Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

RfC: Tulsi Gabbard's views on foreign policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A, B, and C should all be included. More sourcing is recommended for A and B should be slightly reworded to sound less argumentative, but there is substantial backing for all three sections. Red Slash 02:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC). I note that the close of this RfC was somehow reverted. How someone has the gall to revert an edit to a talk page I cannot understand. The discussion is closed. Red Slash 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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?"[1] 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)

Outdent added, as it is becoming too difficult to read for mobile users.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose A, B, & C (since this may have been missed)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:02, 11 July 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)

Please compare to what is already in the article. There is no need to modify the existing text.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• All three are acceptable, and all three could be improved. A is terse and could benefit from some expansion and context. B is long and rambling; C presents two contradictory facts without any way for readers to reconcile them. I'm not clear on the process here. Is it appropriate to suggest improved wording for any of these? Msalt (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A The above addition appears to be based opinion.
  • Neither article is neutral POV and Tulsi has never stated support for Hindu Nationalists, these articles don't prove she did. In an interview on the “The Young Turks” 3/29/19

(Timestamp 10:17)Cenk Uygur asked: So are you concerned about Hindu nationalism being radicalized as it was in 2008? Tulsi Gabbard responded: "I’m concerned about anyone who is, in the name of religion, whatever religion that may be, inflicting harm and death and pain upon others in the name of God or in the name of religion." --21:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Scottmontana (talk)

• Oppose Part of B NNPOV
  • The Russian government's propaganda network RT praised Gabbard, saying she dared "to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative."
    • The opinion of a "foreign propaganda network" is not NPOV
  • Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."
    • The opinion of VOX is not NPOV --Scottmontana (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor Scottmontana is a single-purpose account who has exclusively edited two pages about Gabbard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted) Snooganssnoogans is a known political operative whose sole purpose is to defeat Tulsi --Scottmontana (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose C
  • Unless wording is changed, Tulsi only expressed skepticism of one attack "You know the important thing here is not what I, you, or what anyone else thinks. In these instances you have to rely on evidence. Just yesterday prior to President Trump launching this illegal military strike against Syria...the United Nation’s security councils were working through language to launch an independent international investigation into that chemical weapons attack so that they could determine exactly who was behind it, what happened, what kinds of chemical weapons were there because there is a lot of different opinions about what exactly occurred. Once you do that and you gather evidence then you can determine the course of action that needs to occur from there.”

“I’m just looking for the evidence. Maybe President Assad was behind it. If he was, this is a horrific war crime and he should be prosecuted before the international criminal court for that. I would be the first to say that very clearly. Again we’ve got to look at the evidence to see exactly what occurred, who is behind it...” --Scottmontana (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rejected close by non-admin @Red Slash:: "A, B, and C should all be included. More sourcing is recommended for A and B should be slightly reworded to sound less argumentative, but there is substantial backing for all three sections."

Rejected because it does not discuss the fact that 3 respondents rejected all 3 propositions, and no respondent except proposer accepted all 3 as written. No indication that the person read the page to see what was already there or read the discussion. We'll wait for an admin close.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

By my count (ignoring the single-purpose account), there are: 5 pro and 1 anti #A, 4 (1 of which is conditional) pro and 3 (1 of which is conditional) anti #B, and 6 pro and 1 anti #C. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why we don't let you count. I see Scott Montana, TFD and myself opposing all 3 because they are not NPOV and only you supporting all three. Most gave no reasons, whereas those opposed gave good detailed reason why the wording was not NPOV. All of the info is also already contained in the article. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

hatted discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TFD only explicitly says he opposes #B. Not that it's surprising coming from you, but you're seriously not counting any of the votes unless they specifically take a position on all three of the separate things this RfC asks for? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC) ScottMontana is a SPA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Personal back-and-forth not helpful on article talk pages ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. We need an admin close, Snoog. MrX tells you B goes too far, Daryl Kerrigan tells you A does, 3 of us have given you reasons why C is a problem. The most recent commenter saying all were OK said all could also stand rewording, and I would add that more respectful integration with the existing text might be in order. As I saw it you slapped new thesis statements and renvois into the paragraphs you wanted to zing in: (§). That is polemical rewriting not collaborative writing. I noticed the other day that you still have written 31.4% of Jill Stein's BLP. Are you trying to single-handedly write an encyclopedia? Stop that, get help, it's good for your soul, promise. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Awilley, is "Are you trying to single-handedly write an encyclopedia? Stop that, get help, it's good for your soul, promise" considered an acceptable way to address Wikipedia editors for making contributions to the encyclopedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Probably not. Hatting. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Woops, you seem to have missed "Not that it's surprising coming from you,..." Also are you seriously saying that saying "collaborative editing is good for your soul" is contrary to Wikipedia principles or that "respectful integration" of text and comment on placement of thesis statements and final lines of paragraphs is not related to collaborative editing? Your involvement on this page has been noted, Awilley. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This close makes no reference to consensus or the lack of consensus, nor does it summarize anyone's positions. The closer has recently had their page mover rights removed due to a pattern of actions identified by @Zzuuzz: who is welcome to comment on whether the close properly summarizes the different views expressed and whether it fits in with the general pattern they identified of sub-par non-admin admin activity.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll add a comment, since my name was invoked with a request to comment. I'll not comment on any general patterns here, and not re-close it myself, but I will comment that this close doesn't look particularly comprehensive. The re-close is actually rather astonishing - there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Having said that, I tend to think that most RfCs about the inclusion of particular sentences, in an article with various views and ever-changing content, do not stand the test of time well. They only work for extremely particular things, like the first sentence of Donald Trump's article, or for general themes like a foreign policy matter. Most wording will never remain static. This may sound trivial, but I'd suggest editing the article to see where the current sticking points are in the context of the current article, then discuss those accordingly, informally, with the input of third parties if necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of support of the edits recommended in the RfC. Even most of the editors who spent considerable time protecting Hillary Clinton articles in the last cycle failed to respond. TFD (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In order to properly follow procedure, this close has been appealed at AN (temporary pre-archive link). So far, the closer has not explained their reasoning any more there than here. A second pair of eyes found no consensus for A & B, but found consensus for C. It was noted that the RfC does not mandate wording of C for all eternity, which suggests that using the past tense for C rather than the present tense (as it refers to a previous position) would not be problematic.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:03, 27 July 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)

I checked the citation for the claim that Gabbard opposed the Iraq war in 2003, and the article does not make that claim. At all, in any way. Other sources say she joined the military specifically to fight in the Iraq war! It seems like this claim should be either removed or clarified with a better citation.MacroMyco (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to improve upon / change this. You are right that there was a problem with the first sentence in particular. Now the sentences are too long and there is still no mention of Venezuela (anywhere) or of Iran in this section. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire & the Daily Caller on Artsakh

So far, I don't think anybody's tried to post the Mirror or the Mail. I notice that a new section has been created on Azerbaijan / Artsakh / Armenia. An interesting article is here that could provide counterbalance to the current sourcing. Thoughts about sourcing a BLP to these opinion pieces from the Daily Wire and the Daily Caller? Thoughts about doing so without presenting Gabbard's point of view?

Does anyone know Asbarez? It seems to have nearly 400 cites @ en.wp 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 22:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you saying about The Daily Beast, etc?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That most reliable papers don't have "Daily" in their title. Any comment on the main question?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Asbarez is a newspaper ran by the Armenian diaspora in the United States. Would that not make it a partisan source given that the Armenian National Committee of America organised Gabbard's trip to Nagorno-Karabakh in the first place? Besides, it does not seem like any other source confirms what Asbarez claims Gabbard said during her visit. I added that paragraph making sure not to quote any Azerbaijani or Armenian news agencies exactly for reliability concerns over this highly sensitive matter. Parishan (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire and the Daily Caller are not usable per WP:BLPSOURCES, and they should be avoided for any article unless the topic is related to the publications or third-party coverage about something they published. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted and removed. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, in point of fact, it wasn't removed. I have removed it now. What follows is the text that was in the article, sourced only to the Daily Wire and with no mention of the Republic of Artsakh (the article was written by the head of the Salomon Center) (The .az site does not mention Gabbard at all, of course.) To get an idea about the other side of the story, you might want to look at the report prepared for Christian Solidarity International by Baroness Caroline Cox & John Eibner, "Ethnic cleansing in Progress: War in Nagorno Karabakh" (link)

In 2017, during a visit to Armenia, Gabbard and two other members of the House of Representatives made a side trip to Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-majority breakaway region of Azerbaijan controlled by Armenian forces since the declaration of its independence in the early 1990s and a war that has resulted in mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azeris from the area. Azerbaijan, whose sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized by all UN member states, has introduced a law barring foreigners from entering Nagorno-Karabakh through Armenia, with which it remains at war, considering such acts a violation of the country's visa policy. While in the region, Gabbard met with local legislators, which Azerbaijan authorities saw as "a provocation aimed at undermining efforts of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, including the United States, in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Gabbard was subsequently declared persona non grata in Azerbaijan and blacklisted for any future trips to the country.

References

Does anyone think this should go back in the article? If so, does anyone have decent sources? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"The .az site" is the website of the Embassy of Azerbaijan in the US quoting the state law on the inadmissibility of foreign visits to Nagorno-Karabakh. This source is not cited in relation to Gabbard's visit to the region but as background information to the legal framework prompting Azerbaijan's reaction to her visit.

I must have forgotten to include the Radio Liberty source which states exactly what was summarised in the paragraph, for which I apologise: [2] By the way, I believe Radio Liberty offers a very good and neutral summary of the conflict in the last two paragraphs of the report and bases its information on both sides' story (see list of media outlets at the bottom).

The article by Cox and Eibner says nothing about Gabbard's visit from "the other side". Why exactly are we looking at it? Parishan (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If no one is against it, I will restore the paragraph citing only Radio Liberty. Parishan (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be undue in "political positions" as written above, but I do not wish to discourage you from giving it another try, in which the text does not exclusively and extensively quote the AZ government. I see that you display multiple barnstars for Azerbaijani articles on your userpage, which shows you are likely to be a solid writer. I would ask that you make a special effort to include the Armenian POV on the question: here is a link concerning her basic political position on the matter, which includes US recognition of the Armenian genocide, the "respect of [Azebaijani] territorial integrity", and the "right to self-determination", which would IMO all need to be stated in the section for NPOV.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Once you remove the spin in the Daily Wire article, there is no story. Gabbard went to Nagorno-Karakh as a representative the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the United States House Committee on Armed Services and the 110 member Congressional Armenian Caucus, which includes the speaker.[3] If you want to add anything to Gabbard's foreign policy positions, it is that she supports recognition of the Armenian genocide. TFD (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not about the capacity in which she went there. The point is that a potential US presidential candidate is legally barred from entering a UN member state because of her actions with respect to that state's legislation. Parishan (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite the passage of any policy or guideline that says that? Weight is quite clear on this. It is not the role of Wikipedia articles to present information its editors think should be part of the U.S. electoral process, but to report those issues as they appear in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Here is Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry-issued list of persons whose visit to Nagorno-Karabakh was qualified as illegal by the government of Azerbaijan: [4] (Gabbard is #706 on the list) and an article from a pro-government news website elaborating on it. Here is a notice from the Azerbaijani embassy in Washington D.C.: [5] that describes the policy. Also, I do not understand the "Once you remove the spin in the Daily Wire article, there is no story" logic when there is a perfectly neutral source (Radio Liberty) cited above that states pretty much the same: [6]. Parishan (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

that "perfectly neutral" is just fun, Parishan :) !DYK that RFEL is mentioned in the first paragraph of en.wp's border blaster entry? Still, I don't see a problem mentioning she went to Nagorno-Karakh along with two co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus around Sept. 2017. It's true the original Asbarez article has been republished by RFEL (your link) and by the Armenian caucus (here). They credit Russian Interfax, though, as breaking the news that the Azerbaijan government had put the three caucus members on a travel blacklist as a result. Your link suggests it may have been Rashid Shirinov who should be cited as the original author? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is "fun" about it? Radio Liberty may have been set up as a "border blaster" broadcaster at the time of the Cold War to target the Eastern Bloc countries and to counter their communist propaganda broadcasting, but this has little to no relevance to what we are discussing here. The Eastern Bloc is long gone and with regard to Armenia and Azerbaijan, RL is a third-party source beyond any doubt. It is not Rashid Shirinov who is the original author, it is the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan spokesperson who originally came out with the statement that Gabbard had been blacklisted. I cited Shirinov because it was an English-language source. Parishan (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying that this article should criticize Tulsi Gabbard for her opposition to Armenian genocide denial? She probably also opposes holocaust denial - do you think we should add that to criticisms against her? TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please show me exactly where I said that. I am particularly interested to know where I used the words "criticism" and "genocide". Parishan (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You said, "The point is that a potential US presidential candidate is legally barred from entering a UN member state because of her actions with respect to that state's legislation." But the big dispute between the U.S. Congress and Azerbaijan is their position on the Armenian genocide and treatment of its Armenian minority. You say the circumstances of her visit are unimportant. But take the case of someone denied entry to Nazi Germany after looking into the condition of German Jews on behalf of the U.S. Congress. Would we just say that they were barred from a member state of the League of Nations for disobeying their laws without any explanation? TFD (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You lost me at "the big dispute between the U.S. Congress and Azerbaijan is their position on the Armenian genocide and treatment of its Armenian minority" - outside of a small caucus of interest group lobbyists, there is no "big dispute" on this issue as Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the genocide (which refers to a period before Azerbaijan even existed). The U.S. Congress cannot even engage in such a dispute with Azerbaijan or whomever given the Congress's own non-recognition of the Armenian genocide. I still do not understand why you keep bring that up, but anyway this is all beside the point. Gabbard was not blacklisted for what she said during her visit. She was blacklisted for violating the country's visa policy, which specifically states: "The laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan prohibit visiting the occupied territories without the explicit consent of Azerbaijani authorities." (this is how this was worded in the original passage, by the way). Hundreds of other politicians, mediators and journalists have visited the same region without being blacklisted because they followed the procedures that are in place. I also did not hear a reaction from you as to where I called on "criticising Gabbard". Parishan (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I notice that while Gabbard is still on the LIST OF FOREIGN CITIZENS ILLEGALY VISITED OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN (Updated: 21.02.2019}, she does not appear on the current List of foreigners who are persona non grata in Azerbaijan posted on the Azerbaijani government website and neither do any other Americans.

I would like to know who these hundreds of people who have received permission to enter Nagorno-Karabakh are. As I understand it, to get such a visa, one must sign a declaration supporting Azerbaijan sovereignty over the territory. But official U.S. policy is to seek a negotiated settlement on the basis of self-determination of Armenians. Furthermore, Gabbard's home state of Hawaii as well as many other states either recognize Nagorno-Karabakh or reject Azerbaijani sovereignty. I note too that the the U.S. gave a visa to the president of Nagorno-Karabakh to visit Washington over the objections of Azerbaijan and former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans has called for its recognition. And meanwhile, the U.N. charter recognizes both the territorial integrity of states and the right of self-determination of minorities.

So it's a lot more nuanced than Tulsi Gabbard broke the law of a country we recognize. That's why we would need reliable secondary sources that present them. Out of curiosity, do you have any interest in Armenian topics?

TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

she does not appear on the current List of foreigners who are persona non grata in Azerbaijan posted on the Azerbaijani government website and neither do any other Americans - The list has not been updated but I see over twenty other Americans on it (searchable as "USA").

I would like to know who these hundreds of people who have received permission to enter Nagorno-Karabakh are - No problem. Conflict mediators, OSCE and PACE monitoring missions, post-war resettlement fact finders, HALO Trust staff, authors, analysts and reporters (for example, Thomas de Waal, Simon Reeve, etc.) once they obtain accreditation (see #18), etc.

As I understand it, to get such a visa, one must sign a declaration supporting Azerbaijan sovereignty over the territory - Where do you get your facts?

But official U.S. policy is to seek a negotiated settlement on the basis of self-determination of Armenians - With all due respect: no. The official U.S. policy is recognising Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, as does every other country in the world and as stated on this U.S. Department of State-issued fact sheet. In fact, the U.S. has never brought up self-determination of Armenians without also voicing its support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. And it would not be a permanent OSCE Minsk Group member if it prioritised the former over the latter. So I am afraid, the U.S. position is very clear on this: that there are politicians or former ambassadors who speak or act against it shows only that freedom of speech in this country works but this is not enough to suggest that the situation is "a lot more nuanced". As a matter of fact, the whole "Foreign policy" section of the article is full of references to Gabbard siding with one or the other party in intercommunal and international disputes abroad, but no one removes those and no one seems to insist on adding "the other side of the story" (because these conflicts are never simple and straightforward by definition). Yet here, suddenly one gets asked if he/she has "interests" for such considerations.

Furthermore, Gabbard's home state of Hawaii as well as many other states either recognize Nagorno-Karabakh or reject Azerbaijani sovereignty - Those interest group-lobbied decisions, whether pro- or against Azerbaijan, mean nothing to U.S. foreign policy as it turns out according to Hawai'i Senate Democratic majority leader J. Kalani English.

the U.S. gave a visa to the president of Nagorno-Karabakh to visit Washington over the objections of Azerbaijan - Residents of Nagorno-Karabakh are holders of passports issued by Armenia. How exactly does this prove that the U.S. recognises this as a presidential visit?

former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans - A former diplomatic worker is entitled to have his own opinion. This has no effect on the policy of the state he once used to represent.

the U.N. charter recognizes both the territorial integrity of states and the right of self-determination of minorities - Yes, and while territorial integrity has a very clear definition (inviolability of borders being one of them), self-determination does not necessarily mean secession, so I do not see how regard for self-determination cancels out U.S.'s recognition of Azerbaijan's right to Nagorno-Karabakh. What is clear is that there is absolutely no provision in the United States's foreign policy or its laws that would license disregarding Azerbaijan's sovereignty and the authority of its visa policy on the grounds of some random politician being at odds with Azerbaijan's position in its conflict with Armenia. Parishan (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is all very interesting but you need a secondary source that argues your points. We don't do investigative journalism, but merely report sources that do. You are right btw, I did not search USA but United States on the List of foreigners who are persona non grata in Azerbaijan However the representatives who visited on behalf of Congress appear to have been airbrushed out. Why do you think that is? TFD (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think they were "airbrushed", it is just that the website has not updated the list for a while. Here is a secondary source summarising everything I had included in the first version of the paragraph on Gabbard's Nagorno-Karabakh visit and the legal implications thereof: [7]. Shall I put the paragraph back into the article? Parishan (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, because it fails weight: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." While you say it is important, because Gabbard is running for president, the experts who work at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. either disaagree with you or are not as informed on current events as you are.

While it's tempting to alert the public to information about someone they would not find out through news sources that most informed people read, it does not belong here. Also, the way your represent the story casts it in a negative light. If reliable sources were too cover the story then one would expect nuance. In particular they would ask Gabbard to respond to the story.

Also, the source used is questionable and it does not even say that Gabbard is banned from Azerbaijan, merely that this information has been report by a Russian news agency.

There's good advice in WEIGHT: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements."

TFD (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That is quite an unsatisfying justification given that the entire section on India under "Foreign policy" is based on what was reported by Indian news agencies, with the exception of two rather insignificant references to Quartz (whose weight is nowhere near comparable to that of the news outlets you listed), but clearly not living up to WP:WEIGHT. Somehow no one opposes including that section into the article. Me "representing the story in a negative light" is, in my opinion, a mere personal impression on your part, which should not hinder assuming good faith. Especially in light of the fact that I have invited you twice to show me where I called on "criticising" Gabbard and both times you ignored my question. Parishan (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe outside of yourself consensus was unanimous that, as originally written, the contribution was inappropriate. I also think it concerning that while you said you deleted the Daily Wire piece you actually did not. (I'm still not sure how you could have made this mistake, as you used the title and the url from the Daily Wire but claimed the source was REFL.) I've asked you to propose a more neutral formulation here on the talk page but you have chosen not to do so. As a result, I'm not sure what your complaint is, since you haven't done any of what was asked of you to move forward... also FWIW: qz.com is cited 2418 times on en.wp, and mfa.gov.az is cited 370 times. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not important how I made the mistake (these things happen when you consult multiple pages at the same time): it is important that I admitted to my mistake, apogolised for it and provided an alternative credible source, which states the same thing that was mentioned in the paragraph (I still do not understand what the big deal was - it was just a matter of editing what was in the reference tag). Before I had time to do anything with the paragraph following your proposal, TFD joined the discussion and took it in a completely different direction, mainly preoccupied with looking for clues in U.S. foreign policy that could mitigate the notability of a potential US presidential candidate being declared persona non grata in another country. This is not about the Daily Wire anymore. I am also not sure why you are comparing Quartz with mfa.gov.az, when I am citing this source that, according to TFD, "fails WP:WEIGHT". Parishan (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

{Feel free to delete the India section if you choose.} You wrote above, "the point is that a potential US presidential candidate is legally barred from entering a UN member state because of her actions with respect to that state's legislation." (12:52, 26 June 2019) It's not assuming bad faith to interpret that as presenting her in a negative light. If you think there is nothing particularly wrong with breaking the laws of another UN member state then it has no relevance. But we're not investigative journalists and I suggest you read and follow content policies. Unless and until it becomes an issue it does not belong here. TFD (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would I delete the India section if you are the one claiming that such sections are not referenced according to WP:WEIGHT? I personally have no problem with it: naturally, if a political move concerns internal politics of a specific country, that is the country whose sources are going to be the most vocal on the matter, and you cannot deny them reliability just because something was not republished in the Washington Post or the New York Times. Besides, you yourself acknowledge that with regard to Azerbaijan, Radio Liberty quotes from Interfax (a Russian source), which is overtly mentioned in WP:Reliable sources as a well-established reliable news outlet. This should be enough to account for WP:WEIGHT.

"If you think there is nothing particularly wrong with breaking the laws of another UN member" - It is rather surprising hearing this from you, who just a few days ago was comparing Azerbaijan to Nazi Germany and trying to present breaking the law of another UN member as a justifiable measure in case some random politician acts on his or her personal disapproval of that law. On my end, I do not think this is about being right or wrong: this is a fact from a politician's biography which is noteworthy, and I personally do not see anything in my wording that attaches any kind of judgement to that. It is also interesting that you should compare my argumentation to investigative journalism when it was me quoting directly from a news agency and you venturing into Google searches to try and look for "nuances" behind the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in order to downplay the impact of Gabbard's specific political position. I am sorry but I really do not understand what exactly you are opposing and why. Parishan (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think it is noteworthy that as a politician or candidate for president or whatever broke the law of another UN member? And what policy are you using for your concept of noteworthiness? TFD (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The president of the United States is a major figure in international politics. My concept of noteworthy in this case is defined by whatever has an impact on U.S.'s bilateral relations with other states, especially if it constitutes a major change from the policy of all previous administrations. That is the reason for having the "Foreign policy" section in this article. Parishan (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: could you please respond when you have a minute? I would appreciate it. Parishan (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant what is the policy or guideline that establishes noteworthiness? AFAIK, Balancing aspects is the only relevant guideline, and it provides a reason not to include. The authors of reliable sources determine what is noteworthy using whatever criteria they choose to use, and we merely follow their lead. TFD (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what makes you think that WP:BALASPS applies in this case and that being declared persona non grata by a sovereign state is "a minor aspect" that is "disproportionate in its significance" to a biographical article? Parishan (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any statement by Gabbard of her policy re Armenia and Azerbaijan. That she made a side trip and talked with local legislators does not seem in dispute — though I'm not sure it merits inclusion without said policy statement. AFAICS, the rest of the text hardly seem relevant to a § on Gabbard's policies. Humanengr (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it would be encyclopedic to include information about the trip, as long as it was presented more neutrally. I asked the original poster to try to extract the pertinent details from their original posting and find more neutral sourcing than the Daily Wire, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Here is some proposed text (which mentions her policy position on recognizing the Armenian genocide) based on reporting in Honolulu Civil Beat:

In 2017, Gabbard went to Nagorno-Karabakh with a Congressional delegation on what her spokeswoman said was a US State Department approved trip funded by the Republic of Armenia. As a result of this trip, Frank Pallone, David Valadao and Gabbard were all banned from entering Azerbaijan, which considered the visit a "provocation". In a statement issued after the trip, Gabbard said it was "unconscionable that the United States government still ha[d] not formally recognized and condemned the Armenian genocide".

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 Humanengr (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I was not referring to Daily Wire; I was referring to Radio Liberty (which is a neutral source) - and even in the first version, where I erroneously inserted the Daily Wire link, the title and the publishing date was that of the Radio Liberty article, which proves that it was an honest error. In my most recent edit, I have the correct link. I must have repeated this many times throughout this discussion and even apologised for the initial confusion, and I really wish you gave it a rest. The issue discussed here is the notability of the event and not the reliability of the information, which has long been established. As for your wording, the first part seems alright, but I do not see how the reference to the non-recognition of the Armenian genocide has anything to do with the trip to Nagorno-Karabakh. The genocide issue has nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh, nor Gabbard's trip, nor with Azerbaijan as a whole, which did not even exist in 1915. It is an issue of Turkey–Armenia relations, not of the Armenia–Azerbaijan war, so that sentence seems completely out of context. Parishan (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

By the time I saw you had added the Azerbaijan story again, it had been deleted, so I went back to the place where you added it to see what had changed and saw the Daily Wire again. You apparently switched refs in the subsequent edit. Regarding the Armenian genocide, the relationship to the trip is that this is part of the statement that Gabbard made about the hullabulloo Azerbaijan made about her going there. Also, people in Nagorno-Karabakh / the Republic of Artsakh are predominantly Armenian and people in Azerbaijan are predominantly Turkic as I understand it. Does Azerbaijan recognize the Armenian genocide? Do people in the breakaway Republic of Artsakh? It appears en.wp has a list of massacres in Azerbaijan, the one in Baku in 1918 seems to have been pretty huge. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The article you yourself quoted clearly states that "the press release did not address the ban by Azerbaijan, and Latimer offered no further comment", and that Gabbard's comment mentioning the genocide was addressed to the United States government, so I fail to see how you manage to stretch those two completely polar angles of the article to fit them into one statement. The rest of your argument is, I am afraid, irrelevant: (1) "Turkic" is a linguistic and loosely cultural notion; it is different from "Turkish" and has absolutely zero connection to the Republic of Turkey and its government now or then; it would be like blaming Australia for the Holocaust because Australians and Germans both speak a Germanic language; (2) mutual Armenian-Azeri massacres following the Russian Revolution (March Days, September Days) were part of the Russian Civil War, and had nothing to do with what happened in Turkey in 1915, and not a single person in Armenia has ever laid the responsibility for the Armenian genocide on Azerbaijan, which, I should repeat, did not even exist in 1915. In all honesty, I see no point in rummaging though the eventful history of the Caucasus in order to find a hook that would allow to downplay the significance of Gabbard's position on the matter, because this is now bordering OR. Parishan (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Has Gabbard made a statement re the Armenian-Azerbaijan war? Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr, for a presidential candidate of a country that is part of a mediating platform for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be violating a sovereign country's immigration policy and illegally entering an unrecognised state to meet with legislators whose authority is not recognised neither by the United States, nor by Armenia, nor by Azerbaijan is a statement regarding the conflict. Otherwise she would not have ended up on the MFA blacklist. Parishan (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s WP:OR. Humanengr (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How is that OR? The controversial nature of her visit is clearly stated by neutral sources. Parishan (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that her visit is a policy statement is OR. That is your inference. Humanengr (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not "claim" anything. A politician violates a country's visa policy, travels to its unrecognised secessionist region and declares: "We must support a diplomatic resolution to this ongoing conflict [...] to allow for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to exercise their freedom and independence" [8] - if this is not making a policy statement, I don't know what is. Parishan (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Those words of hers qualify as a policy statement — I don’t see that you had mentioned that before. Humanengr (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Education

Something is wrong here. How could she have been a nurse in the Marines with a degree in business administration? Skysong263 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

She is not a nurse or in the Marines and the article does not say she is or was. TFD (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on Reproductive rights and abortion

I'm new to this page and can see that there is a lot of controversy, so I would appreciate your all help in figuring out the lay of the land here. I see a couple of references to previous discussions of the abortion issue on the current talk page but nothing extant.

One thing that struck me right off hand is the wording of that particular section:

• "Gabbard supports reproductive rights,[223] including federal funding for abortion.[224] She opposed abortion earlier in her career, but changed her mind.[225][140][137] She voted against a proposal banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy.[140]"

The third sentence seems like a detail far too granular without context; I'm sure she has cast dozens of votes on various abortion-related issues in Congress. Why are we highlighting this one vote? What does that add? I don't see any nuance in her current position along the lines of "she supports abortion rights up to this line, but not a, b or c." So I'm not sure we need that detail.

The sequence of the first two sentences is odd, and non-encyclopedic. (She believes XX. She was against XX earlier, but changed her mind.") A more typical (and, I believe, proper) sequence would be something like this: "Gabbard was opposed to abortion when she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives in 2002. She changed her position when she returned to politics after her military service and now consistently votes for reproductive rights."

Finally, is there a source for the statement that "she changed her mind"? I looked for that just now, and found to the contrary that she told Ozy Magazine in 2016 that she had not changed her mind about abortion, but rather has a different view of the role of government:

• "It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government 'imposing its will' on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)"

https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/tulsi-gabbard-a-young-star-headed-for-the-cabinet/62604

That seems like an important nuance. Thank you! Msalt (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I mostly support your synthetic edit suggestion. How about:

Gabbard was opposed to abortion when she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives in 2002. Since returning from her tours of duty in the Middle East she has consistently voted for reproductive rights. In 2015, she said that her personal views on abortion had not changed, but that as a representative she would be doing a public disservice to vote based only on her personal private ethics.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the third sentence, but the rest should remain, with perhaps some wordsmithing. The proposed wording from Msalt carries a somewhat promotional tone ("now consistently votes for reproductive rights") and the proposed wording from SashiRolls seems very promotional. The PBS source supports her changing her mind. Ozy magazine does not seem like a good source for a BLP.- MrX 🖋 13:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Giving a sympathetic reading to the reasons someone gives for voting on res publica in a different way than their personally-held views would suggest that they would vote just does not seem inherently promotional to me. You're welcome to say it is, though.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, I didn't consider my proposed wording promotional at all; rather I was attempting to distinguish between what she votes for and what she believes personally, based on her own statements. Whether that promotes her candidacy or not depends on subjective perceptions of qualities such as "personal growth" vs. "sticking to your guns." In any case, I'm not attached to any particular words, such as "consistently" which seems to be the rub here.

The PBS source doesn't not say that she changed her beliefs about abortion, though admittedly it's a bit ambiguous and requires careful reading. What it says is "She has said that her time in Iraq sparked soul-searching and led to changes in her beliefs." [without saying which beliefs]. The word "said" is hotlinked to an MSN story (no longer available, but based on this AP story with the identical title - we should also update that). The AP story makes it clear that the changes are, consistent with the Ozy interview, about the role of government rather than how she feels about abortion itself. The AP story says:

"She also metamorphosed from being anti-abortion to in favor of abortion rights. She explained that serving in the Middle East showed her these positions she once held were rooted in the mistaken idea that it’s the government’s role to “define and enforce our personal morality.” “The next year was full of challenges and soul-searching as my long-held views were challenged by my newfound recognition of the absolute importance of keeping church and state separate,” she wrote in a 2011 blog post." The ozy.com article is a direct interview with Gabbard; why would that not be reliable?

Given all of that, how about this wording (adding the AP ref)?:

"Gabbard has stated that she is personally opposed to abortion. She voted against abortion rights when elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives in 2002, but since returning from her tours of duty in the Middle East she has voted for reproductive rights. In 2015, she said that her personal views on abortion had not changed, but that during her time in the military she saw the dangers of a theocratic government 'imposing its will' and doesn't think that she should "force her own beliefs on others."

Thanks! Msalt (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that for articles about politicians their current beliefs and positions are more important than past ones and should be mentioned first, particularly when their former positions were held before they achieved major office. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren were all Republicans while Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump were Democrats. While that is interesting background, it's not what they are most known for. I agree with removing her vote against the week ban, since some context would be required in order to show its signficance. TFD (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the precise issue is, what IS her current belief and position? I did my best to balance these concerns and most clearly and fairly represent her remarkably nuanced position in my second proposed wording just above. Msalt (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Her current position is that she is pro-choice. TFD (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Please add the following info in the “Syria” section: Tulsi Gabbard met Assad in Syria, without informing top Democrats 2601:14D:8602:3336:F844:3B71:8D60:B0C5 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Smear: She is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations

There is a cite attatched leading to this memberlist: https://www.cfr.org/membership/roster She is not on there!

She is a member of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs which is her job and not a think tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:E180:1017:F700:FD80:7132:49F9:D02F (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the reference.Burrobert (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

She discussed it on Niko House's show, which you can find on youtube. She was appointed to a five year term, which has expired. Contrary to Alex Jones et al., the CFR invites prominent people in foreign relations who represent different views. That's why it reads like a who's who of foreign relations and conspiracy theorists can connect the dots and assume it is part of a massive plot for world domination. But thanks for noticing it and removing the outdated information. TFD (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I watched all of them, and she did not say that. You are probably confusing this with the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs 2A00:E180:1017:F700:59B9:FDDB:E48:D39B (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. It was New Progressive Voice, Tulsi Gabbard Answers To Her CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) Association/Concerns, posted May 6, 2019. She explains her membership in the CFR to Niko House at 2:50 minutes. She was invited to join because she was on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. TFD (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• It is poorly sourced, it was removed but an IP readded it again. I have removed it. Per BLP policy which says that poorly sourced information about living persons should be removed.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anothet anonymous user added that information again.. This time they brought Flickr as a source.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH problems

One editor added a bunch of WP:SYNTH to the article where sources that either made no mention of Gabbard or which were sourced to Gabbard's own website were used to string together text. The editor SashiRolls unsurprisingly restored it again in full.

(1) The sentence:

• "Gabbard also criticized the arrest of Indian consular officer Devyani Khobragade on charges of visa fraud and perjury."

was changed to:

• "Gabbard also criticized the strip-search and treatment of Indian consular officer Devyani Khobragade who was arrested on charges of visa fraud and perjury."

The second sentence is not reflective of the cited RS, which says: "She was vocal in criticising the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade and said in a statement last December that she was "disappointed" when she found out about Ms Khobragade's initial treatment by law enforcement officials and added that while foreign diplomats must uphold US law they are also entitled to dignified treatment."[9]

(2) The sentence "In 2012, Modi was cleared of all charges by the Indian Supreme Court." was thrown in at the end of a paragraph, but none of the cited sources refers to Gabbard in any way whatsoever.

The WP:SYNTH text should be removed immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done If you look at the word "immediately", you will see where you went wrong. Please note that the article does speak about the manner of the consular official's arrest. I've removed the articles not mentioning Gabbard and restored the grammatical correction you'd deleted in your haste.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for wasting everyone's time. You opposed "july" instead of "July" inside a cite reference, so you of course had to revert a huge edit, and force things to the talk page for absolutely nothing. Always a pleasure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the diffs show you to be confused. In fact you are thinking about another interaction where I (not you) overlooked an intervening capitalisation in a date field of a reference by a guy named Keith. I thanked Philip Cross when he noticed what I'd missed (in point of fact), though it was indeed pretty minor. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Syria trip

The following has been removed from political career. Where does it belong? Unlike the other subsections of her political career it does not span multiple years or even multiple weeks. She was in Syria for four days. Perhaps it can be folded into foreign policy to avoid redundancies?

text of sub-section moved from "political career" to "foreign policy"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In January 2017 Gabbard met with President Bashar al-Assad in what she said was an unplanned meeting during a trip to Syria and Lebanon. She had reportedly not informed House leadership of her trip in advance. Gabbard said in a press release that the trip was approved by the House Ethics Committee and paid for by Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services (AACCESS-Ohio). She later paid for the trip with her own money. On February 7, 2017, it was reported that Gabbard failed to comply with House ethics rules, as she had not filed the required disclosure forms by the deadline, but according to her office she complied with House ethics rules by filing her post-trip financial report by the deadline. Remaining forms and her itinerary were submitted on February 8, 2017. Within a week of the trip, Gabbard relayed the Syrian people's message: "Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS—they are all the same,” Gabbard told Jake Tapper, describing the Syrian conflict as “a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government." References

All opinions welcome. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Banking, minimum wage, Federal Reserve and Tech firms should be under one 'Economy' section

These issues are currently in sub-sections of their own within a larger economy section, but it's kind of pointless given that all these sub-sections are very short (one sentence, two sentences, three sentences). I've tried to remove the sub-sections and keep it all under an 'Economy' section, but it was of course reverted by SashiRolls. So as with almost every other basic change, I'm now here on the talk page to argue that multiple tiny sub-sections are not needed when the issues all fall under one topic (Economy). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

From the outside (Australia) the Gabbard issue looks interesting, even historic. Someone wrote today that the political class of both sides (if that's what you'd call them) is closing ranks against Gabbard which I have suspected in the last two weeks or so. One analyst even said something that would amount to a boycott. The reasons seem to be her visit to Syria and a general scepticism about wars. Someone in a university should probably monitor and research this, i.e. which news about Gabbard trigger strong or less strong objection from which party or individuals. Whether this amounts to meddling or not could then be analysed in a PHD thesis. Just an idea. The boycotter was on Australian TV (abc.net.au), Planet America, two three weeks ago. 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:9904:8729:8255:F9B6 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bharatiya Janata Party is Hindu-nationalist

An IP number deleted this, saying it was an "error". That's literally what the LA Times describes the Bharatiya Janata Party as. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think for this formulation to be due it would be necessary to show that Gabbard supports Modi because the BJP has Hindu nationalist roots, rather than supporting him because he is the elected president of India. There are several sources (NDTV for example, her backing out of a big fundraiser in Chicago), showing she says the latter.

Also it appears that JP Nadda replaced Amit Shah as acting president of the party. (source) What exactly are you basing this claim that N. Modi is the leader of the BJP on? While he may have influence, I've found nothing indicating that that is a true statement.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely no need to demonstrate that Gabbard explicitly supports Modi because he is the leader of the BJP. If we describe her support for Modi, we describe who Modi is, as well. This is basic stuff, but of course gets stalled and vetoed on this article. And RS typically characterize the BJP as being led by Modi and the party being his[10][11], yet of course that now has to be debated as well, because why not waste time on that also? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable that in some countries the de facto leader of a political party can also be the PM or President, but in most, I think, these latter are far too busy running the country, having lunch with Obama, etc. I notice that when lunch with Modi is mentioned on Barack Obama's page the entry does not mention BJP. If you want you can start a discussion on Barack Obama's BLP to see if you can include that Modi is the leader of the BJP, I'll bring the popcorn. :)

Here's the only reference, as of this timestamp, to Modi on Obama's BLP: "He then went to India, where he spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit before meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over lunch." And believe it or not, in the Indian express article en.wp sources that to, Obama is even quoted saying he likes Modi and believes in him. o.O 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll note the absence of substantive arguments. This editor knows about WP:OTHER, yet can't resist the urge to again present a rambling diatribe and debate some other topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

analogy. Yes Mr. Snoog I am aware there are others l'autre != loutre ...other != otter. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bharatiya Janata Party is actually a broad center-right party formed out of a coalition of various parties opposed to Indira Ghandi's state of emergency. You might want to mention that Gabbard also met with leaders of the opposition Congress Party, Rajeev Gowda and Shashi Tharoor. TFD (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll stick to what reliable sources say, thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just stop using that tone. Here are three examples of you distorting what "RS" say that I (or others) have found in the last two weeks:

1. [12] on this page. The source does not talk about "fraud and perjury". You should know this since you added the source on Feb 12, 2017. [13]
2. [14] Here you claim the source says Bill Lee "created" a holiday ex nihilo when in fact the governor has been legally required to declare the holiday every year since the 1970s (as the article says).
3. [15] (only the 2nd source (an opinion piece) verifies the 1st claim, the other two do not.

You have been caught red-handed three times in the last 2 weeks and yet you continue to have this "holier-than-thou" tone with a long-standing editor like TFD?! Someone other than me should really take you to a noticeboard. If I do it, someone will surely distract from the issue. Does anybody think these are "mistakes"? What should we do about a contributor who systematically misquotes/misuses sources? (remember the fake gorilla poll on Jill Stein? I do. Here's "gorilla" in the TP archives for Jill Stein... here's "plagiarism Daily Beast" for that matter...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please get rid of these off-topic and creepy rants from this talk page. You can add them to the off-wiki forums where you and other disgruntled and/or banned wikipedia editors obsessively complain about me and how Wikipedia does not conform to some fringe worldviews. And do not edit my text, as you just did. As for the substance: (1) Source says she was arrested. That she was arrested for visa fraud and perjury is undisputed and uncontroversial, even if this one source does not specifically say that. (2) Lee did sign a bill to proclaim a day in honor of a KKK leader. (3) That's a lede, and in the lede, one of the sources substantiates the language. The sourcing in the body also substantiates the text. (4) Harambe is a gorilla, and the poll was not fake. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In each case you have distorted what the source says. How Wikipedia is supposed to work: wiki-text is verified by the inline sources provided. In 0 of the 4 cases you mention above was that the case. Also: you complained about my revision of the section title to something more neutral in accordance with WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, using uncivil language in your edit summary to do so (another day at English Wikipedia...):

Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc

Red-handed, particularly on this page in diff #1. What Tulsi objected to was not the diplomat's arrest, but the manner of her arrest,; as the IP you reverted said... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that the BJP are Hindu-nationalist, regardless of what unsourced claims TFD brings to the table. It's what RS state and it's what our very own Wikipedia page about the party says. Furthermore, your change the header makes it so that my comment makes zero sense. You're altering the text in order to misrepresent and distort my comments. Stop it immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As usual, the problem is one of reduction: you might learn something reading this report. I did. The first article notes the distance between the RSS and the BJP. The second notes that within the broad label "Hindu nationalist" there are moderates who basically identify Hinduism as first among equals (in the same way that public holidays in the US & Europe are Christian holidays, for example). In other words, quit using it as a scare tactic. Again, the question you are trying to avoid on this BLP of a US citizen running for President is: does TG support Modi because the BJP has Hindu nationalist roots, or because he is the elected president of India? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You bring a report about the BJP to the table which mentions "Hindu nationalist" or "Hindu nationalism" 130 times (!) and which describes the party on the first page of text as "a party built on an ideological foundation of Hindu nationalism" to dispute that the party is Hindu-nationalist. Good grief. You can't make this shit up. As always, a pleasure to have my time completely wasted with this nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought that report "to the table", Snoog, because I am honest. I do not stop in reading a label but seek to understand what it means in practice. As I understand it, the BJP won the 2019 election handily, making it a popular force to be reckoned with in India. I don't know why we are meant to say "Oh Noes! They celebrate Holi & Diwali! Infidels!" when in fact we should say that this is what the democratically elected government looks like today in India. Again, once you have successfully argued that "far-right wing Hindutva" should be mentioned next to Modi on Obama's BLP, then we can talk about it here too. Based on your argument above, if someone likes and supports Modi -- as Obama does based on his public statements -- their BLP should reflect that they like and support a far-right Hindutva BJP politician. Why you seem to be intent on adding that information here but not on Obama's BLP seems rather transparent. Now, I will leave others to discuss whether or not your misrepresentation of 3 sources in the last 3 weeks is a problem worthy of disciplinary action or not. Please do not reinstate your text which falsely claimed TG criticized the arrest of the consular official. She criticized how that official was arrested as both sources show. As for your filling the talk page with aggressivity, well... I'll let others judge that too.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument is now "the BJP is popular, so we can't describe it like RS do" and more rambling off-topic WP:OTHER BS? What a waste of time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are we mentioning that Gabbard met with Modi while not mentioning that she met with opposition members as well? TFD (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If RS report that, then add it to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So is this edit the entirety of the dispute? The LA Times source specifically describes her as being "aligned" with Modi and the Hindu Nationalist BJP. The Guardian

offers a similar characterization. Mother Jones, and Vox also cite this - although they seem to be mostly relying on the reporting from The Intercept. I don't see any real dispute about Modi's nationalism, and there's also not much disagreement that Gabbard is tied to him. It seems like this is the only reason that this comes up in coverage of her. I can certainly see a case for exercising some restraint, but we don't need to read her mind to note that Modi is a controversial figure and her links to him are notable mostly for that reason. Nblund ^talk 15:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

On this article, every single minor detail, no matter how well-sourced and uncontroversial, is vetoed (primarily by one user) and has to be subject to long talk page discussions that are mostly just rambling about unrelated things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the part of the Quartz article that was curiously glossed over. The part where she mentions meeting with members of the Congress Party, who are not in power. Nblund feel free to google "Tulsi Gabbard", Rajeev Gowda and Shashi Tharoor as suggested above. The main point of contention is the spin as demonstrated by the story of the misrespresentation of TG's position on the consular official, the fact that only one side was cherry-picked from the Quartz India article, etc. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I did, but Gabbard herself seems to be the main source for it. When I look at mainstream reliable sources, they mostly talk about her ties to Modi specifically, and the criticisms that have come from those links. I don't think it's that surprising that anyone "glossed over" her comment since it appears that reliable sources aren't really buying the idea that she has no preference.

I agree that we should avoid taking a position on criticisms, but I don't know why we spend so much time talking about Modi if we're not going to acknowledge the primary reason mainstream reliable sources cover it. Why not just say "critics have argued that she is too closely aligned with Hindu Nationalists like Narendra Modi, while Gabbard has argued that she has x y and z reasons for supporting him." up front? I think everyone might benefit from trying to write for the WP:OPPONENT here. Nblund ^talk 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"critics have argued" is not the same thing as "it is a fact." While we report opinions, we do not report them as fact. Gabbard met with Modi and opposition leaders. Barack Obama and Donald Trump invited Modi to the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton visited him when he was in Washington. TFD (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

She is basically following in Obama's footsteps. (Ever noticed how their speech is somewhat similar? Must be the Hawaii sun! ^^) I agree that the consular official story was overblown. It has served its purpose in the entry for the past 2.5 years, I suppose. But of course had I deleted it, I suspect that would have been instant drama. Now, as for the WaPo article and "some critics" that seems to be a poor practice and a poor reference... the sum total of what is said in the article is the following: "Among other things, she’s been dogged by protesters who say she’s too close to India’s Hindu nationalists and the country’s prime minister, Narendra Modi." The NDTV interview is much better because she makes clear that her understanding of Hinduism is incompatible with Hindu nationalism (if you have the time to actually watch the 17-minute video, I do recommend it, you'll understand her better). There's a good quote in there, but I'd need to listen again... I'll let you work on the article for a while in peace :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree, but it is a fact that she has advocated closer ties to India including better relations with Narendra Modi. It is also a fact that Modi is generally considered a Hindu Nationalist. The opinion is that this is a bad thing or that she is linked to him for any reason beyond her general support for close US-India relations. Presidents' foreign policy obligations often require them to meet with other foreign heads of state that they dislike. Members of Congress accepting those invitations is often seen as more controversial because it's basically always voluntary, and some see it as overstepping their Constitutional role.

Regarding the WaPo source: I think that is a reasonable summation of articles in The Intercept as well as The Nation, and New York Magazine. I am open to using a more explicit in-text reference though. Nblund ^talk 17:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The way it was wording implied that not only was it a bad thing but that it was a fringe position. Furthermore, it did not overstep her constitutional role, since it had the support of the Foreign Affairs committee and was probably supported by the White House. There is a difference between saying that someone complained about her actions, it is another for the article to express disapproval or to provide false information. TFD (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

FEC data

This was added to the page by an IP. I believe this is probably considered WP:PRIMARY, though I may be wrong. It is definitely too detailed for her biographical entry and even for the entry on her 2020 prez campaign, IMO. Thoughts? Clicking the link and resorting, it looks like she's using ActBlue...

FEC data 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to FEC.gov - Coverage dates: 01/11/2019 to 06/30/2019 Total receipts $6,062,974.29 Total contributions $3,514,802.51 Total individual contributions $3,513,727.51 Itemized individual contributions $1,366,725.00 Unitemized individual contributions $2,147,002.00 Party committee contributions $0.00 Other committee contributions $1,000.00 Presidential public funds $0.00 Candidate contributions $75.00 Transfers from other authorized committees $2,500,000.00 Total loans received $0.00 Loans made by candidate $0.00 Other loans $0.00 Total offsets to expenditures $48,165.28 Offsets to operating expenditures $48,165.28 Fundraising offsets $0.00 Legal and accounting offsets $0.00 Other receipts $6.50 References

Confusing Militry History

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

Whitewashing ABC News content

The following content was removed:

• In July 2019, when asked about whether Assad used chemical weapons, Gabbard said, "There's evidence that...continues to come out. I have always said that if that evidence proves that he is guilty, he should be prosecuted."[16]

SashiRolls removed the content with the inane edit summary "why do you think ABC news cut [...] part of her reply and masked the fact she didn't hear the original question?" She was asked whether she believed Assad used chemical weapons twice: The first time, she ignored the question. The second time when the interviewer asked her point blank, she literally said what's quoted above. The fact that the interviewer was relaying a question by a viewer is not relevant at all. Her skirting the question at first is not particularly relevant either, unless the text should say "In July 2019, when asked about whether Assad used chemical weapons, Gabbard at first ignored the question but when asked again point blank, she said, "There's evidence that...continues to come out. I have always said that if that evidence proves that he is guilty, he should be prosecuted."

So not only are there zero legitimate problems with this content, but this is relevant context as to her wish-washy claims regarding Assad's chemical weapons use (the article gives readers the impression that she believes there's "no doubt" that he used chemical weapons whereas the quote above is far less clear-cut). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This article has a problem. It gives far too much WP:WEIGHT to Syria, Assad, chemical weapons, and Tulsi Gabbard's (possibly changing over time) opinion of same. What the reader wants to know when reading this page is [1] How she differs from other democratic candidates (military experience and position on the seven countries where we are currently at war[17]) [2] how she is doing in the polls, and [3] Human interest stuff like the surfing. Her opinion about Assad would be way down on the list.

I am fine with whatever the consensus is about what we say about Assad and chemical weapons, but I strongly oppose having it be more than one long or two short paragraphs. Can we trim it down, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That's completely out of sync with RS coverage of Gabbard. The thing she is by far most notable for, besides being a 2020 candidate, is Assad and Syria. You may think surfing is more interesting than a member of Congress (and possibly future president) running interference for a genocidal dictator, but that's not reflected in RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors who write things like "a member of Congress (and possibly future president) running interference for a genocidal dictator" should not be editing the page of that member of congress. It seriously calls into doubt your ability to edit the article with a WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RGW
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
More bland, blatant ideology from the military-industrial apologists who run Wikipedia. Maybe if people like you wouldn't shove their ideology and evidence-free assertions into every single article about actual progressives, then people would take Wikipedia somewhat seriously.115.41.39.109 (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ABC clip

I have reverted the addition of a selective quote from ABC News, because it is a pretty clear case of spin by omission:

Interviewer: Do you think he [Assad] used chemical weapons? Gabbard: There's evidence that [... has been reported and that] continues to come out. I have always said that if that evidence proves that he is guilty, he should be prosecuted.

@1:54 in the tweet they cite with the actual clip, note also that Gabbard did not hear the original question Also, there are already 45 references to Syria in Gabbard's BLP, none to her Google suit, none to her pointed tackle of Kamala Harris... why do you think that is? Any complaints about my removing this spin? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. That yellow text that was omitted adds literally nothing, but if that's your sole concern, then we can go ahead and add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, can you stop filling this talk page with irrelevant nonsense? If you want to add content about her Google suit and her Harris clash, go ahead and add it, and stop whining about unrelated matters when specific content is being discussed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does. It shows clearly that she was saying there's evidence that "has been reported and continues to come out" that he has used chemical weapons, whereas with the cut it implies the opposite. This is not worth wasting space on. As I said, Assad is already mentioned 20 times on this page, and Syria 45. Enough is enough. Add something new. I saw a fun Spectator article on her takedown of Kamala Harris, for example. ^^

One hallmark of propaganda is endless repetition; the Assad nonsense has been harped on so incessantly that it’s the first thing many simple-minded journalists and politicians think of when they think of Tulsi.

source

Also, please remove "inane", "whitewashing", "irrelevant nonsense", "whining" and any other POV railroading / gaslighting / aggressivity from your previous comments. Thank you. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, the yellow text adds nothing, but if that's your concern, simply adding the yellow text would resolve this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the difference there. I think the upshot is "Gabbard more or less still has the same position", right? I think the specific quote is less important than getting that across - the February 2019 comment about there being "no question" gives the impression that she changed her view, but I don't believe that's accurate. Nblund ^talk 14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What she said in that crowded interview is perfectly compatible with what she said in February 2019 unless you assume she means that the evidence which is being reported and continuing to come out indicates Assad is not guilty of war crimes, which is not at all what she said. The only thing that would satisfy DNC types is if every time she is interviewed she sticks to the DNC script. This adds nothing new to the article. Important Reminder: Editors beliefs are not what we go on to write articles. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

When I say "I don't believe that's accurate", I'm leaving open the possibility that my reading of the sources might be incorrect. I'm not suggesting we should edit based on my beliefs. In 2017 she said she was skeptical that the evidence showed Assad had used chemical weapons against civilians, then in February 2019 we have her quoted as saying that "there's no question" that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Are you saying you don't see any contradiction there? Nblund ^talk 15:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... and we need how many words to say that, for example, before starting a nuclear war by accident she would have liked to see the inculpating evidence, then later once she had seen that the evidence piling up looked pretty good, she reminded people that she has always said, if he's guilty ==> judge him for war crimes. Ha! I just summarized the story in one sentence (though I would love to add another about the number of times she's been asked this question).

Was this question even posed during the debates? If not, why would that be the "citizen question" ABC has her asked in a crowded lobby?

Incidentally, Syr. (63) wins out over Ind. (34) and ol-Bashir (42) on the TP too in terms of number of times mentioned... not so much about the Oprah article (proposed to on a surf-board, it's all about the light, etc.), or her trip to South Dakota, or even those weird whisperings about the Quincy Institute. Curious. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what any of this has to do with the matter at hand, and I'm not interested in debating the merits of her position, I just want to be sure readers don't get an incorrect impression. I agree that "she has always said" that she wants to see the evidence before drawing that conclusion, but then she's quoted in the article saying that "there's no question" that he used chemical weapons - which seems contradictory. The more recent coverage suggests that she still has doubts, and so I think the simplest solution is to just remove that quote. Nblund ^talk 22:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see you've done it already. We'll see what people think. For reference that was added in this edit, back on Feb. 20 (diff). Hope you don't get accused of "whitewashing ABC News content" as I was. What's worse, it was even "longstanding" ABC News content. You are brave. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth - if we are seeking consensus I agree with Nblund ^talk's recent edit and 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c}'s comments. Does this make me brave as well? BattleshipGray (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, this is currently what her website states: "There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war. However, I remain skeptical about two particular CW attacks, one at Khan Sheikhun on April 4, 2017, and the other at Douma on April 7, 2018... there is evidence to suggest that the attacks may have been staged by opposition forces for the purpose of drawing the United States and the West deeper into the war."[18] Upon closer listening of what she said in February 2019, she essentially says the first sentence above. As a result, it's not accurate to give readers the impression that she accepts that Assad used chemical weapons in 2017 and 2018. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so that sort of makes sense. If there's secondary sourced coverage of the hair-splitting, then maybe it's worth covering, but I think the current version (with the quote about "no question" removed) gets the same point across. Nblund ^talk 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously?

Seriously? A $400 campaign contribution when she was running for Honolulu City Council in 2010? That is what we think is important enough to include on her Wikipedia page? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The source used (Civil Beat) says, "Tamblyn’s Twitter attack was off in one respect — Gabbard gets no money from the gun lobby. Her Honolulu campaign did accept $400 from the Hawaii Rifle Association’s political arm in 2010 when she ran for the City Council. But she’s never received political donations from the NRA while in Congress and boasts of receiving an “F” rating from the group on her campaign website." I will remove it before readers think the article was written by Correct the Record trolls. TFD (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this tasty tidbit was added on 19 May 2019. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Snoog has now started reverting by reverting TFD's removal of this $400 donation without discussion. Next they reverted Capriaf's reordering of the Foreign Policy section, reverted to their preferred wording on Iraq, removed a tweet, etc., etc. This is a straightforward 1RR violation. Oh. But wait. Isn't there a technicality about how "if there are no intervening edits it only counts as 1RR even if its 80RR?" I think there may be. Maybe that's why the reverting editor has requested nobody else edit the page while they have the pressure-washer firing? Who knows? I believe SS needs to stop disrupting the page by reverting multiple editors in direct violation of the 1RR and BRD notices on this page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not restore the $400 donation, you brazen liar. Also, what on Earth are you rambling about regarding the reverts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't read your edit, just the summary stating that you were restoring the source. Of course, you can assume bad faith all you want. Incidentally, the history is 1) MrX enters the bit about how Grube thinks Gabbard has a mixed history because she took money from a the Hawaii Rifle Association in 2010. (see diff above) 2) Capriaf adds that it was $400 about a week later to add perspective, 3) TFD, seeing that perspective, removes the sentence entirely, 4) you add a different part of the article back, 5) you accuse me of being a rambling "brazen liar" because I didn't analyze every element of your campaign in fine-toothed detail. I also see that you entered a redundant reference without giving the author inline credit for their extensively quoted words. (sigh) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Gabbard considers the 2003 invasion of Iraq to have been a disaster"

For some reason, this text is in the article:

• Gabbard considers the 2003 invasion of Iraq to have been a disaster[19], in part because victorious withdrawal after removing Saddam Hussein from power was complicated by civil war.[20]

This text is not supported by the sources. This is the only thing the Intercept piece says: "Gabbard has been an outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in the Middle East; from the disastrous Iraq War...". This is the only thing the Politico says: "Gabbard said defining winning or losing in Iraq is difficult because it wasn't a traditional war. "One of the problems we’ve seen today, as well as we saw throughout the time that we spent there, is victory was not clearly defined," Gabbard said on CNN's "State of the Union." "We had many things, we had taking out Saddam Hussein, we had a civil war … had the threat of al Qaeda and terrorists.""

So, neither of the sources refer to the Invasion of Iraq. The latter source (from 2013) does not say she opposes the Iraq War or the Invasion. She does not characterize the Iraq War as a "disaster" in the Intercept source. What she's saying in the Politico piece is not accurately summarized at all. Even though the text is WP:SYNTH gibberish (as explained in my edit summary), it was immediately restored by SashiRolls.

Also, text on her views on the Iraq War needs to be dated accurately. She was after all a soldier in the Iraq War. It is therefore of value to readers to know when she became a critic of the war. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

lol. I've self-reverted in case this was a "get sashi" moment (23h40 minutes since my last revert: honest, officer, it felt like it was 24h!). If anybody thinks "disastrous Iraq War" and "defining winning or losing in Iraq is difficult" & "victory was not clearly defined" do not refer to the Iraq invasion, well... feel free to put your position forth below. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You seriously can't read those three sentences and accurately summarize them? "disastrous Iraq War" is not a Gabbard quote - this is not complicated. "Iraq War" does not necessarily mean "Invasion of Iraq", and it's from 2018. And no, her 2013 remarks in the Politico interview do not necessarily mean she opposed the war. There are plenty of people who supported the war but criticized the planning and conduct of it. This is not complicated, yet you have now restored it twice? What a waste of time, as always. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted this again--apologies, SashiRolls, but I think Snooganssnoogans has the better part of the argument here insofar as that's not a direct quote, and, I believe, a bridge too far to assign that particular wording to Rep. Gabbard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, the only thing I was kind of attached to was providing a link to explain Gabbard's words (cited above from Politico) "we had a civil war..." for those who might not know the history. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons Noticeboard

I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again.

If that does not work, I plan on putting together a case, going to WP:AE, and requesting administrator assistance.

You may ask why I haven't picked a side and started editing the article. While I do have an opinion as to how well each side of the ongoing series of content disputes is following WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, I am also convinced that me jumping in and taking sides at this point will only make things worse.

I will repeat what I wrote at BLPNB: If you are more interested in rooting for Team Read or Team Blue (or rooting for one particular player on Team Blue and against another) than you are interested in NPOV, you should leave this article and edit somewhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The corporate news media & politicians trying to destroy Gabbard, is bad enough. That it would happen on Wikipedia? very sad. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As well, we have Google manipulating search results. I searched for RS to support the Tweet in question (see BLP/N). Nothing showed up in Google. The only results offered by Google gave us no more than a single line from Tulsi's last debate, and all were the same. I had to use "Duck Duck Go" to find 2 sources that covered Tulsi's anti-war/pro-infrastructure views (the gist of her Tweet). Duck Duck Go gave us: NPR, Mt Pleasant News. petrarchan47คุก 01:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Intro to Policy positions section

@Snooganssnoogansm Wrt to your removal of the intro text, I propose using the following verbiage extracted from the MSNBC text summarizing the interview at link below.

For Gabbard, "foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy” and ending "regime change wars" is the best way to pay for other things Americans need.

Humanengr (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

That sentence can be added to the US military interventions sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s broader than U.S. military interventions. It bridges foreign policy and domestic policy. Humanengr (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. She's saying war is expensive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not only $ for war; it's also $ for nuclear arms race; she wants to repurpose those $ to domestic needs. Which means it spans both topics.

The problem is that we’ve got a foreign policy establishment, too many politicians in Washington and, frankly, a military-industrial complex that have all been working to amp up tensions between the United States and other nuclear-armed countries — like Russian, and China — putting us into this new Cold War, an arms race that is pushing us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war. The change I’m seeking to bring about is to deescalate these tensions, to stop wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars on these wasteful regime-change wars, this new Cold War and arms race, and take those dollars and invest them in things like healthcare for all, making sure we’ve got clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, making sure that we’re building a strong, green economy with good paying jobs, investing in infrastructure.

Humanengr (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that that sounds like a good overview for the (domestic) policy intro. It is clearly her #1 issue as has been observed by lots of press outlets. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s also broader than domestic policy. That's why it belongs at the top of the Policy positions section. Humanengr (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and SashiRolls: Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding it to the general intro to her policy positions. That's a good place for it.

I also like the liberty of the section title "war machine" instead of the more customary military-industrial complex which apparently written drafts of Eisenhower's speech had labeled the Congressional-military-industrial complex, but Eisenhower chose to change the line after a last minute round of golf ... cf... Joe Rogan's interview of TG (the second one I believe). Still, I'm not sure Gabbard has used the term "war machine" herself, has she? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Campaign email: "Today, our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine. When journalism is deployed as a weapon against those who call for peace, it threatens our democracy as it seeks to silence debate and dissent, creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war."

References

We use secondary reliable sources, we don't pull quotes from interview transcripts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to policy on that? Thx Humanengr (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you should speak in the first person singular, the plural is pretentious. Even then, it depends on the quote in your case, doesn't it? Have you forgotten the number of quotes you pulled from the "post-partisan" WaPo blog post called "Transcript of Jill Stein's meeting with the WaPo editorial board"? (You can count them here, if you'd like...) That said a paraphrase citing NPR, Time (1st debate transcript), etc. would be fine. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems time to revert using my proposal above, which has not met with valid criticism. Humanengr (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Move Political positions to its own 'Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page' …

replacing the redirect and allowing for further expansion there. Humanengr (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The page does not suffer from size problems. There's no need to fork it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

People should always feel free to fork en.wp!! (You only lose its google juice.) Cf. WP:FORK. The WP:SPINOFF has already been suggested and resisted by snoo+X. I have always been in favor of politicans' BLPs being protected from day to day mud-splashing during campaigns. Some influential players are not in favor of affording (certain) "second-tier" candidates this BLP protection. I mentioned this in a noticeboard thread that was spun off from this page, first to BLP/N, then to WP:AN.

Cf. Political positions of Amy Klobuchar 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Position and title for 'Assange, Snowden, and Manning'

I'm thinking it should be relocated to Foreign policy, titled as-is or as 'Prosecution of Assange, Snowden, and Manning' or ?? Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving it is sensible: all three have been involved in foreign policy matters and Assange is not a US citizen. Since the latter will be argued not to be a "whistleblower", it's best to be circumspect and stick to the basics as you have suggested: they (have) all face(d) prosecution for revealing state/corporate secrets. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

§ Trump administration

I'm thinking this should be moved to Foreign policy and retitled "Interaction with and critique of Trump administration", or some similar but shorter form that is clearer than the current. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"war machine" §

@Nblund, Adjusted in view of your edit and critique ("this is campaign rhetoric, but I don't think it really constitutes a foreign policy stance that would warrant a separate subsection. We definitely shouldn't be talking about the 'war machine' in WP voice"):

Per Real Clear Politics, Gabbard denounced the neoliberal/neoconservative war machine in a web ad: "The neocons, neolibs, and mainstream media are all singing from the same song sheet, saying, 'We Want War, We Need More War'." Gabbard goes on to say "As commander-in-chief, I will end these counterproductive, wasteful regime change wars. And work to end the New Cold War and nuclear arms race and use our precious resources to care for the needs of the American people …”

Thoughts?

The phrase "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine" seems really over the top, and I'm not sure whether Tim Haines really represents the views of Real Clear Politics writ large. Ultimately, I think this is more heat than light: clearly Gabbard is a non-interventionist who opposes foreign interventions and has criticized what she believes is outsized influence from the military industrial complex, but we should try to communicate that using neutral language that appears in reliable secondary sources rather than extensively quoting from her campaign materials. Nblund ^talk 23:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

re: "I'm not sure whether Tim Haines really represents the views of Real Clear Politics writ large." Is that your call to make? Humanengr (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's RCP's call to make. I'm raising a factual question - op-eds and editorials are usually attributed to the author of that op-ed or editorial, rather than to the papers as a whole (e.g. "David Brooks says" is not the same thing as "The New York Times says". Nblund ^talk 23:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this an op-ed or editorial? It's filed under 'videos'. His work product has been cited previously on WP without attribution to him as an individual. Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding: Also, it's quite well within Tim's purview and expertise to make such characterizations as he has been doing this for RCP since 2012. Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Re ‘campaign materials’ — how is that different than anything a candidate or politician says by any other means? Re "quoting extensively” — I see longer quotes on other candidate and politician pages. Humanengr (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You’ve heard of ’neoconservative warmongering’ here, here, …, or 'neocon war machine' (17,000 hits), right? Are you unfamiliar with the combo ’neocon-neolib’ (or its variants — 37,000 hits for "neolib-neocon" OR "neoliberal-neoconservative")? Humanengr (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the term, but it's neither neutral nor precise. I really don't know if it's an editorial, but if we can't make that determination, then we probably shouldn't be claiming that RCP said it. WP:OTHERSTUFF: problems at other articles don't give us a reason to make more problems here. The article is already a WP:QUOTEFARM, and we probably should rely more on high-quality secondary sources and work on trimming some of the fat here. Nblund ^talk 02:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "it's neither neutral nor precise": Well, it certainly seems well-enough understood by a whole class of political scientists, pundits, etc., and the general public. Re "I really don't know if it's an editorial, but if we can't make that determination": Yes we can: It's not an editorial. RCP didn't list it as an editorial; it's under 'videos'. Re WP:QUOTEFARM, that's not policy. Re: WP:OTHERSTUFF (also not a policy): Unless you want to admit WP should enforce a bias wrt candidates running for the same position, that is at minimum inappropriate. Humanengr (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We currently quote her in text using the term "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine". Are you saying you're not satisfied with that? If not, what would you like to change? Otherstuff is an essay that elaborates on a policy. The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, which applies to all pages on Wikipedia. Saying "this other article has an NPOV problem" doesn't accomplish anything, because the existence of other problems elsewhere doesn't solve anything here. Nblund ^talk 03:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thx for asking. I'll reconsider in toto and suggest. Humanengr (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: A section that fleshes out that text you pointed to:

§ Establishment war machine

“Bending the arc of history away from war and toward peace” Gabbard proclaimed at her campaign launch “will require every one of us to stand up against the military industrial complex and powerful, self-serving politicians who have a vested interest in perpetual war.”

She elaborated in a campaign ad: “The neocons, neolibs, and mainstream media are all … saying, 'We Want War, We Need More War.'” In a campaign email and video, she said: "Today, our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests … in the pocket of the 'establishment war machine’” which deploys journalism "as a weapon against those who call for peace” and "to silence debate and dissent”. The Honolulu Star Advertiser reported that "Gabbard has blamed the political establishment and mainstream media for ignoring or smearing her, suggesting in campaign materials that they are in the 'pocket of the establishment war machine.’"

Humanengr (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

References

This seems like we're just reprinting her campaign materials, and it says very little of substance about her foreign policy views. The claim that "the war machine" has smeared her, for instance, might be relevant in a section on controversies about her views, but it's not really related to foreign policy at all - it's about her domestic press coverage. It also still uses the phrase "estabishment war machine" in a section header. I really think this is excessive, and I'm not sure what's wrong with the current description. Nblund ^talk 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We’re using her campaign materials because the MSM does not report them. It clarifies her foreign policy views by identifying those in opposition. It’s not just domestic press coverage, it’s all western-allied coverage. “Establishment war machine” is not excessive; it’s exact. What’s wrong with the current description is that it’s inadequate to describe her position. But I do think we should add a section on coverage of (not controversies about) her views.

Also, your repeated reference to OTHERSTUFF ignores that “has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Humanengr (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that they are not reported by the mainstream media is precisely the problem. WP:DUE says that we should include things in proportion to their prominence in reliable secondary sources. If her campaign materials aren't covered elsewhere, then they won't be covered here. Wikipedia can't fix media bias. Nblund ^talk 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop mis-citing policy. WP:DUE does not say ‘reliable secondary sources’. It says reliable sources. Humanengr (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sure, but Gabbard's campaign materials are really not reliable either, and since they don't receive much coverage from other sources, they should be accorded less weight here. I would object to extensively quoting campaign languages even if it did receive press coverage - simply because it is usually vague and flowery. WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:IS provide some additional clarity here. At best, we can use her campaign materials for bare minimum facts about herself, but not for self-serving claims about others. Nblund ^talk 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Now you’re making up policy. There is no “since they don't receive much coverage from other sources, they should be accorded less weight here.” Humanengr (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I took the discussion to the BLP noticeboard for more input. Feel free to comment there. Nblund ^talk 15:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so honest question, why are extensive campaign quotes WP:DUE? Has this position of hers had any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage? Because it seems this article is full of wP:CRUFT. (Note: I am not an American, don't have a horse in this race, dislike all the Democratic nominees about equally and really would just like to not see a new Tulsi Gabbard thread at BLP/N three times a week.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Re your q1: Because they ‘campaign materials’ are not WP:UNDUE. Also, define ‘extensive’.Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean it looks from the conversation at WP:BLP/N like the campaign materials are WP:UNDUE if they haven't attracted significant attention in secondary sources more reliable than RealClearPolitics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, ok with most of your changes. But 'Establishment war machine' in the title connotes more than 'Military-industrial complex'; it also includes "The neocons, neolibs, and mainstream media". Also, we should retain "corporate media and military-industrial complex" in the last part, probably in a quote. She frequently cites Eisenhower's farewell — actually his draft (as I think others have noted here) where he had already broadened to 'Congressional military-industrial complex'. Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can't really say all that in a header. The easiest solution is to just not create a separate section for an issue that is barely over a single sentence. The quoting here is already excessive. Nblund ^talk 02:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Given a choice between 'Establishment war machine', 'Neoliberal/neoconservative war machine', or 'Neolib/neocon-media-congressional military industrial complex', which would you prefer? The first don't say it all, but do enough the sense beyond 'military industrial complex'. Am ok with reducing quoting, as long as her sense in certain key phrases is not diluted, buried, or disappeared. Humanengr (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The answer is "none". None of those headers are descriptive or neutral. If you want to find a place to merge the section, that would be ideal. I don't really get the sense that you're okay with reducing the number of quotes since the phrase "corporate media" already appears once in the the section, and you're saying it needs to make a second appearance. Nblund ^talk 02:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with reducing 'corporate' to one mention; added re Eisenhower's speech — which leads to another option: "Media-Congressional-military-industrial complex". Humanengr (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a word salad. I'm not sure how any of this is distinct enough to warrant a separate section. She generally opposes foreign interventions - and "says stuff about the establishment" is not so much a policy position as a general anti-interventionist worldview. I put the quotes in the intro to the foreign policy section, which should allow us to avoid the problem of finding a header. Nblund ^talk 15:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

To add to the end of the "2020 presidential campaign" section: During the second democratic debates, Gabbard assailed Senator Kamala Harris over her record as a prosecutor, saying Harris owed an apology to the people who “suffered under your reign.” Ali Rohde (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

Under "Nuclear arms race", please change “Nuclear strategists are talking about how we are at a greater risk of nuclear than we ever have been before.” to “Nuclear strategists are talking about how we are at a greater risk of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1139956997057601536?lang=en https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/2020-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-explains-her-foreign-policy-priorities-62893637721 2604:6000:1209:4061:6419:F6D0:DFB1:111E (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--SharabSalam (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Military records, WP:V and the concept of truth

We had two reliable sources that were deleted along with the (possibly impossible) accomplishments accredited to Gabbard. I would like to caution editors that WP:OR means your personal background is entirely irrelevant; nor is there any special privilege to edits with "do not revert" appended to their summaries. The Guardian is about as good as a corporate media RS can get, and the Hawaiian outlet also appears to be a reliable source. Please do not delete reliable sources just because your original research disagrees with them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As the person who added that factoid about her being an MP as well as a medical specialist on her first deployment, I would like to say that I appreciated the contradiction, as I thought the Guardian source might well be wrong (someone farther up on the talk page wanted something clearer than "specialist", which is what sent me looking for RS on the matter). Generalist RS (young journalists) make mistakes on details and it's good to have subject experts pop in from time to time to clue us in to that, no? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We have no way of validating who is a subject expert. If you want to push the elimination of newsmedia as an RS category, I'll blow that trumpet for you. But under our current regime, it doesn't get much more reliable than the Guardian. Certainly it's a more reliable source than a random editor who claims to be an expert. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

PolitiFact check

The simplistic conclusion of the PolitiFact truth-o-meter article is reductive and will not be of interest in 10 years time. Not only does it eliminate the nuance of what Politifact's respondents said in reaching its 0-1 conclusion (nearly all the respondents cited indicate there was some truth in what she was saying about arms), but it fundamentally misrepresents what Gabbard said in the Fox News exit interview cited at the beginning of the article. In that interview, Gabbard talks about the export of Wahhabist ideology, not about weapons. I suggest we can easily find much better sources than this. As such, I have removed it. Anyone disagree?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to the diff you're talking about? I'm not seeing it. In general: a huge chunk of this article fails the 10 year test. I think you're probably right that this may also be WP:UNDUE, but I think that standard needs to be applied more consistently throughout the article as a whole.Nblund ^talk 03:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

diff. You may be right. I've personally deleted 19K more than I've added. You're a relative newcomer (you got here 5 months after me in 2017), so it's not surprising that you've only deleted 2,3K more than you've added. ^^ That said, I'm glad that we've got something that covers a bit more terrain than Assad, Modi, & Gabbard's teenage political positions now.

More generally, though, 1RR restrictions do tend to lead to page expansions as people are hesitant to delete anything or spend the time paraphrasing quote-farms for fear of being dragged off to an EW board. I, for example, have used up my 1RR for the day. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Op-ed or not?

Recently an editor removed this saying it is sourced to an op-ed. I don't find the source op-ed. They are solid sources. Here is the paragraph:

Wajahat Ali, MSNBC news host Joy Reid and several other US news pundits additionally repeated old conspiracy theories about Gabbard on Twitter. A.B. Stoddard, the associate editor of RealClearPolitics summarized the situation as "There are serious knives out for Tulsi Gabbard."

Sources

I went to the talk page but I didn't find discussion about this removal. I think this removal shouldn't pass easily without extensive discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

All of those look like pretty clear-cut opinion pieces to me. Some of the sources are just straight up garbage (Consortium News/Red state) others are obviously editorial content in respected sources (Matt Taibbi/Glenn Greenwald). It might be acceptable to cite the latter with in-text attribution, but they can't be cited for claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice. The paragraph gives the clear impression that Wikipedia is taking a stance on a contested political issue, and that's not going to work.Nblund ^talk 02:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Without a link to an edit, no on can determine what you are discussing. TFD (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to this removal. Most of that was added in an effort to balance this edit I suspect. That Rogin op-ed was really scathing, building as it did to a crescendo at "moral bankruptcy". (cf. § for Rogin's bona fides on ethics) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting

The "Political positions" section of the article has become so detailed that I believe it is time to split that section into an article titled "Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard". The length and detail of the section has made navigating through the article quite difficult. Samples of politician articles who've been split include Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand and Political positions of Elizabeth Warren. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This probably makes sense, although I do think we should take a close look at some of those sections and determine how much of this material is actually WP:DUE for inclusion. There's a ton of stuff here that isn't actually covered by secondary sources. Nblund ^talk 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a lot of the content sourced to RS can be trimmed and that pretty much all the 'pol positions' content sourced to Gabbard can be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting makes sense to me as well. Humanengr (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 If I had the time to do it now I would. It obviously would pass AfD given the solid sourcing. Thought should be put into a one or two paragraph summary (somewhat thicker than the current introduction) of her political positions that would remain on her BLP. In a recent Rolling Stone "Useful Idiots" podcast, she mentioned that some of her earliest motivation for getting into politics was related to the environment. She also frequently mentions "aloha" and the idea of politicians serving people (rather than, for example, corporate persons). Going beyond individual issues while respecting her language use would be ideal... but I'm not sure to what degree MSM/RS have faithfully covered her positions with that degree of abstraction. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

On those themes, I see this to draw from:

In her quest for peace Gabbard draws inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost all other candidates, in contrast, seem indifferent to King’s teaching about the folly of U.S. militarism.

In a 2018 address, Gabbard said: “Dr. King’s convictions were formed in the crucible of Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam War. Dr. King was a forceful voice against the regime-change policies that create a perpetual state of war, fueled by the military-industrial complex.…Dr. King’s powerful message represents the values of aloha that I grew up with — respect, compassion, and love — and that are so needed in our world today.”

and

She then began to explain what “the aloha spirit” is, and why it is the basis of her campaign.
“‘Aloha’ for us in Hawaii is a word that means so much more than ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye,’” Gabbard said. “When I greet you with aloha, when we greet each other with aloha, what we’re really saying is ‘I love you,” ‘I respect you.’”
That spirit can inform American politics, if people are willing to embrace it, Gabbard said.
This love and respect gets beyond and transcends any of the things that people tend to use to divide us. Whether it be the color of skin, who we love, how we worship, how much money we make — the things that people in positions of power often use to tear us apart — when we come together in this spirit of aloha, this is what brings us together, this is what connects us and unites us.
A deliberate strategy of divisiveness has been used by people in power — “people who are part of the professional political class in Washington, self-serving politicians, greedy corporate interests or lobbyists” — to advance their own narrow interests at the expense of everyone else, Gabbard said.

References

Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Folding some of that in with the existing sentence at the top of Political_positions:

For Gabbard, "foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy” and ending "regime change wars" is the best way to pay for other things Americans need.

Gabbard draws inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Dr. King was a forceful voice" during the Vietnam War era, against "regime-change policies that create a perpetual state of war, fueled by the military-industrial complex" and sees a close connection between Dr. King’s message and the "values of aloha" she grew up with. She explains that those values extend far beyond a simple ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’ to include "compassion, respect, and love" which "can inform American politics, if people are willing to embrace it". Gabbard sees the possibility of transcending things such as "color of skin, who we love, how we worship, how much money we make" that “people who are part of the professional political class in Washington, self-serving politicians, greedy corporate interests or lobbyists” use to divide us "to advance their own narrow interests at the expense of everyone else".

References

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That really doesn't say much about her actual political positions. I think the best approach here would be to look at the material from major secondary sources and try to summarize the key points. Politifact and The Guardian both have fairly recent profiles that briefly summarize her political views and could serve as good models here. Nblund ^talk 01:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Split effected: see Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard; see also new summary. Humanengr (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad you took the initiative Humanengr, thank you. I do wish we didn't have 1RR on this page, though, because the summary could still stand some ironing out. Well, I used up my 1RR fixing the claim Gabbard was saying stuff from military training in Indonesia (which I imagine would be illegal). Nblund has already accidentally violated 1RR. Should we ask admins to raise the limit for a while or not? (I won't be getting involved for at least 24 hours due to work obligations.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And a thx to you and Nblund for your help (and to all others who have contributed to this point). I'm ok with removing 1RR for the day but would defer to someone more experienced with such issues. Humanengr (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're referencing wrt to violating 1RR, but I think the current constraint is working reasonably well. If we all agree that an edit is reasonable, I'm sure we can just agree through local consensus to set 1RR aside for specific issues. Nblund ^talk 00:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard quote on Modi (and quotes in general)

This quote seems like a non-sequitur. The preceding sentence says that Theintercept reported she has connections to a Hindu Nationalist organization, but it doesn't mention Modi at all, and the article doesn't really base its claims primarily on her meeting Modi. So why do we quote Gabbard bringing him up here?

More broadly: there need to be some bare minimum standards placed on the decision to include quotes here. If Gabbard says something and we can't find any secondary reliable source that bothers with mentioning it, then it really isn't worth covering here. She's running a campaign, it's her job to say stuff. She says stuff every single day. We can't document it all. It makes sense to say she rebutted the claims, but every single paragraph doesn't need a quote. Nblund ^talk 16:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have rewritten that section removing the long quote. The person who added that had originally titled the ref rather flamboyantly (as "response to yellow-badging"), and while I'd changed the ref name to something more conservative, I hadn't thought about how to rephrase it yet. Given that Shankar's piece required the Intercept to retract part of the article, and given also that Shankar's article is/was overused in our entry, I think giving TG a right to response is normal. (For the entry's history, it might be worth noting that the article was first added by a now-blocked (and allegedly mis-identified) sockpuppet as a Honolulu Civil Beat reprint, possibly to avoid linking to the article where the retraction is noted). By a strange coincidence I was being personally attacked on my talk page by an SPA who will likely soon be blocked (§) at precisely the same moment I was getting an edit conflict trying to restore Gabbard's response. (You mentioned yarn & corkboard on another page, I believe... ^^) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Weird synchronicities aside, are you satisfied with the rewrite? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what your user page has to do with any of this. The rewrite addresses some of the quotefarm issues, but it still brings up Modi out of nowhere, and the larger problem is that the amount of detail is unbalanced. We should either be equally vague: The Intercept accused her of connections to ... and Gabbard rebutted these claims, and called the accusations bigoted. Or, alternatively, we should be equally specific: The Intercept accused Gabbard of connections to ... citing .... Gabbard rebutted these claims, explaining ... I think equal brevity is preferable here. As it stands, we are vague about what The Intercept said, but fairly specific about Gabbard's response. It gives the impression that The Intercept published an accusation based primarily on perusing her donor lists and meeting with Modi, when - in reality - neither of those things were particularly important in the story. Nblund ^talk 17:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

In re personal attacks, wouldn't a normal response be, "Geez that sort of behaviour is reprehensible"? Why, yes, I think it would be. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the substance, Gabbard is not responding only to Soumaya Shankar but to the general smear being repeated in the media. You are aware of this smear I believe since you recently pulled the only sentence out of a WaPo article recycling it and added it to the third sentence of the India section. The sentence you refer to begins: "Among other things, she’s been dogged by protesters who..." in the WaPo. You paraphrased that as "some critics ... charge". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's not a response to Soumaya, then why is it being quoted in a paragraph where every other sentence is about Soumaya's article? I'm aware that people have said she's too close to Hindu nationalists, but I'm not aware of anyone who bases that accusation solely on the fact that she met with Modi. It seems like we're "rebutting" a criticism that doesn't actually appear in the article. Nblund ^talk 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

1) It is a response specifically to Shankar's article that goes beyond Shankar's article, specifically mentioning the media campaign (you wanted that specificity deleted, as it went into too much gory detail...) 2) I'm confused. In my preceding comment, I pointed out that you added a sentence referring to critics criticizing Gabbard about Modi, and above you seem to be saying it doesn't appear in the en.wp article, despite being mentioned in the second (author: Snoogans) & third (author: Nblund) sentences of the section. 3) It seems a bit disingenuous to divert attention from Modi since his name is part of the first noun phrase in the Shankar article and is repeated 18 times. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay - can you cite the part where Shankar says Gabbard is a Hindu nationalist simply because she met with Modi? If we're citing the counterpoint, we have to cite the point itself, so you need to find that part of Shankar's article. The intro paragraph states that she has been criticized for her support for Modi because she has repeatedly praised him, it does not say that she has been criticized simply for meeting with Modi. Her links to him obviously go far beyond that, so it's really misleading to portray the debate that way. Nblund ^talk 18:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that content shouldn't be included unless it's sourced to reliable secondary sources. In other words, no content sourced to the campaign itself or Gabbard comments plucked out of transcripts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, this represents an evolution from your policy on the Jill Stein page where you cited tweets and WaPo interview transcripts extensively. Have you gone back and removed all that stuff? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of my edits on that page were made as a novice editor. As I grew more experienced, I learned Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't you go back and fix your mistakes? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

World Hindu Congress

I'm not sure what readers are supposed to take away from this stuff about Gabbard declining to participate in the World Hindu Congress. The paragraph doesn't even explain what the event is, or why her planned participation was significant. Again, it seems like we're citing Gabbard's rebuttal to a criticism without actually citing the criticism itself. My preference would be to simply remove the paragraph - but if we're going to talk about it, we should explain why anyone would care. Nblund ^talk 18:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We're simply providing evidence from RS that Gabbard refuses to engage in partisan Indian politics. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Providing evidence"? That sounds more or less like you're saying we should cite this because it helps to rebut a criticism of Gabbard. That's... not what Wikipedia does. The Intercept notes that the World Hindu Congress was organized by a Hindu nationalist organization, and that Gabbard had previously had no problem participating with other events organized by Indian political parties. So, once again, we're citing a rebuttal but not the criticism. If you want to include this, then it means we need to add the context that explains why anyone should care. Nblund ^talk 18:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Add away.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My preference would be to avoid adding more of this, because its just a bit of minutiae in an article that has entirely too much already. Can you explain why it's significant? The reason above seems transparently non-neutral. I suspect the reason this article has so much WP:CRUFT is because editors have done exactly this "if I can't remove it, I'll just add more crap to balance it out" in the past. It doesn't improve the entry. Nblund ^talk 18:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Simple, because she's being smeared as a Hindu nationalist supporter, which she does not appear to be. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Where does the cited source say that?Nblund ^talk 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, this earlier version also had problems, but it did explain why the event was being covered: it was organized by the same Hindu Nationalist groups (the VHPA and the RSS) that The Intercept has linked her to. That source cited her initial involvement as evidence of her ties to India's far right, and so I don't really so how we can justify spinning it to imply the opposite of that. Like I said: I think covering this is really just kind of WP:UNDUE, but if we discuss it with appropriate context, that means we're going to be discussing the smears in even greater detail. Nblund ^talk 20:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass removals / 1RR

Nblund just did a lot of mass removal. It is not possible for me to reinstate any of the material removed without violating 1RR because Nblund has made an intervening edit added a single character to the article. I will simply report the removals I may decide to restore later here unless well-reasoned policy-based reasons are given. Others may wish to look into the many other things which were removed / modified.

1. [21] (religious bigotry section): this is a repeated *policy* position that Gabbard has hit on throughout her career
2. [22] (removes articles by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter & MIT professor Theodore Postol on the chemical attacks in Syria: both articles refer specifically to Gabbard, and represent a response to the clamor about Gabbard having a *policy* of being circumspect and analyzing the evidence)
3. [23] (removes two RS about a bill concerning legislation aimed at eliminating corporate PAC money. The articles mention that Gabbard is one of only four House politicians to make it a *policy* not to accept such monies.)

I disagree with all three removals.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding 1 and 3: "themes" are not policy positions, and a single anecdote is not a theme. The "campaign finance" section did not concern legislation - it concerned a personal pledge related to her campaign. Oddly enough the HuffPo article cited in that section is mainly about how she accepted donations from major defense contractors in her 2016 campaign, and The Intercept citation notes that PACs are a "drop-in-the-bucket" and that Gabbard still has lots of high-dollar backers. It's probably best to just put this on the entry for her campaign, but if we're discussing her campaign finances practices, we should cover it neutrally.

Regarding 2: if its a noteable opinion, we should be able to find a better-quality reference for it. The claim that the attacks are a false flag is just a wild conjecture, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Nblund ^talk 18:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

1) I corrected my mistaken use of the word "theme" before you replied because I thought it might lead to this sort of reply.

2) I am not sure what to say about this, because keeping an open-mind is considered fringe these days and is grounds for being labeled a wrong-thinker. It's almost like we haven't learned from history. It's odd that former UN weapons inspectors and MIT professors are said to be advancing "fringe" theories...

3) I think you'll find that the Intercept article you deleted is about HR 1: [24]. This should be in political positions article, which could be split to a separate page from her BLP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you want, but "policy positions" sections typically deal with legislative or other government issues, not personal philosophies or anecdotes about things she said once. Gabbard's position on HR 1 would certainly be a policy position, but that's not the content I removed, and that article doesn't actually mention her stance on it, so I'm really not sure what your point is. WP:FRINGE is mostly defined by coverage in reliable sources. Can you find coverage of this position in generally accepted reliable sources? Nblund ^talk 19:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

#2 is a violation of WP:FRINGE, so the content should not be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

quotes in general

[referring to cmts above]

@Nblund: Re your "If Gabbard says something and we can't find any secondary reliable source that bothers with mentioning it, then it really isn't worth covering here." Can you cite specific policy text supporting that?

Same to Snooganssnoogans re your "I think a lot of the content sourced to RS can be trimmed and that pretty much all the 'pol positions' content sourced to Gabbard can be removed." and "Agreed that content shouldn't be included unless it's sourced to reliable secondary sources. In other words, no content sourced to the campaign itself or Gabbard comments plucked out of transcripts." Humanengr (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE weight. Obviously we can't just copy-paste her entire stump speech here, so how do we differentiate between what warrants inclusion and what doesn't if we don't defer to other sources? What other standard would you prefer? Nblund ^talk 22:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Which part of WP:DUE are you referencing? As to "entire stump speech" — a) do you have a particular cite for that and b) what fraction of that do you estimate was quoted? As to "what warrants inclusion", which specific policy text are you referring to for that? Humanengr (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The part that says we cover things in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. If the only place we can find something is on Gabbard's webpage, then the "appropriate" proportion is close to zero. My reference to her stump speech was a hypothetical: if we say "all materials from her website can be included" then what would stop someone from just copying her entire stump speech here? We need an objective standard in order to decide what to include here. The best standard is to look at reliable sources to see what gets covered and what doesn't. Nblund ^talk 00:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this the phrasing you are citing: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" ? Humanengr (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be the most important part, yeah. That's also part of the general thrust of sections like WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but to be clear: we don't have explicit rules to prohibit every bad idea, so there's not going to be a policy page that says "campaign quotes can't be included in articles about candidates". Nblund ^talk 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nblund. If news media ignore something, then it lacks weight. ABOUTSELF presents another issue: stated positions are sometimes not clearly presented. While that may or may not be a problem with Gabbard, it can be with many politicians, particularly on the fringe. The far right for example usually describe themselves as pro-free speech supporters of racial equality, religious freedom and democracy, while reliable sources describe them as opposed to all of them. While we might quote their stated positions, we only do so once we present how they are described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Reform

@Xenagoras: these edits to the campaign finance reform do add a lot of useful material on her policies, but I removed some of the stuff that didn't appear relevant to Gabbard herself. There's also a lot of reference to congressional bills, but its not clear to me that her co-sponsorships received any recognition in reliable sources. I think there's some space for including primary sources in this entry, but to have a section that is mostly based on those is a problem. Do you know of other sources that have covered these bills? Nblund ^talk 22:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I added sources that mention the HJR 48 and the Government by the People Act. My original version of this policy section served the purpose of giving an introduction to the problem, Gabbard's actions to fix it, the context of Gabbard's action (her coordination with the No PAC Caucus and related legislation like the No PAC Act) and a chronological ordering of everything aforementioned. I would like to have some kind of introductory paragraph describing the type and severity of the problem of special interest money in Congress. Maybe you can come up with a concise description? Xenagoras (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so there's 4 sources in this edit (1, 2, 3, 4) but none of appear to mention Gabbard. HR 20 had 163 co-sponsors in the 115th Congress. That's about 80% of the House Democratic Caucus, and Gabbard has co-sponsored over 1000 bills. I really don't think this is all that noteworthy for her. Can you point to reliable secondary sources that cite her involvement as important?

Explaining the larger problem with corporate money is kind of outside the scope of the entry - for the same reason that we don't explain climate change in the section on environmental policy. Nblund ^talk 01:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I did a make-over of Campaign finance reform, adding many sources. I am convinced H.R.20 is noteworthy since the Financial Times calls campaign finance reform a "signature policy" of Gabbard and the Intercept reports Gabbard is one of only 4 Congressmembers that do not take corporate donations, which means campaign finance reform is extremely important to Gabbard.

Your point about explaining climate change in environmental policy is valid, but keep in mind that climate change has been talked and written about in vast amounts and for many years. On the other side, the problem with campaign finance is neglected by corporate mass media. There is only an extremely low number of corporate mass media articles about the campaign finance reform, and the few who write about it even dismiss reform as useless or even claim the "effects of so-called big money on American politics are largely positive". They don't bite the hand that feeds them. Xenagoras (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the FT source - could you briefly quote the material you're referencing? Campaign finance reform may be a signature issue for her, but I'm asking specifically whether her involvement in HR 20 is significant. The Intercept does not mention her involvement, for instance. If readers need more information on the context surrounding campaign finance reform, they can click the links to the other Wikipedia entries. Nblund ^talk 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, The FT article contains a profile of the 2020 democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. In this context, it describes her in short sentences and lists her prominent features. One of these features are her "signatures policies", for which FT lists 3 policies, one of them being "campaign finance reform". Ballot Pedia mentions H.R.20 as a legislation by Gabbard.

Wikipedia offers information to the world about Tulsi Gabbard and her policies, e.g. on campaign finance reform. You should not try to make it harder than necessary for the world to find out which political actions Gabbard conducted and which plans she has. Overall you added 3005 bytes to Gabbard's article (mostly by reverting your own deletions) and deleted 19903 bytes (which is 25% of all info on Gabbard). Your net contribution to Gabbard is negative 16898 bytes of text. Xenagoras (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like the FT source doesn't mention HR 20 at all, correct? The Ballotpedia mention appear to be quoting directly from her webpage. I think one way to make things easier for readers is by ensuring that the article is brief and neutral, and covers only the significant points that are relevant to the encyclopedia. So I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more. I'm not trying to be difficult, but unless you can demonstrate that this is WP:DUE for inclusion, it needs to go. Nblund ^talk 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, please read WP:DUE again and also my elaboration below. WP:DUE requires that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." WP:DUE regulates how much space "minority" opinions may consume in relation to "mainstream" opinions. The fact that Gabbard co-sponsored H.R.20 is a fact, not an opinion. And the content of H.R.20 is also a fact, not an opinion. Therefore WP:DUE does not apply here, because it only applies to opinions. Xenagoras (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not correct. WP:DUE applies to "views or aspects" of an issue. Even factual information can be WP:UNDUE. Per WP:BALASP some facts may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.. This is also part of WP:IINFO. Obviously, we could write a article with purely factual information that might still fail to be neutral. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE always applies to views = opinions, but never to facts. All mentions of aspects in WP:DUE exist in sentences about views and therefore the aspects in WP:DUE are aspects of views. An aspect is the way something appears when viewed from a certain direction or perspective. I recommend an administrator should clarify the description in WP:DUE. I could do that myself but don't want to edit Wikipedia's policy when an admin can and should do that instead.

You are correct that WP:BALASP applies to facts as well as views = opinions. WP:BALASP regulates how much space a segment of any content type (fact or opinion) shall consume in relation to other segments in the same article. WP:BALASP applies to "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports. ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.". Therefore WP:BALASP does not apply in regard to the question whether or not to include H.R.20 in the article, because Gabbard's support for H.R.20 is a permanent policy, not an isolated event, not a criticism, and not a news report.

WP:IINFO states, articles should not be "summary-only descriptions of creative works" or "lyrics databases" or "excessive listings of unexplained statistics" or "Exhaustive logs of software updates". Gabbard's support for H.R.20 is not in any of these categories. WP:IINFO therefore does not apply.

You wrote above, "I'm not trying to be difficult", but I have grown doubts about this, since you don't seem to have a full understanding of the applicable Wikipedia policies for this content dispute, yet you keep coming back at me with ever new policies that you hope will support your opinion, but they fail to do that. Additionally you have misquoted the article content, and made a logical fallacy in an attempt to prove your opinion, as I have explained in the last 2 sentences here. You give the impression to be WP:LAWYER. You also wrote, "So I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more." Please put more consideration into your next plan to cut something. Xenagoras (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I am sorry for not giving an explanation for my diffs. Here you go: At the begin of the section, I restored the reference to the source Lahaina News because the source states in 2016, "Gabbard's office last week announced..." and there is time gap between the date in this source and the other source (Congress). But I am fine with the current text which omits the announcement and only refers to the event of co-sponsoring the resolution. I removed the Huff Post sourced text because you did not seem to be too happy with it, and I see it as a hit piece against Gabbard that is redundant to another source. Lastly, I restored the quote from End Citizens United because it's the only source in the current version that mentions that Gabbard is member of the No PAC Caucus. I was attempting to create a text version synthesized from both your and my wishes in iterative edit cycles. WP:EDITCONSENSUS That didn't work out perfectly (my bad for not explaining diffs), thus we arrived at WP:BRD. I thought "reverting" means using the "undo" function for a diff. In my understanding, my changes were neither a complete revert/reversion according to WP:RV, nor did they follow the pattern "You remove most of the new paragraph, but leave one or two sentences" of a partial reversion, instead my changes followed the pattern "You re-phrase the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article" of a normal change. I will aim to be more careful in observing the WP:1RR rule and would like to continue with WP:EDITCONSENSUS whenever possible to save time. Xenagoras (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with removing the HuffPo source, but we do need to apply consistent standards with regard to WP:DUE weight. It applies to both negative and positive information. The statement that she stopped taking corporate money is not really any more or less noteworthy than the fact that she received corporate money previously. The same thing goes for her endorsement from the ECU. If we can find additional secondary sourcing for this stuff, then its warranted, but if our only source is an announcement from her website, then it's probably not worthy for inclusion.

My understanding is that the "revert" would include stuff like restoring a section that was previously removed - so the recreating of the section was the first revert. Either way, I don't think its a big deal, but I wanted to give you a heads up since you're a relatively new account. Nblund ^talk 15:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, WP:DUE weight does not require equal weight of positive and negative info on a topic. It also does not require creating any "due weighting" according to some "criteria" between positive and negative info. WP:DUE requires that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." There is no requirement to insert negative information just for the sake of having it. I have no problem with negative information as long as it is fairly expressed. The Huff Post article is not fair, because it contains misleading text used to paint Gabbard as a hypocrite und untrustworthy person, thereby attempting to undermine her support from her constituency base. It is a hit piece which does neither elaborate on Gabbard's motivation for abandoning corporate money nor on the overall problem of corporate money in politics. The statement that Gabbard stopped taking corporate money is more important than the fact that she previously received corporate money, because per 2018 Gabbard was one of only 4 Congressmembers to do that. Her stance is a minority of 0.7% of Congressmembers, her stance is therefore noteworthy. End Citizens United's endorsement for Gabbard is not sourced via Gabbard, but via End Citizens United. Xenagoras (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it required equal parts negative and positive information. I said that due weight applies regardless of whether the information is positive or negative. It also applies even if you personally believe that the article in question is a "hit piece" or whether it is fair to the subject. If a single sentence mention of Gabbard in The Intercept is worth including, then it's hard to see how you could justify excluding an entire article about her in the Huffington Post. Her endorsement from End Citizens United does not appear to be referenced by mainstream secondary sources. Again, we need to look to reliable sources to establish WP:DUE weight. Nblund ^talk 21:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"best way to pay for other things Americans need"

@Nblund, revisiting this edit: This is the key aspect of her framing; it distinguishes her from other candidates who say domestic needs can’t be addressed until we ‘balance the budget’ by fixing things -within- the domestic side, e.g., by ‘fixing entitlements’. Humanengr (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do we have to pussyfoot around the issue (both sides of this edit)? Gabbard believes because of our interventionist foreign policy [25] causing regime change wars [26] we spend too much on Defense [27] and by reducing Defense spending it will leave more money available to fix domestic issues. Euphemistic phrases confuse people. Spell it out so our readers, remember that is who we are writing an encyclopedia for, can understand what her platform is. Trackinfo (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that's fine too. I think the stuff about the link between foreign and domestic policy is itself kind of a needless rhetorical flourish. My personal inclination is just to communicate that she is opposed to US foreign military interventions, but describes herself as "Hawkish on Islamic terrorism" and leave domestic policy for a different paragraph. That is more in line with how she's described by secondary sources like this one. But I'm all on board with direct language however we go about doing it. Nblund ^talk 00:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s not 'rhetorical flourish'; it’s federal budget math. Tulsi’s elaboration:

This is why I’m committed to serve as president and commander-in-chief, to bring about this change in our foreign policy that will end wasteful wars. Bring troops home, and take the trillions of dollars. We spent $6 trillion since 9/11 on these wars. This breaks my heart. As I travel across the country what I hear from folks at home, big cities and small towns, people say our teachers need to get paid with a deserve -- get paid what they deserved to teach our kids, they need supplies to make sure we had the best education. We need health care for everyone who needs it, whether they make a lot or a little bit of money. There are urgent needs but time and again, they are told there is not enough money. Yet they write a check, 4 billion dollars every month to afghanistan. That is what we are spending right now. The opioid epidemic is ravaging new hampshire, so many people across this country, yet we lack the kind of treatment facilities and opportunities for those who are victims of this epidemic. Told again, sorry, not enough This is why I will say it over and over, foreign policy cannot be separated from domestic policy. It’s why it’s critical that we end these wasteful wars and redirect these resources towards serving urgent needs here at home.'Conversation with the Candidate' with Tulsi Gabbard: Part 2

Clips from the links Trackinfo provided:

• an anti-interventionist Democrat who supports a populist economic agenda.
• "regime-change" wars … are an undue burden on the country spending, "adding trillions" to the deficit. "Those are dollars out of our pocket that will not be spent on our community," Gabbard said.
• Gabbard is calling for defense spending cuts and redirecting funds to address issues on the home front.

Thx for suggesting the "Hawkish on Islamic terrorism" point. I had left it out for brevity; will see about where to fit that best. Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "Gabbard favors cutting defense spending and redirecting those funds to domestic issues" or something along those lines would be good. I realize that's part of her campaign messaging, but that's why I think we should be wary of repeating it here. Campaign messaging is carefully crafted to make a case for why a candidate should be the nominee, so we run in to WP:NPOV problems if we rely too heavily on it to write the entry. The core question is not "how does Gabbard frame this issue?" its "how do reliable sources talk about her stances on issues"? Nblund ^talk 02:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How about we use your text in the main body and, in the cite or footnote, include this quote: "[F]oreign policy cannot be separated from domestic policy. … [I]t’s critical that we end these wasteful wars and redirect these resources towards serving urgent needs here at home." Humanengr (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How about both: Gabbard sees foreign and domestic policy as inseparable and favors cutting defense spending and redirecting those funds to domestic issue. Humanengr (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that if it is phrased as "Gabbard has said she sees" - I know it sounds verbose, but we can't give readers the impression that we're reading her mind. Nblund ^talk 03:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

When there is a dispute about an opinion expressed by a subject, I prefer to get it out of the horses mouth. I think the quote above can be pared down, remove the stumbles so it is cleaned up to achieve that result. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why I’m committed . . . to bring about this change in our foreign policy that will end wasteful wars. Bring troops home, and take the trillions of dollars. . . . There are urgent needs but time and again, they are told there is not enough money. Yet they write a check, 4 billion dollars every month to afghanistan. That is what we are spending right now. . . . This is why I will say it over and over, foreign policy cannot be separated from domestic policy. It’s why it’s critical that we end these wasteful wars and redirect these resources towards serving urgent needs here at home. Trackinfo (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a good approach Trackinfo. The quote seems to be a good summary of her thoughts. A direct quote bypasses Nblund concern and should produce a less tortuous sentence. Burrobert (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a direct statement like what was proposed above (change "sees" to "says" and the quibble about seeing into someone's thoughts disappears, since she has actually said this):

Gabbard says foreign and domestic policy are inseparable, and favors redirecting money spent on regime change wars to domestic issues.

This is meant to be an overview, long quotes can go into the quote fields of references or to the political positions page. Also in re: "rhetorical flourish" / carefully crafted language: keep in mind that the defense in defense industry is "language carefully crafted to encourage" spending on bombs, missiles, fighter jets, etc., etc.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see the problem with a direct statement, and we use far too many quotes already. Changing "sees" to "says" looks good to me. The "defense" in defense industry is also a widely accepted terminology, and it's not really our job to correct biases inherent in vernacular English, but we could also say "military spending". Nblund ^talk 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)