I recommend you to read WP:BLP which gives basic guidance on how to write a BLP. Your claim, taking something from [what reliable sources say] would violate Wikipedia:No original research, is false. There is a long list of policies that restrict which reliably sourced material shall go into a BLP and how it shall be written. Please do not impute a general dismissal of the NYT to me. I never said that and I never meant that. [74] Xenagoras (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please also respect the guideline on usage of news articles which states, Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. And human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy. I have already demonstrated that parts of a human interest story about Gabbard turned out to be factually false [75]. Xenagoras (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As stated multiple times now, if you want to claim that the New York Times erred in its reporting, you need to show other sources that have disputed its reporting and/or ask if the New York Times article is reliable for the content in question. You can do that at WP:RSN. We do not have a WP:HUMANINTEREST content policy, nor have you even made the case the NYT article is a human interest story. - MrX 🖋 23:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt that the NYT piece is RS for this. "Human interest" is like when a chicken gives birth to a goose or when a man eats 32 tacos -- maybe coverage of the winner in a quilting contest. There is no basis for this epic and contentious denial of RS sourcing. If there were a valid reason to reject the New York Times article, it would have been discovered by now. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras I know what our style guide says, which should be evident by my comments in this very discussion. ContentEditman is exactly right. The NYT does not have to "prove" anything or include a quote in their article. (Where did you even get the idea that that is a Wikipedia standard?) We trust the NYT, so our job is to write content that faithfully reflects what they have published about the subject. - MrX 🖋 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That standard is verifiability and WP:BLP has the highest standard and requires that editors must get the article right. Let's see how well your trust in reliable sources went last time [76], when you inserted factually false claims four times into this BLP and did not stop [77] even after I explained to you [78] why it it false. The NYT claim that Gabbard says that Butler's work still guides her is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. It is not supported by the direct quote of Gabbard in the NYT article and is even contradicted in the very same article: The socially conservative guru Chris Butler. ... The progressive movement have always had their share of peaceniks [like Gabbard]. It is dubious how a "socially conservative" person can guide a "progressive" person. Other sources make the contradiction more obvious. "I was raised in a very socially conservative household with views and beliefs I no longer hold today. Like most of the country, my views have evolved." [79] Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—“perhaps, a while ago.” She says, “It’s something that we don’t agree on.” [80] Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee. [81] A "devotee" is "an ardent follower" [82]. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, when you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source. The original document is the direct quote by Gabbard in the NYT article and I recommend using that in the BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those policies say that a source has to prove anything. And no, your other sources do not contradict the New York Times. We've been through that already. See my comments and Masem's comments at WP:BLPN. - MrX 🖋 02:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The guideline on usage of news articles states, whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. And because WP:BLP directs editors to adhere to the highest standard of verifiability and to do no harm to the reputation of a living person, I examined the specific NYT claim that Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her, and found it to be unreliable because it is contradicted by many other sources. Xenagoras (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the New York Times article has not been "contradicted" by many other sources. We've been through this before. Shall we go to WP:RSN now to see how many Wikipedians agree with you? - MrX 🖋 23:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX, ContentEditman, and SPECIFICO: Questioning the Bowles piece is not questioning the general RS status of the NYT. The Bowles article is not a news story, presenting specific facts about an allegation or incident. Those are the stories for which a source can establish a reputation for checking the facts alleged. Bowles’s article is a ‘human interest’ piece. The NY Times may have a general reputation as RS for reporting news, but policy says that does not necessarily mean a human interest piece in NYT is to be treated as RS. Per WP:NEWSORG: "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy ….” Humanengr (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument. You can take it to WP:RSN if you think you can find other editors who would support it. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no human interest exception. Please engage seriously or desist. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If the statement that Butler guides her is meaningful, then we should be able to rephrase it in a meaningful statement. For example if we were to say that Sanders was guided by FDR, we could rephrase it as saying that he intended to expand the welfare state that FDR had pioneered. But just say guided by could mean that he intended to reintroduce internment camps. As an encyclopedia, articles should be precise and avoid innuendo. TFD (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Asian ancestry

As far as I know, neither Gabbard nor her father have ever claimed any Asian ancestry, nor did Finding Your Roots' genealogical research discover any. Yes, the show's DNA test of Gabbard read "25.6% Southeast Asian," but that's just the category that covers Samoan ancestry. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Gabbard's presidential website says, "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."[83] That appears to be taken from the PBS DNA test. Without context, the reference to her SE Asian descent is misleading because most readers would think of Indochina rather than the South Pacific islands. The reality is that her father is from American Samoa and like most Samoans of mostly Samoan ancestry while her mother is from the mainland United States and of European ancestry. This isn't a case of fake appropriation of ethnicity. TFD (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree also. This should be left out. It is likely to be misinterpreted by readers. - MrX 🖋 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@All Hallow's Wraith: When you deleted the text, your edit summary included a question, "Your source is the Finding Your Roots DNA test, which read 25.6% Southeast Asian?" No, that was not the source for the text. The source was the first citation, Gabbard's house.gov site (not the campaign site), which states "A practicing Hindu, she is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent." For 2ary RS, we can include the Boston Herald which says "she … is a Hindu of Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian descent." and NBC which says "Gabbard, who is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent …." The question of confusion from the 'Southeast Asian' phrase is moot. Humanengr (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's true but misleading. Her Asian ancestry was probably Polynesian. Fortunately, policy is of assistance. We don't include information that is unreliably sourced (RS), or requires interpretation (OR) or lacks significant coverage (WEIGHT). TFD (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I don't believe its relevant and also not sourced well/clearly. Sources are to ambiguous and I don't see her calling herself Asian. Its already listed that her heritage is Samoan. ContentEditman (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for discussion

@MrX: one time [84] and @ContentEditman: two times [85] [86] fully reinstated challenged BLP material [87] [88] [89] without explaining or discussing it. Large parts of that material had already been challenged with detailed explanation [90] earlier. This time around, I again explained [91] that the insertion [92] of factually false claims [93] into the LGBT section violates WP:V. And I again explained [94] [95] that deleting [96] Gabbard's Congressional pro-LGBT activities from the lead violates WP:RS AGE. I explained [97] [98] [99] that the insertion [100] of previously challenged "SIF" material into the early life and family section by falsely claiming there were consensus for it, although the RfC-workshop to create wording for that material closed with "no consensus" for that text [101] violates WP:RFC and WP:CON and WP:BLP. Previously I explained [102] [103] that the addition [104] of too much detailed material about obsolete political stances from ca 20 years ago into the LGBT section violates WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS AGE. The deletion [105] of pertinent reliably sourced material from the military service section via claiming it were "not independently sourced" violates WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Sources from the first page of Google results: [106] [107] [108] [109]. Xenagoras (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

With 26 diffs, this is very difficult to respond to, but I will try.

@Xenagoras: I have extensively discussed the material related to the first nine diffs in following three sections: #Bad sources, #Removing duplicate material and reordering LGBT section and #Cmts re use of Version (4) having made 35 comments justifying my edits, responding to questions, and rebutting arguments. I am willing to continue any of those three discussions, in the appropriate sections above. Challenging material is fine, but your challenge has not resulted in a consensus for your position. If anything, there are more people who support my edits than not. The same is true of the discussion at WP:BLPN#Tulsi Gabbard in which I made 5 comments.

The 10th diff relates to content that was corrected when it was pointed out the impossibility of Vox's reporting. I corrected it within three hours of being alerted to the issue. That didn't stop you from wholesale reverting 11 edits of mine that I carefully worked on over the course of about 30 minutes.[110]

In the next three diffs, you accuse me of "trying to damage her image" and changing "a lot of things that caused a lot of policy violations", and you accused ContentEditman of "grossly misrepresent Warren's article".

In the next four diffs, you repeat some of the same diffs and rehash material discussed in three previous sections. Following the 17th diff, you accuse me of "falsely claiming there were consensus for it". What I actually wrote is "I believe this version (4) has the most support of all the versions discussed." The 18th diff shows that none of the versions has consensus, but there is also an RfC on which consensus was found for adding material related to SIF.

In your 19th diff, you accuse me of "grossly misrepresents Gabbard's stance on LGBT issues", which a personal attack in that it attributes malfeasance to my editing. In your 20th diff you claim a violation of WP:AGE MATTERS does not apply to Gabbard's politicl history which has been documented throughout her political career. The older material has specifically been reintroduced by source since Gabbard announced her presidential campaign. The idea that we would omit Gabbard's previous anti-LGBT activism and lobbying because she has recently changed her position is not grounded in Wikipedia policy or best practices for writing biographies. See WP:WELLKNOWN. I dispute that the alphabet soup of WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS AGE applies.

The 22nd diff requires and independent source. It is unduly self-serving. Feel free to re-add it to the article with the ABC or CNN source. - MrX 🖋 15:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is fine to mention the political positions Gabbard held in her teens and twenties, it is misleading to imply that she holds those views today. You are perfectly justified in providing sources that Gabbard secretly holds socially conservative views etc. so long as those sources explicitly make that connection. See Queens, NY English Society: "Explicit means something is made clear and stated plainly. Implicit means something is implied but not stated directly." All statements made in articles should be explicit. TFD (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this relates to the 26 diffs. Are you referring to a specific sentence in the article? - MrX 🖋 16:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think my posting is pretty clear to anyone who reads it. If you have difficulty following it, I apologize, but I don't think further elaboration will resolve the problem. TFD (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said before MrXs edits were well written and supported. You, Xenagoras, said it violated just about every rule at Wikipedia. When I asked you to explain what and how it violated you never responded with anything supporting your claims. ContentEditman (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think MrXs edits were well written and supported. TFD (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

His edits were well sourced and topics that were brought up when she announced she was running for president. When you put yourself out in the national spotlight people will look into your life in more detail. The topics were major ones that first popped up and some that defined her campaign and where she came from. They were also discussed on the talk page as well. So this is not new, just 1 editor is not happy they did not get their way and even violated WP:CANVAS. ContentEditman (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)