Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Self-sourced content

Self-sourced content shouldn't be used for anything except maybe mundane 'personal life'-type content. We need reliable independent sourcing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm also concerned that the 'Political positions' section is becoming quite lengthy, and lacking in quality sources. We have to be careful not to turn this article into a WP:BROCHURE.- MrX 🖋 7:53 am, Today (UTC−5)

An editor has added a secondary source. The content regards Gabbard's attempts to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed with the consent of the Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1999. The position is important because many people blame its repeal for the banking crisis of 2008. It is certainly important and it would be more constructive to find a better source than to delete it. Primary sources are allowed, its just that secondary sources are preferable. TFD (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem that we get into with primary sources is that they may provide a misleading depiction. For example, numerous Republicans claimed that they were for preexisting conditions and other aspects of the ACA even though they had voted against such protections or were actively supporting measures to undermine them in 2018. If we were to simply use their campaign websites and op-eds to incorporate such content on Wikipedia, readers would get a misleading/false understanding of the stances of these politicians. Independent reliable sources would however have provided the necessary context. Primary sources get us into a mess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Politicians' website can present their positions in self-serving even deceptive ways and if there is no reporting of specific policies in secondary sources then they lack significance for inclusion in articles. TFD (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

However, if there is reporting of specific policies in secondary sources, then they do not lack significance for inclusion in articles. This is the case for Glass-Steagall. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

people who run for the presidential nomination can expect that all their political positions will be examined in depth. Wiki rules are clear that information about a person provided by that person is a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

India

Concerning this edit:

People will only be able to evaluate your changes properly if you argue for them here. Let's take your removal of:

In 2013, she joined some of her colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in opposing a House resolution that called for "religious freedom and related human rights to be included in the United States-India Strategic Dialogue and for such issues to be raised directly with federal and state Indian government officials"

which you wish to change in such a way that does not reflect that her vote was with the majority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, including Ed Royce and Steve Chabot and Eni Faleomavega. These are the sorts of problems we will be able to tease out if we look at your edits individually. Your notable decision to rewrite "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship." as "Gabbard has expressed support for Indian nationalists" is nowhere represented in the misleading edit summary "removed video interview", which, in fact, removed three interviews (two video interviews and one in-depth Quartz interview) and massaged the text in many ways. One of the videos you removed was the source of her statement that "there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002. for which you removed the wikilink, but kept the now unsourced text. This is just one example. While I do agree, in general, that shorter is better, there are severe problems with this edit. I will look at the others as I have time. Others will be able to do so, too. Thank you for following the rules. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? I have zero inclination to go through your laundry list of minor quibbles and vague unspecified problems. For example, are you seriously arguing that we should add that "Ed Royce and Steve Chabot and Eni Faleomavega" voted the same way as Gabbard on something? The "supports a strong US-India relationship" is unsourced. "Gabbard has expressed support for Indian nationalists" is reliably sourced. The "there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002" line is sourced to the Intercept - there's no need to cite Gabbard's own youtube videos. So, to sum up: your complaints revolve around you wanting (1) to restore unsourced text and primary sources, (2) add a line that she voted the same way as some other congressmen, (3) remove reliably sourced text, and (4) at no point did you express support for any of the changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My concerns are not about youtube videos. My concern is that you claim to be eliminating videos but are in fact massaging text, replacing a Quartz article (which includes an interview, but is not exclusively an interview) which very clearly supports the claim that Gabbard "supports a strong US-India relationship".

It is very important that the US and India have a strong relationship of mutual respect. The denial of a visa to prime minister Modi could have undermined that relationship had he used it as an excuse to reject having a strong bilateral relationships with America. This would have been bad for both of our countries. For many reasons—not the least of which is the war against terrorists—the relationship between India and America is very important. (From the first article you deleted in the section.) Let's start with that. Do you agree that was not a justified move?

Also I would add that you would do much better to pull your claims about Hindu nationalists from the Quartz article you deleted, rather than a single clause mention without any argumentation in the Guardian summary of received wisdom. At least that's what I would do if it were important to me to include PoV statements, because that article at least has some meat to it about the Modi visa question the paragraph has always been about. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain every single minor change in an edit summary, nor is there any requirement that editors do so. I mentioned the removal of one paragraph, given that you were complaining about being unable to follow the edits. My large edit already explained that I was removing unsourced text, primary sources and adding RS text. Again, there was no source behind "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" and if there were (the Quartz interview cited later), this is such a mundane and meaningless statement that it should be removed. Who does not support a strong relationship with most countries in the world, India included? Just to be clear, this is now the only problem you have with this edit: You want a line about her wanting a strong India-US relationship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to get riled up. The question is simple: should the thesis sentence of the first paragraph of India be: A) "TG supports a strong US-India relationship" sourced to the Quartz article that is used for the paragraph or B) "TG has expressed support for Indian nationalists." from an article that is not used to discuss the ideas contained in the paragraph? I could write that up in a more NPOV way for an RfC, if you'd like. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Supports a strong US-India relationship" is kind of empty campaign-speak and it's probably not a great idea to describe Gabbard's views by quoting her own interview answers verbatim. Gabbard is only mentioning this as part of a justification for why she has supported Modi, and so it's probably more appropriate to say that she's supported Narendra Modi and the BJP. Nblund ^talk 00:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: the paragraph is about a bill that sought to reprimand Modi during an election and was seen to be unseemly for that reason by a number of reps, including Gabbard.Frankly don't care that much if we keep the exact "politician speak" about US-India relations (though it was not said in the context of any campaign except the one against the censoring bill, and nevertheless is true even for those who wish to paint her as hindutva). What I object to is starting the section straight off with the spin that she supports Hindu Nationalists, because she agreed with her peers about the bill. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerning this edit that according to the ES has nothing to do with India, I have just watched the interview after verifying that ndtv.com is cited 7581 times on en.wp. I can confirm the quote from the video (16:20), can confirm that the interview does indeed have rather a lot to do with India. The interviewer also asks her a lot of questions about terrorism and Pakistan.

In an N.D.T.V. India interview during a 2014 trip to India, Gabbard said that, "very bluntly," she was "conflicted" about the report concerning CIA use of torture in interrogations: "I can also understand that any of us, if we were in a situation where our family, our community, our state, or our country is in a place where, let's say, in an hour, a nuclear bomb or an attack will go off unless this information was found, I believe that if I were the president of the United States that I would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe."

References

I would agree that this may not be the most crucial citation from the interview. However deleting the interview conducted by a major Indian press outlet strikes me as ever-so-slightly odd. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You changed that text to:

• In an NDTV India interview during a 2014 trip to India, Gabbard said that, "very bluntly," she was "conflicted" about a recently-published report concerning CIA use of torture in interrogations. She was also asked about her 2012 opponent's claim that electing a Hindu was incompatible with the US Constitution.

Having watched the whole interview, can you please explain what the first sentence has to do with India besides being sourced to an Indian news outlet? Also, in the first sentence, you removed Gabbard expressing support for torture under certain circumstances - by snipping that comment by Gabbard, you inaccurately present her view on torture. Finally, the last sentence does not really contain any substance - she was asked a question? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you watched it? (Your participial, followed by the question, "can you..."?, suggests that I have, which is true...)

I chose to weave back in a bit of temporal context (the shorter 500+ page version of the report had just been released, which is why she was asked about it). This also allows us to be more precise about what she actually said she was "very bluntly" "conflicted" about. (Though this is a minor detail, I imagine it isn't wrong to say she's conflicted about torture, but that isn't actually what she said.) As for the deletion of the long quote about torture; I have no objection to it being paraphrased (or cited in the quote tag of the ref). I left reference to it in the first line because it is often mentioned, and so people can quickly find the source and hear what she said about torture (around the 16m mark, we could add in an at= field in the reference template).

I've actually been debating with myself about this TV interview because TfD has said pretty convincingly that interviews aren't great sources. Still, this is longstanding content and the only direct reference concerning what she said about torture (which has since been frequently quoted).

The 16 minutes prior are devoted to India / Hinduism / Pakistan... and took place on Indian TV while she was in India. That's why I added one story among many to the wikitext. I'm not quite understanding your confusion. How many Americans have been interviewed on NDTV? That, in itself, seems pretty interesting to me. Now since everyone wants to talk about complicity, why not let the reader judge? Why wouldn't we give an Indian media company a little traffic for their interview? Now I wouldn't mind straight talk about the status of interviews in wikiland. It's true that people say the darnedest things on network news shows, even when pitched softball questions. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Why wouldn't we give an Indian media company a little traffic for their interview?" - What? Can you please offer policy-based arguments? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. NDTV is a WP:RS, according to en.wp usage. It is relevant and WP:DUE because what she said about torture during that interview has been frequently cited. It also resonates with two other stories about "religious bigotry" currently in the article (in two different sections). It responds directly to the question of her (non-)alignment with the BJP, which comes up frequently in the section and on the page. I must have missed your policy-based argument against inclusion in the section above. Maybe you just had "zero inclination" to give one? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is relevant and WP:DUE because what she said about torture during that interview has been frequently cited" - but you yourself deleted the only pertinent and frequently cited part about her commentary on torture (her willingness to support torture) while leaving in misleading and not-frequently cited part which gives a false impression of where she stands on torture. It's extremely hard to try to edit this article when your stated rationales (to the extent that you actually provide any) for inclusion and exclusion of content are out of sync with your editing behavior on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It also resonates with two other stories about "religious bigotry" currently in the article (in two different sections)." - the fact that she was asked a question??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It responds directly to the question of her (non-)alignment with the BJP, which comes up frequently in the section and on the page." - What??? The text does not at all in any way whatsoever respond either directly or indirectly to the question of "her (non-)alignment with the BJP". What are you talking about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"I must have missed your policy-based argument against inclusion in the section above." I have explicitly said several times that the comment on torture has nothing to do with India and should not be in the India section. The text (which should actually cover her stated opinion on torture) should clearly be in a section of its own ("torture") or related section ("counterterrorism"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, is there seriously no way out of this? This has been going on for ten days now. Every single minor edit is bogged down in these absurd time-consuming talk page discussions that go nowhere. In several cases, I can't even deduce whether SashiRolls is in favor of including/excluding content and what the reasons are, even though the user reverts the content when I add it. There are multiple edits that I haven't even been able to start talk page discussions about, because we're stuck in these pointless discussions that go absolutely nowhere on the least controversial of edits. So many of SashiRolls's comments are filled with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior has become erratic over time, with accusations of tag-teaming,[1] weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[2][3] and requests that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: There are ways out of this. I think the best way would be for you to understand what is at the root of SushiRolls's objections and start editing from a more neutral point of view. (Not an endorsement of SashiRolls's POV) ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the reference elsewhere, if you need me to I can add a ref name to it... or you could do it on your own like an adult. The fact that it is mentioned here should be no problem to you. So, no, there is nothing policy-based whatsoever in saying (now) that you want the quote on terror in its own section (when the previous two times your only action was to delete the entire reference to the Indian TV network). Is it that you don't want the story about her opponent's rhetoric on the page? I mean "Hindu" is kind of related to India... also, if you want to know what's all in the other 16 minutes, I recommend you listen to the interview, like any other reader, rather than making things up (this is the first anyone has heard about your desire to put the torture quote in its own section, before you just deleted it, twice...) and whistling for an admin to enforce your donor will. Are you a donor, Snoog? One would think you owned the place. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wtf? You edited my comment[5] to misrepresent what I said. And I cannot for the life of me understand what the second half of your comment is rambling about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I certainly did not intend to replace that sentence with three colons. I saw the three colons and wondered why they were there when responding to you, but assumed you had a script conflict. In fact it appears to have been a misclick. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The text about her support for torture has been altered to "she as president would authorize torture only under one circumstance".[6] Gabbard clearly does not specify that this is the only circumstance where she would authorize torture. That's the editor "PapaDrew's" misreading and WP:OR altering of Gabbard's comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls has violated 1RR for the second time today, this time to restore his preferred version of the text on Gabbard's position on torture.[7][8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, we can still not remove the bland "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" statement.[9] The Four Deuces's rationale: "A lot of people opposed a strong relationship with India and its PM was barred from entry to the U.S. until 2015". This edit summary confuses India with Modi, as apparently supporting a strong US-India relationship is just about being OK with a leader who played an active role in deadly ethnic riots which left 2000 dead. It's like saying Merkel is hostile to the US because she has a shaky relationship with Trump. Furthermore, the statement is not sourced to a secondary source. It's just Gabbard's own answer to an interview question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

According Obama's press secretary, Obama's many meetings with Modi, some in the U.S., strengthened the relationship between the two countries.[10] I don't think anyone would say that the U.S. has good relations with countries when they have poor relations with their leaders. Incidentally, you should refactor your comments about the 2002 Gujarat riots, per WP:BLP. In 2012, a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India "found no evidence against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with a riots case in 2002," according to the BBC.[11] This finding led to the lifting of the Modi ban in the EU, the UK and the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Tulsi Gabbard's views on foreign policy

Should the following text be added to the Political Positions section (note that the following subsections already exist): RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A. India sub-section

• Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

B. Syrian Civil War sub-section

• Gabbard has described US involvement in the Syrian Civil War as "our counterproductive regime-change war", and said that it is this "regime-change war that is causing people to flee their country". In January 2017, Gabbard met Syrian regime officials in Damascus, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Writing in 2019, the New York Times noted she is the only American official to have met Assad since his use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The Russian government's propaganda network RT praised Gabbard, saying she dared "to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative." In February 2019, she said that Assad was "not an enemy of the United States." She has defended Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, saying that criticisms of Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War were "mind-boggling" and that Russia was bombing terrorists; according to Vox, "Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."

C. Syrian Civil War sub-section

• Gabbard has expressed skepticism of the Assad regime's confirmed use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. In February 2019, Gabbard said there was "no disputing the fact that [Assad] has used chemical weapons and other weapons against his people."

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

I think that is a biased way of presenting things. A. As a member of the Congressional foreign affairs committee and vice-chairman of the DNC, Gabbard helped end the travel ban against Modi, after it had been lifted by the EU and the UK. Modi subsequently was invited to the White House by Barack Obama, who later visited Modi in India. When Modi was in the U.S., Bill and Hillary Clinton visited him and Modi was invited again to the U.S. by Donald Trump.

B. This implies opposition to the U.S. war in Syria as somehow tied to Russian interests without explicitly saying so. This type of writing may be good polemics but does not belong in an encyclopedia.

C. Following the Douma chemical attack of April 7, 2018, Gabbard said the U.S. should not respond until Assad's responsibility had been established. Gabbard says Syria has used chemical weapons and Assad should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence for trial.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support A, B and C. This is all reliably sourced, and the language mirrors that of the cited sources. These are all issues that have been covered extensively by RS, thus satisfying WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Snooganssnoogans, why didn't you follow "Before starting the process?" "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." This is a relatively complex RfC question, and it would have made sense to discuss it before hand. TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have gone above and beyond to deal with SashiRolls, who has effectively held up any and all changes to this article (see the last two months of excruciating and pointless talk page discussions). It is entirely appropriate to ask for community input at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I note you reversed a statement, "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" with the comment, "this is an empty statement. who opposes a strong relationship?"[12] Yet in A you spin Gabbard's support of that relationship as somehow sinister. TFD (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
        • That statement is sourced to an answer that Gabbard herself gave in an interview. It's not a RS description of her views on India-US relations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Support A and C, they both seem uncontroversially true and are reliably sourced. B I would reword before adding to the article; all the facts appear to be correct but it's worded more like an argument than a Wikipedia article. I suppose I should note that while reading it, the point at which I started going "wait, this doesn't seem right" is the reference to RT; that felt almost conspiratorial to me even if it is true. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Even when things are uncontroversially true, we still need sources that support them. The sources for A for example do not say that Gabbard has expressed support for any Hindu nationalists. I get the impression that these are opinions of her expressed in some op-eds, rather than facts expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I frankly am not sure what you're talking about, since both sources for A say that very clearly. Here's a quote from the Guardian source: "She has also previously expressed “skepticism” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India." And from the Intercept source: "Her progressive domestic politics are at odds with her support for authoritarians abroad, including Modi, Sisi, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad." LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
                • I was speaking about A. Your quote ways that she "aligned hereself" with nationalist figures, not that she expressed support for them. The word express means to " directly, firmly, and explicitly state" something,[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/express} which is not contained in any of your sources. TFD (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Ah, so your objection is that the sources aren't explicit enough. Well, I think they are and that complaining about the difference between "supporting" and "expressing support" is splitting hairs, but if you want an even clearer source, here's one with a direct quote. LokiTheLiar (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • So you don't think there is a difference between saying something and not saying something. Sounds like the thought police. Anyway a commentary is not a reliable source, per News organizations. Kind of surprised to find you reading Jacobin, which bills itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (Have you added any of their opinions to articles about other presidential candidates or are you just making an exception for this one article?) In every article, editors should go to the best sources and reflect what they say, not determine what should be in the article and mine for sources. TFD (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • I think both "supporting" and "expressing support" are saying something. And the reason I brought up the Jacobin article is entirely because it has the direct quote of support for Modi you seem to want. If you like, we can instead use the source Jacobin links for that quote. As I've previously said, the phrasing of the previous two sources is perfectly adequate to support the phrase "expressed support" in my view, and I don't think we need the direct quote, but if you insist on it, well, there's your source. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • The term express means to say or write something. If someone does not say or write something they have not expressed anything. The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government. TFD (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the three are NPOV. The third comes closest, but the present tense in the second word of C being directly contradicted by the subsequent sentence is a problem. Also, don't we already have that info in the article? SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Support A and C and conditional B, per LokiTheLiar.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• A and C - Both are brief, factual, and relevant. B is simply too detailed and too quote-laden, and would tend to tip the due weight scales in the wrong direction.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• YES to B and C - The paragraphs about Syria are well sourced and relevant to an article about a politician running for president. A might also be appropriate if properly sourced, but the two citations included so far are week. They state the conclusion that she supports Modi or Hindu nationalists without much detail. I am against including the Indian subsection without better sources. I expect there are some out there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign policy

What is the standard MOS for this? I'm not sure we need a new separate header for every time Gabbard shills for one of the Kremlin's little Shia puppets (whether in Syria, Iran or Yemen) and attacks Saudi Arabia in an ill-educated manner. This can be addressed in one generic section laying out her general worldview, rather than a header for each country. Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a conspiracy theory I haven't heard. Do you have any sources that Gabbard is pro-Shia? Most of the attacks on her have claimed that she is anti-Muslim period. I know she opposes the invasion of Shia nations, but she does not support the invasion of non-Shia nations either. TFD (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions that she supports a kids-glove approach to Iran's nuclear program while at the same time attacking completely legal US arms deals with Saudi Arabia and generally makes hysterical over the top anti-Saudi comments. In regards to Syria she openly shills for the minority Alawite/Shia Assad regime which is backed up by the invading armies of the Kremlin and various Shia/Iranian death-squads who target the Syrian Sunni majority in a sectarian manner. In Yemen she is opposed to the US aiding Saudi Arabia, which is a polite way of saying she shills for the Iranian-backed Shia Houthi terrorists and Iran's geopolitical interests. All of Gabbard's foreign policy positions fall into line with those of the Kremlin and Tehran, against the Sunni states which are allied to the West. This is her general approach and can be covered in a joined up set of paragraphs rather individual headers for each state. Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty elaborate theory which we could only add if you found it had credence in any reliable sources. The reality is that most Democrats at least oppose the termination of the agreement with Iran and Saudi aggression in Yemen. Just because someone does not think the U.S. should fund al-Qaeda and ISIS does not mean they back Iran and Syria. In fact even the U.S. government considers them to be terrorist groups. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard represents the mainstream re Yemen. The House and Senate last month voted to oppose US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen--Trump vetoed it. see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/trump-veto-yemen.html Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Foreign policy section is way too extensive for this biography and we do not need a separate section for ever country that she has expressed an opinion about.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

2RR: gaming the rules...

I see that the 1RR rules on this page are being gamed. Two reversions were made earlier today: one removing "longstanding content" about religious freedom, another removing longstanding content about Gabbard's position on whistleblowers. [13], [14]

In order to restore the integrity of the text I would have needed to make two separate reverts, so rather than do so and inevitably be dragged to a drama board, I will simply point out that the spirit of 1RR has been violated with these edits. I have restored the first (MrX has been fighting about the "reproductive rights vs. abortion" language for a while now) but have had to leave the second unrestored. It would perhaps be wise to add to the text what Gabbard actually says in the Newsweek article MrX deleted to demonstrate that the question of surveillance and privacy is a policy position:

“That was something that Snowden uncovered and released, something that I don't know that even as members of Congress we would have been aware of,” Gabbard continued. “So now that we are aware of it, we can take action to close those loopholes, to change those policies, to protect our civil liberties… Was the NSA going to disclose that information voluntarily? Absolutely not.” source

-- SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The notion that making a continuous series of edits is "gaming the rules" is ludicrous. I think it's time that you stop filling talk pages with your bad faith accusations, feverish unsubstantiated smears and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. A continuous series of reverts counts as one revert. ~Awilley (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: So I can revert their 2nd reversion without risk? Your lack of comment concerning Snoogans personal attacks is very interesting. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Also @Awilley:, I'm a bit touchy about this at the moment because of this very freestyle interpretation of 1RR on a page that does not even have the BIG public notice about 1RR on its talk page. So please don't be surprised should I be slightly "chill(ed)" at the moment. 🍨 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If I have inadvertently violated 1RR, I'm happy to self-revert. I think the only portion of my original edit that was contested and restored were some section headings. Are there any objections to any of the changes that I made to them? MrX 🖋 16:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the deletion of the "Social issues" header very useful. The grouping seems to me conceptually helpful. Could you comment on the spinoff below if you haven't already? I asked the question because I do believe you've tagged some parts of the political positions section as being overly detailed? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think better groupings would be Foreign policy and Domestic policy. We should not mislead our readers into thinking that her policies are so elaborate that they need to be further sub-grouped. Some are not even policies.- MrX 🖋 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF political positions entry?

In 2016, I proposed spinning off the political positions parts of a presidential candidate's entry away from her BLP. (§§) She was the only candidate not to benefit from this treatment. IMO, the strongest argument for that candidate not having her own political positions page was the fact that she'd never held a national office.

I think that in Tulsi Gabbard's case such a spin-off would respond to MrX's concerns about too much detail in this entry. Thoughts? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for a spinoff at the moment. Also, there is still some primary source content that should be removed from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that spin off article is warranted, since her policies are just not that notable. It may make sense if she gets the nomination. - MrX 🖋 18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Article improvements

I made a few changes that were reverted. I think they improve the article by keeping it focused and relevant:

1. Removal of this image which doesn't educate readers:
2. Gabbard's op-ed in a blog masquerading as Religious freedom policy (if it were noteworthy, it may be suitable for a dedicated policy article. See my comments above.)
3. Gabbard's reflections on Snowden and Assange, masquerading as Privacy and surveillance policy. - MrX 🖋 11:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not followed the reversions. If your reversion was reverted you seem to have re-reverted. I have restored "religious freedom" as the text and multiple RS clearly support it (this has been a continuous policy position for years... cf. her opponent for the house seat she currently holds saying Hindus shouldn't be in Congress, for example, or search for "religious bigotry Gabbard" with the search engine of your choice). As for Snowden & Assange, I've added a less interpretive title than "privacy". I have also removed your addition of a low-quality Daily Mail Beast article talking about the 2020 campaign which was not mentioned in the entry about her campaign. Remember, the section on the campaign on her BLP is meant to be a short summary of the most salient parts of the dedicated entry and should not include trivial hit pieces not mentioned there, especially not without noting that they have been identified as such in RS. Cf. Matt Taibi. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I still think the religious freedom section is the answer to a question that nobody asked, but I will defer to other editors. I will also defer to other editors about Snowden and Assange. The material about contributions from Russia enthusiasts is important, but I can live with it being in the campaign article for now. The Daily Beast is not really a low quality source. The way you know that is WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX 🖋 20:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

pro-Russia campaign contributions and pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign

I strenuously object to this reversion and this reversion, which deletes relevant sources, introduces WP:OR, and gives prominence to two single sources over multiple other available sources. Content about the extensively reported pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaigns is completely missing and the reader is directed to conclude that Gabbard has been smeared based on the opinions of Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. The word "allegations" is tossed around, but the campaign contributions are a matter of public record and the pro-Gabbard Riussian propaganda is stated as a fact by sources. [15][16][17] It's also a 1RR violation for which I have requested self-reversion, but was rebuffed.[18]. - MrX 🖋 11:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign

For information, the paragraph added above by MrX has been discussed on the TG 2020 campaign entry. We decided to remove the NBC news story from this page in February but MrX has reinstated it against consensus. (Though I did not participate in that discussion, I agreed with the conclusion.) In addition to that NBC news story, MrX is complaining about the removal of a story from the Independent which recycled the NBC news story the same day (before it was made clear that the NY Times had discredited the group NBC News was using for the story), and adding nonsense about David Duke supporting Gabbard, which I believe has been discredited as well. The other opinion piece Mr X doesn't mention (in Vanity Fair) mentions the word "Russian" many times in the first paragraph but none of the occurrences refer to Gabbard. Only one occurrence refers to RT coverage of TG, which is not pertinent to her BLP. Finally, it is unclear what is "original research" in the addition of the Matt Taibbi / Glenn Greenwald reporting.

Further information: given that his reinstatement of material that had been removed by consensus is also a revert, Mr X was at 9RR on 19 May 2019, a fact he does not mention. Similarly, the discussion on the 2020 campaign entry suggests that contributors feel that that material should not be included over there either, but somehow MrX has not mentioned that discussion. If anyone wants to take Mr.X to WP:AE for his 9RR day, it would be justified, though it would likely be a waste of time and energy because for some reason Mr X seems to be above the law. I do not feel that we need to weaponize DS, but obviously Mr X does feel that way based on his comments above. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls please list nine discrete reverts that I made in a 24 hour period, or kindly retract your personal attack. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) of course.

Woops. Mr X was only at 8 RR on 19 May 2019 nope 9 red edits, but seems to have been at 3RR yesterday, because he only reinstated the NBC news story yesterday. All of this depends of course how you count reverts. Mr X seems to be saying that any change whatsoever to text he has ever added to the entry is a revert. MrX you are welcome to count the red items on the history page for 19 May 2019 I linked to above.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to cover the RS reporting on Russian support for her campaign, and any conflicts that exist between RS and notable opinion about the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know why SashiRolls removed it and the finance information with an edit summary "removed opinion piece following TP consensus, and stale campaign contribution data from her political positions". SashiRolls, where is the talk page consensus that we shouldn't include the pro-Russia information? - MrX 🖋 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, on the 2020 campaign entry listed above it was barely considered worthy of brief mention (by some contributors, not by others), so I assumed a higher standard would hold here. Fact is, though, I did get a bit confused between this and the last time you guys were adding smear about Russia (the NBC News article, which has also been roundly rejected on her BLP). You are giving the appearance of doing everything you can to make Gabbard's biography look bad (ignoring positive reports, & adding & amplifying every minor detail you can find that you think someone might consider negative, e.g. this one which I notice looking at your history you didn't add anywhere else). I personally "hope" it is because you dislike her candidacy, rather than because you want to play psychological games with people on the internet: but neither is a good excuse for the POV editing.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're stepping over the line again. I have scoured sources for anything about Gabbard that is not currently in the article, that does not originate directly from her campaign (like the Marie Claire source you added to the abortion section). I recently added her support for marijuana legalization, debate qualifying, campaign funding stats, and polling stats. It's not my fault that some of the material is unflattering to the subject. I've also made edits to improve citations, to link other article, to improve grammar and style, and to adjust material to more faithfully follow what independent sources have written. I pride myself on being able to collaborate with a wide range of editors who have a wide range of viewpoints, but I can't work with combative editors who spend more time berating other editors than discussing content.

I request that, from this point forward, you refrain from commenting on my motivations. If you think I'm violating policies, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, or at a noticeboard. Please keep it off article talk pages. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the #1 author of the campaign entry, and yet in all your "scouring" of sources you haven't yet found the phrase "opposes regime change" which she mentions in every interview I've ever heard, nor have you found her suggesting that the money saved from all that military action could be used for domestic issues, which she likewise mentions in every single interview. Odd, that. Here, let me help: [19], [20]. Tucker Carlson, "I predict, with certainty, that you will be attacked for what you just said." Please don't play Mr. Innocent. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The article, as it existed when I first edited it in January, already contained extensive material about her views on regime change: in the lead, in the '2017–18' section, in the 'Syria' section, and in the 'Counterterrorism' section. That's four places! Maybe you're hearing the phrase "opposes regime change" in interviews because your watching too much Tucker Carlson. I prefer using reliable sources that cover subjects objectively.- MrX 🖋 20:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't realized you'd deleted so many mentions of her main campaign point on the 2020 campaign entry. Surprised you're proud to admit that since she's used that language on ABC, on MSNBC, on Colbert, on PBS, on FoxNews, on CNN, on the campaign trail, (& of course on Joe Rogan)... and been cited using that language extensively in RS, and yet, Mr X knows better than those who had originally written the entry. As it happens, my only edits to the entry were with regard to the Daily Mail Mirror Beast smear you want to spin everywhere. I added none of the mentions you are so proud to have deleted. By the way, you should not have deleted her comments about her opposition to regime change in Venezuela from this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the following content:

According to NBC News, Gabbard's primary campaign has received support from Russian interests. Experts found that websites connected to the Shortly after her campaign launched, NBC News reported that it had received unusual coverage from Russian media,government had posted 20 or more stories on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, beyond the level of support given to any other Democratic candidate.

Replacing this with "unusual coverage from Russian media" misrepresents the source, which writes:

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.
— [21]

- MrX 🖋 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You could post the information without the tabloid phrasing. What exactly for example is a "Russian interest?" This is typical of polemical writing where there is an implicit accusation that there was quid pro quo, which is not encyclopedic writing. It's a bit like listing all the similarities between Ted Cruz and the Zodiac killer, without actually saying that Cruz is the killer. Could you assure us that inclusion does not violate policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." You can do that by showing that other mainstream media picked up on the story. Maybe we can wait until Snoogasnoogans next shift and get his opinion. TFD (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am attempting to adhere to the source while not plagiarizing it. What I wrote is substantially similar to the lede of the source article,[22] with some facts from the fourth paragraph:

Gabbard's campaign received supportive news coverage in the same Russian propaganda sources that influenced the 2016 presidential election A minimum of 20 stories ran on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, exceeding that given to any other Democratic candidate.

How would you word it differently? By the way, it was picked up other news media, including several that we liberally use in this article: The Independent, Business Insider, Honolulu Civil Beat, and of course, Rolling Stone and The Intercept also took notice.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The topic sentence of the paragraph should be related to the smear campaign. Otherwise, the smear has been rejected from her BLP previously as I pointed out in my edit summary. You can ping the people who participated in the previous discussion if you wish to discuss the matter again, but the only person who ended that discussion maintaining the position that this should be included was the sockpuppet "Dan the Plumber" who has been indefinitely blocked. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What smear campaign? Are you talking about Matt Taibbi's opinion that the NBC article is a "transparent hit piece"? He doesn't explain what motivation two NBC journalists (Robert Windrem and Ben Popken) would have for "hitting" Gabbard). Or are you referring to Glen Greenwald's opinion that the story was "a sham". Why would we trust Rolling Stone and the Intercept more than NBC and The Independent? We should simply include both points of view without choosing sides. In any case, you can explain why 1RR doesn't apply to you at WP:AE.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The one everyone knows is taking place. With regard to your edit warring and AE threats, see further: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion." I see absolutely nobody joining Dan the Plumber in dissenting from the TP consensus reached back in February. (As you can see, I did not participate in that discussion, so you would need to add my vote to it.) Of course, everyone knows that the inner cabal doesn't have to follow the rules and can bully folks around to their heart's desire. Are y'all donors? special ops? just lucky? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)