Jump to content

Talk:Pete Buttigieg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1002:b027:78ed:1051:de3:3067:8f32 (talk) at 23:39, 29 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, [[Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/|]].Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

Youngest mayor of a city with a population of over 100,000

Maybe at the time he became mayor, but not historically. Michael Tubbs became mayor of Stockton, CA in 1990 at age 26 and Luke Ravenstahl became mayor of Pittsburgh, PA in 2006 at age 26, both of these cities have populations over 300,000[1]

References

  1. ^ List of youngest mayors |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_youngest_mayors_in_the_United_States

NPOV Discussion

It seems this section does not have a neutral point of view. Instead, statements and promises have been taken nearly in verbatim from his campaign and not much else is given, calling for some context. It also seems like some of his lesser populist schemes have been omitted.

Some instances where these issues particularly shine are highlighted below.

In the economic policy section, there is the text

As a self-proclaimed democratic capitalist, Buttigieg rejects crony capitalism and supports a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics. He is receptive to the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies but more focused on privacy and data security concerns.

This reads rather like a campaign pamphlet instead of a reporting of his political views.

It must be changed, and it must also emphasize that these are STATEMENTS from Buttigieg and not gospel (this is an issue throughout the entire section). It must also be mentioned that he seeks out wealthy, corporate donors to his campaign in contrast to his claim of wanting big money out of politics (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/19/wine-cave-pete-buttigieg-democratic-debate, https://twitter.com/amiraminimd/status/1203821639131172869?lang=en, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/18/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-the-democratic-presidential-candidates/#13fd8e2b33f7). Similarly, “he is receptive” is a silly thing to write considering only he truly knows whether he is or not notwithstanding what he has publicly said.

I suggest a revision along the lines of the following (with the relevant references and links):

Buttigieg claims to be a “democratic capitalist”. In that vein, he has decried crony capitalism and proclaimed support for a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from what he calls the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics, although he himself seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign and is, as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires. He has entertained the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies on the basis of privacy and data security concerns.

It is simply not mentioned in the foreign policy section that Buttigieg opposses a decrease in military spending or potentially even supports increasing it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/foreign-policy/defense-budget/, https://peteforamerica.com/videos/national-security-new-era/, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/pete-buttigieg/). This is especially important as this is a point he splits on with many of his rivals.

I suggest appending this information, for example as:

Unlike many of his Democratic rivals such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Buttigieg does not support cuts in military spending, instead calling to modify the structure of spending. At a speech in June 2019 at Indiana University, he said “...in the coming decades, we are more likely than ever to face insurgencies, asymmetric attacks, and high-tech strikes with cyber weapons or drones. Yet our latest defense budget calls for spending more on 3 Virginia-class submarines—$10.2 billion—than on cyber defenses. It proposes spending more on a single frigate than on artificial intelligence and machine learning. To adequately prepare for our evolving security challenges, we need to look not only at how much we’re spending on our military but what we’re prioritizing.”

One may also mention that he wishes to increase the budget although I am not sure he has explicitly said that.

No criticisms of his medical plan (it may be unconstitutional https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/buttigieg-health-plan-hinges-on-supercharged-version-of-unpopular-obamacare-mandate/2019/12/24/415ae876-21bb-11ea-9146-6c3a3ab1be6c_story.html) have been shown. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/483317-medicare-for-all-will-turn-into-health-care-for-none , https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-02-11/pete-buttigiegs-medicare-for-all-who-want-it-will-sabotage-healthcare

Perhaps something like the following text may be appended:

Critics have derided his plan as creating a two tier medical insurance system: one with high quality health care for high earners and the low quality public option for the rest, as well as for its retroactive enrollment policy for uninsured Americans which would land them with a large overhead fee at the year’s end (a similar provision in the Affordable Care Act was ruled unconstitutional), and high bureaucratic cost.

Criticisms of both the rollout and the Douglass plan itself (especially from Black activists) have not been mentioned. Also his widely criticized racial justice record as mayor should also be mentioned. I suggest something similar to the following appendages:

Buttigieg was widely criticized for the unveiling of his plan, wherein he claimed the support of “400 prominent black South Carolinians” for his campaign. Many of the listed were actually white, and many of those who were black had not in fact endorsed his campaign, or his plan for that matter. Around that time, the Buttigieg campaign was also criticized for leaking a focus study which accused undecided black voters of homophobia, claiming that was the reason Buttigieg was unable to gain their support.

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/pete-buttigieg-campaign-black-voters/,

Buttigieg has been also criticized for his treatment of the African American community of South Bend, IN in his capacity as mayor. He has been accused of enabling police racism and brutality by firing the city’s first black police chief, Darryl Boykins, soon after he reported an incident, although he claims he had done so as Boykins had illegally taped said incident. He has also been charged by critics with ignoring the decay of the city’s predominantly black west side, and promoting gentrification of some black neighborhoods leading to rent increases and evictions. During the February 7, 2020 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire he was questioned on the increase in the rate of African Americans arrested on drug charges despite the overall rate going down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/buttigieg-black-police-chief-fired.html https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/indiana/south-bend/, https://www.abc57.com/news/abc57-investigates-south-bend-eviction-rate-3-times-the-national-average-, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pete-buttigieg-faces-pressure-marijuana-arrests-black-people/story?id=68842579

In order to conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, such issues must be rectified. The section in its current state violates the second and the last point. Note that I have raised similar objections to the main article. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of this material needs to be reworded for a more dispassionate tone, and we should use secondary sources whenever available. However, your comment "it must also emphasize that these are STATEMENTS from Buttigieg and not gospel" is not something we do. Most of your proposed text seems very non-NPOV to me, and entirely unrelated to political positions. Opinion columns make bad sources for an article like this. - MrX 🖋 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My text is merely a suggestion/guideline and as a matter of fact is NPOV, considering all I have done is add context and changing the personal knowledge such that it fixes the violations of WP:YESPOV. There are only two opinion pieces (which I think is useful for context) but the proposed changes still stand without those. As for your concerns about the relevance of the material, what exactly is irrelevant? His record and personal actions are important context— in fact, they are the most important pieces of information one must use when judging what someone’s true political positions and motives are. To drown out his record and criticisms of the same is nothing short of political propaganda. GGLLFFP (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Racial equality" section is very nonneutral. Rollout of Douglas Plan was subject of much criticism --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Buttigieg&diff=935161171&oldid=935141760 is an improper deletion. AmericannIdiot (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you review the talk page archive, you will find that this has been extensively discussed before. I'm not seeing any new arguments other than bare assertions of non-WP:NPOV and presenting the same few sources to support WP:UNDUE coverage of the material. There is also original research in the above proposals. for example, The Intercept does not say that Buttigieg was widely criticized. "Critics have derided his plan..." is not found in the cited source. Finally, we rarely use opinion articles, and usually never use Twitter for BLP content. - MrX 🖋 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is simply grabbing at straws. All of these issues in the proposals may be fixed with slight modification. That’s not the case with the biased current state of the section. And as I mentioned in my reply to your comment, it is certainly not undue as reporting his record is paramount to reporting his political positions. Not doing so renders this article a campaign bumf or even propaganda. GGLLFFP (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. - MrX 🖋 20:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly elaborate. GGLLFFP (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here's my point by point rebuttal:
  • "Again, that is simply grabbing at straws." That's your opinion. My opinion is based on having read and understood Wikipedia policy for the past 11 years, having made nearly 100,000 edits, and having written nearly 200 Wikipedia articles.
  • "All of these issues in the proposals may be fixed with slight modification." Feel free to modify and re-propose them. That's what I do when I get pushback on my proposals.
  • "That’s not the case with the biased current state of the section." If your poorly cited, non-NPOV material can be fixed with slight modification, why can't the material currently in the article?
  • "And as I mentioned in my reply to your comment, it is certainly not undue as reporting his record is paramount to reporting his political positions." Not everything you want to include is "his record", and WP:DUEWEIGHT is determined by relative amount of coverage in reliable sources.
  • "Not doing so renders this article a campaign bumf or even propaganda." Nothing currently in the article resembles propaganda, and I would wager that most of the other 759 editors would agree with me. The small amount of campaign cruft can be copy edited or trimmed. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point— it’s not a matter of opinion at all. It’s not a subjective topic. If you reject a major change for some semantic issues, that is grabbing at straws and is irrelevant to your experience as a Wikipedia editor. To your second and third, my suggestions are not “poorly cited” and (at least not nearly as blatantly as the current state of affairs) non-NPOV. Still, since I am correct in this discussion, I will play by your rules and strengthen my case further. Thirdly, let’s take a look at what I suggest we change: (modify the personal tone, report as claims rather than facts, indicate his record of campaign financing as context to his supposed political position, include his position on defense spending, include his actions with the African American community in his city as mayor, include some directly related context to his Douglass plan, which is central to the racial justice section). Including context, whether it paints someone in a negative light or not, is not undue weight as I have stated repeatedly and any attempts to indicate it as such are obviously biased. It’s not a reporting issue. If it’s something he has done, it should be mentioned. Especially if it has received substantial media coverage. Lastly, I hope said editors do in fact see it for the campaign fodder that it is. But, certain characters very actively oppose edits to that. Plus, one would expect that a page like this, especially during an election that the topic is contesting, would be rife with editors who may have a conflict of interest, and since this page is known to have a history of being curated by Buttigieg’s camp, I have no trouble believing the average conflict of interest of the editors would be skewed in Buttigieg’s favor. GGLLFFP (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe start with proposing a rewrite of one small section for practice?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I should have done that. Unfortunately it’s too late for that. (Perhaps you could critique my new writings, though? Thanks).GGLLFFP (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some improved improvements.

Buttigieg claims to be a “democratic capitalist”. In that vein, he has decried crony capitalism and proclaimed support for a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from what he calls the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics, although he himself seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign and is, as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires. He has defended this phenomenon by claiming that wealthy donors would be necessary in the general election against incumbent Donald Trump, and made the assurance that there would be no conflict of interest in his campaign or administration. He has entertained the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies on the basis of privacy and data security concerns.

Unlike many of his Democratic rivals such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Buttigieg does not support cuts in military spending, instead calling to modify its structure and implying that he would consider increasing it. During a speech in June 2019 at Indiana University, he said “...in the coming decades, we are more likely than ever to face insurgencies, asymmetric attacks, and high-tech strikes with cyber weapons or drones. Yet our latest defense budget calls for spending more on 3 Virginia-class submarines—$10.2 billion—than on cyber defenses. It proposes spending more on a single frigate than on artificial intelligence and machine learning. To adequately prepare for our evolving security challenges, we need to look not only at how much we’re spending on our military but what we’re prioritizing.”

Concerns have been raised about its inclusion of a modified version of an unconstitutional provision that was included in the Affordable Care Act, which would land uninsured but eligible Americans with a large overhead fee at the end of the year despite putting the onus of enrollment at the start of the year upon the citizen.

In the campaign material wherein the plan was unveiled, he claimed the support of “400 prominent black South Carolinians” for his campaign. Many of those listed were revealed to be white, and many of those who were black had not in fact endorsed his campaign, and in some cases, the plan itself. Around that time, the Buttigieg campaign was also leaked a focus study which accused undecided black voters of homophobia, claiming that was the reason Buttigieg was unable to gain their support.

Buttigieg has been also seen some scrutiny of his treatment of the African American community of South Bend, IN in his capacity as mayor. He has been accused of sustaining a culture of police racism and brutality by firing the city’s first black police chief, Darryl Boykins, soon after he reported an incident, although he claims he had done so as Boykins had illegally taped that incident. In an ad criticizing his record, the campaign of Joe Biden suggested Buttigieg had forced out the city’s black fire chief, who resigned shortly before Buttigieg took office. He has also been charged by with ignoring the decay of the city’s predominantly black west side, and promoting gentrification of some black neighborhoods leading to rent increases and evictions. Comments from Buttigieg during his 2011 run resurfaced, wherein he accused a lack of role models as a reason some minority students struggle in school. After an article written by senior editor Michael Harriot in The Root titled “Pete Buttigieg is a Lying MF”, which charged Buttigieg with being dishonest about the struggle of minorities to receive quality education and the further struggles to reap its benefits, was published, its title trended on Twitter. Later, in a phone call with Harriot, while Buttigieg admitted that inaction by people in power was also a factor in inaccessibility of education for minorities, he stuck by his original claim. On their phone conversation, Harriot said “I didn’t think that Pete Buttigieg was going to dismiss or ignore black voters. But I think that in an effort to remain moderate, some candidates don’t want to be as confrontational about these necessary issues, because it does ostracize some voters“, mentioning that Buttigieg calling him brave indicated that he was willing to engage with voters regarding the issue of their discussion. In a speech in Denison, IA, Buttigieg said “What I said in that comment before I became mayor does not reflect the totality of my understanding then, and certainly now about the obstacles that students of color face in our system today ”. During the February 7, 2020 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire he was questioned on the increase in the rate of African Americans arrested on drug charges despite, by his own claim, the overall rate going down.

GGLLFFP (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:Biased to not include criticism of the Douglas Plan. It has been widely criticized for it's rollout - namely the fact that it named people as supporters who had never endorsed the plan..

AmericannIdiot (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have included that. Perhaps it should not be given undue weight and the thing about the accusations of black homophobia should be removed but surely it is directly related to the plan. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What biased or opinionated sources are you referring to? Also, please show sources that say it's been "widely criticized". - MrX 🖋 21:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The “widely criticized” need not be mentioned/emphasized. I suggest we move toward consensus regarding my latest proposal. I think if we remove from that proposal the bit about the leaked study and re-word the first two lines of the last suggestion it would be WP:NPOV. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the discussion is dying out. Time to move ahead with the results of whatever discussion we had. (WP:WNTRMT/WP:WTRMT) GGLLFFP (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph: Twitter is not a reliable source. The tone of the material is a bit non-neutral. For example "Buttigieg claims" (see WP:CLAIM). “democratic capitalist” should not be in quotes. "In that vein" is idiomatic, which is best avoided. "crony capitalism" is WP:JARGON. "... as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires." is confusing wording. "claiming" again. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph: The second and third sources have nothing to do with Buttigieg. The words "Concerns have been raised..." needs to be attributed—something like "Matt Bruenig, head of the People’s Policy Project criticized... " - MrX 🖋 12:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, and some things to note: The twitter source is not text but rather a video of Buttigieg saying he will not refuse wealthy donors. Perhaps democratic capitalist and crony capitalism (they are both currently in the article) may be linked to their Wikipedia pages. Maybe the bit about the billionaire donors could be avoided for now and considered separately later. What do you suppose about

Pete Buttigieg says he is a democratic capitalist. To that end, he has decried crony capitalism ... ...seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign. He has defended... by saying..

(Although I feel the second “claiming” may be appropriate). And as for the third paragraph the other two sources are some extra context for the Obamacare mandate which is referred to. And I suppose your point about voices is valid, and we should apply it to the last paragraph also. GGLLFFP (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GGLLFFP: We can't use the Twitter video, but there are solid sources that verify that he will take donations from wealthy donors, so that is easily addressed. Can you tell me which of the three remaining sources you are using for the following?
  1. "Buttigieg says he is a democratic capitalist"
  2. "To that end, he has decried crony capitalism"
  3. "although he himself seeks... corporate donors"
  4. made the assurance that there would be no conflict of interest in his campaign or administration"
I probably missed them, but I couldn't verify these claims in any of the sources. - MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
points 1 and 2 are lifted from the existing article. Here is a potential source: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-socialism-capitalism-cnntv/index.html, Points 3 and 4’s sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-buttigieg-defends-big-money-donors-as-necessary-to-beat-trump/, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/19/wine-cave-pete-buttigieg-democratic-debate IIRC has some tangent about this. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wide criticism exists in 15 sources in this very discussion.. content needs to be re-added in some form. Edit content if need be but wholesale deletion would be vandalism AmericannIdiot (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has not released his medical record

Hi, I stopped by to add this to the candidacy section but it was deleted twice as not important enough. Buttigieg certainly seems to think that medical records are important. Here is the text in case you are interested:
Buttigieg has not yet released his medical records.[1] WebMaven2000 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Viser, Matt; Bernstein, Lenny (February 24, 2020). "In a historically old presidential field, candidates refuse to release health records". Washington Post. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
I agree, I cant think of any reason to remove that highly notable information from the 2020 campaign section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated at the Klobuchar talk page, medical records have only really been an issue for older candidates. There's very little coverage in reliable sources about the medical records of Buttigieg, and the few that exist are in the context of all the candidates. At best, these are campaign-specific matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scjessey. Also, this is not highly notable. It is one of thousands of news stories that are forgotten within a few days. I doubt that it has enduring encyclopedic value. Finally, I'm puzzled why anyone would think it's a good idea to create a new paragraph with only eight words?- MrX 🖋 12:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessy et al. - Young people CAN get/have serious illnesses and/or injuries that are not visible but could affect their ability to perform their duties as President. Aside from Trump, ALL candidates have released their medical records when running for President, regardless of age, since about the early 1990s.(https://time.com/4472265/clinton-trump-health-reports-history/). A big deal was made about Trump not releasing his. Buttigieg himself has defined this as a major issue. He has been highly critical of other candidates for not releasing MORE information even though he has not released any medical information yet. He is recommending that all candidates should submit to a physical exam. From the Washington Post article, "Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, 38, has yet to release any medical records — though Buttigieg argued during last week’s debate that the candidates should undergo physical exams and disclose the results." WebMaven2000 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any indication that he won't release his medical records as some point soon. This is just an ephemeral bit of news. - MrX 🖋 16:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is the only one of the front runners who has not released his medical records at this point. He has not said he will release his. I don't think this is going away. (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the fact that he is the only one who has not released his medical record shows why that is a notable thing. Also, in Bernie Sanders article there is a big fat section dedicated to the medical thing, although Sanders has submitted medical records more than any candidate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is based in Wikipedia policy. If this has, or gets, substantial news coverage, it would be appropriate for the campaign article. One passing mention in a single article does not establish WP:DUEWIGHT. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it is important but whether news media have found it important enough to give it significant coverage, which they haven't. Articles should not give undue importance to issues that mainstream sources ignore, because to do that would be to influence the election. TFD (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic HAS gotten significant coverage. There are several articles reporting Buttigieg's erroneous claims that Sanders has not released his medical records and Buttigieg suggesting that everyone submit to a physical exam. So, BUTTIGIEG RAISED the issue for all candidates, falsely accusing Sanders of not releasing his records.
Then there are now TWO articles from major news outlets correcting Buttigieg's claims about Sanders. They also report that Buttigieg has NOT released his own medical records. He is the ONLY candidate who has not at this point.

It's notable and has received coverage. WebMaven2000 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the assertion above that Buttigieg has falsely accused Sanders of not releasing his records: These source articles do not say that. They say that Sanders has not released ALL of his medical records, and that in reaction to that, Buttigieg called for Sanders to release his FULL record after Sanders refused to do so during a debate. So how is that a "false accusation" or an "erroneous claim"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All medical records would presumably include everything from his mother's obstetrician, his pediatrician, and annual checkups over most of the past century. Since Sanders has released results of recent checkups and of his heart condition, Buttigeig is being disingenuous, especially as he has not released his records and has only promised to release recent ones. But it has not become a campaign issue, hence lacks weight for inclusion here. Mind you, it's pretty typical of Buttigeig's political style and probably will receive comment once the history books are written. But we can't put something in on that basis, per CRYSTALBALL. TFD (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Buttigieg by Rachel's English

In a previous discussion, now archived[1], I explained how Rachel's English, a dialect coach and phonetic expert of American English, analysed[1] the way Buttigieg pronounces his own name. She concluded that /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (with a flap T sound), respelt BUU-dəh-jij, is the accurate pronunciation. With a true T sound, it's /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/, respelt BUU-təh-jij.

Though her video was uploaded on her official channel, it was deemed by some editors as "what YouTube says" or something. It's not "YouTube", it's Rachel's English, her official analysis, and I strongly suggest her conclusion, /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (or /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/), be added to the lead. Israell (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Information?

"He is the first openly gay candidate to earn presidential primary delegates from a major American political party." It's so painfully specific - is it really that important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.146.155 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Done That was added before Iowa's results were certified. It has now been updated to show that he won the most delegates in Iowa, which is more historical importance. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete knows some ASL

I just noticed a video of Pete signing in American Sign Language, which I think is significant enough that it should be included here. I was just going to add it to the list of languages he has some familiarity with because it's just as important as the others. Something like, "Buttigieg taught himself to speak a little bit of Norwegian, and has some knowledge of Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic, Dari Persian, French, and American Sign Language in addition to his native English..." Seems a pretty uncontroversial edit, I would think, but however it's added, I do think it deserves to be here.

It seems to be at least as significant as his use of other languages. From the Newsweek link there, one person said "my spirit was fed by this exchange" in ASL and another said in regard to it that it's "rare to feel this much pride in supporting a candidate." I was kind of surprised there was no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, especially since apparently there was a little narrative and exchange involved with the creation of Pete's sign name. So in addition to including it in the list of languages, another brief mention could even be made.

--100.4.152.81 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he signed a few words, doesn’t mean he is fluent, or understands ASL. Someone that knows ASL could have taught Pete what to sign. If Pete were fluent in ASL, everyone would know by now. I guarantee if he was fluent in ASL, he would’ve reached out to the Deaf community for support. Paige Matheson (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest mayor is incorrect

Luke Ravenstahl became mayor of Pittsburgh at age 26 in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:B00:1820:DDA7:11A3:6736:75E5 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second openly gay from major party?

It says “ Buttigieg is also the first openly gay Democratic presidential candidate, and the second overall, after Republican Fred Karger, who ran in 2012.“ But isn’t he really just the second overall from a major party specifically? Like I’m thinking of David McReynolds, Dario Hunter. 2600:1002:B027:78ED:1051:DE3:3067:8F32 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT36PvjxbRA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Buttigieg&oldid=948064295"