Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Anti-gay advocacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems per 19 Jan, 2020

Lede: LGBT rights vs same-sex marriage

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

2002 vow to amend constitution

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

Hawaii school related text and redundant content fork vs brief summary

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

LGBT caucus membership

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

Undue weighting of obsolete vs current stance

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Her opposition to anti-bullying research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

The change by SashiRolls from:

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

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promotional content

I removed some material earlier today because it is mostly promotional, trivial, or self-serving. For example "Gabbard says that her politics and policies are driven by her military experience" and "the first Samoan–American voting member of Congress". Also, "She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People’s Platform: Medicare for All, transitioning to clean renewable energy, criminal justice reform, and making Wall Street pay their fair share. She has been a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy.'" I'm opposed to these being restored and expanded by Xenagoras. This material tends to make the article look like a campaign website. - MrX 🖋 02:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Gabbard's policies and politics being shaped by her military service has been very widely reported in RS and Gabbard herself cites it very often. It guides her political and military life since 2004. It is therefore WP:DUE to be included in the lede. Lack of diversity of ethnicity among the Democratic presidential candidates on the debate stage has been a big issue during the Democratic primary 2019.[39] Gabbard's ethnicity is therefore WP:DUE to be included in the lede. You deleted [40] a RS which stated that Gabbard's domestic policy platform ... is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects".[41] and you requested other quality sources saying this. I delivered several other quality sources saying this, e.g. the one you object against now: [42] It states, Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders' campaign, said "She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People's Platform: Medicare for All, transitioning to clean renewable energy, criminal justice reform, and making Wall Street pay their fair share. ... a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy." This quote is a concise description of Gabbard's policies and explains why she is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects." It does not make much sense to delete RS claiming a lack of corroborating sources and then to object to the inclusion of the requested corroborating reliable sources. It seems you just don't like it. Xenagoras (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A lot of what you added was promotional and not fitting for a WP:BLP. ContentEditman (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

ContentEditman, I disagree, because firstly I mainly restored content from other editors that MrX deleted without sufficient reason and without preceding establishing of consensus here. Secondly, the new text I added came from RS and were partially requested by MrX [43] as corroboration for existing sourced text. Thirdly, none of the material I added came from Gabbard or her campaign. Fourthly, you did not give any example of what you claim to be promotional. Therefore I assume you mean the same content that MrX claims to be "promotional, trivial, or self-serving" and will continue to discuss that content directly with MrX. Xenagoras (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Gabbard's military career is modest and we already cover it quite extensively in the article, in seven paragraphs, and obliquely in several more paragraphs. That out to be enough for someone whose relevant military career lasted about five years. It may seem that I don't like it, when in fact I'm neutral on the content itself, but I don't like the WP:UNDUE weight given it. I explained why I deleted the Vox material. It is one point of view. There are plenty of sources that would argue against her being socially progressive.[44][45] I am firmly against any flattering quote from Gabbard fans at Our Revolution. While the quote you selected is indeed concise, it is not objective. Snippets like "transitioning to clean renewable energy" and "passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy" are red flag promotional phrases to be avoided in an encyclopedia article. - MrX 🖋 22:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not describe "the first Samoan–American voting member of Congress" as promotional, trivial or self-serving. It seems notable. Regarding the effect of her military experience on her policies, if that is what has been reported then it should be included. It would be good to expand on this statement in the page body and list from reliable sources specific ways in which her military experience has effected her policies. Regarding "passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy", perhaps remove the word “passionate”. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the page content, a sentence like that is reasonable there. In the body more detail of why she is described like that should be given with appropriate attributions.::: Burrobert (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Samoan–American member of congress is already in the page, so is her military career. In fact there is a whole section just for military service and military is in the article over a dozen times. Adding more information that is already present falls under WP:BLP balance. ContentEditman (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, the text Gabbard says that her politics and policies are driven by her military experience is not supposed to emphasize her achievements during her military career but to summarize the effect of her military experience on her policies (e.g. opposition to interventionism and the military–industrial complex since she realized that war is a racket [46] [47], and the reversal in her LGBT stance because of deployment with LGBT soldiers to Iraq) and the effect on her politics (e.g. opposition to lobbyism [48] and harsh criticism of corporate media [49] [50] [51] and her motto "service above self"). Perhaps a sentence Gabbard says that her politics and policies are driven by the experiences she made in the military avoids giving the impression of praising her military career when something completely different is meant. You claim you were "neutral on the content itself", but you again deleted [52] all text about Gabbard's post 2012 stance on LGBT issues from the lede, leaving in the lede only her obsolete pre-2012 stance. This grossly misrepresents her actual LGBT policy as I have explained to you [53] when you did that deletion the previous time. [54] Do you not remember that you wrote [55] "consensus has already been established ... that we must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead." two weeks ago? Why do you edit in opposition to the consensus you claim to follow? This time you "justified" your deletion by claiming her current LGBT policy were "UNDUE for lead. It's based on her own comments!" But the text you deleted is based on the reliable source ABC News. If ABC News thought Gabbard would be dishonest, ABC would not have printed it or contrasted it with contradicting information. This also shows an old editing pattern [56] of yours: You dispute the reliability of apparently good sources. You explained you deleted [57] Gabbard's domestic policy platform ... is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects" because you felt "More than a passing mention from this one source is needed to support such a claim in Wikipedia's voice. What other quality sources say this?" I inserted several corroborating sources which describe Gabbard's progressive policies in summary and in detail.[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] You claim "There are plenty of sources that would argue against her being socially progressive", and give as source CBS which disproves your assertion by writing Gabbard ... who backed Bernie Sanders in the last Democratic primary, fuses progressive policy stances... and Guardian which also disproves your assertion by describing her socially progressive policies: She has the support of Bernie Sanders, the de facto leader of the progressive movement, and boasts of endorsements from a string of liberal-friendly groups. ... Planned Parenthood and National Nurses United have all given Gabbard their blessing. Her re-election bid drew the endorsement of Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders’ campaign. "She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People’s Platform: Medicare for All, ... criminal justice reform..." Our Revolution are not fans of Gabbard but the remainder of Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign: [66] Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders’ campaign. Of course my quote is not objective because it does not measure the length of a pencil but it describes an opinion about a person which means it is always subjective. Transitioning to clean renewable energy is not a "red flag promotional phrase" but a standard term in politics and even has two wikipedia articles about it: Energy transition and 100% renewable energy as well as a plethora of scientific and political organizations and websites dedicated to this topic. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] and of course media reports using that term: [75] [76]. Passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy is a description of Gabbard by the Sanders-NGO Our Revolution. I put the quotes from Our Revolution into the quote tag of the reference to make clear that this reference strongly supports the assertion that Gabbard is "economic and socially progressive". We can remove the "flattering" aspect of what they said. Xenagoras (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras I'm sorry, but your (very wordy) reasoning does not sway me from my previous view that the material is promotional and WP:UNDUE. You really need to seek consensus for including it and not just repeatedly force it back into the article. - MrX 🖋 13:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter lead too. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the effect of her military service on her policies here is an interesting quote from a recent NYTimes article:

"Gabbard’s signature issues

Ms. Gabbard was deployed to Iraq and currently serves as a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard. She has leaned on her background as a service member in making foreign policy her chief concern. Specifically, she is urging the United States to get out of foreign wars and focus on peacebuilding. She has also warned that a nuclear arms race could be on the horizon." Burrobert (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but you can only say that so many times in an biography before it sounds like you are beating on a drum to convince readers that she is the most militarily-experienced candidate since Eisenhower. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disparity of treatment between candidate's BLPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first female combat veteran ever to run for president, the only woman of color in the race

I'm opposed to this material which has been added to the article (the second time, in violation of the page editing restriction):

Tulsi accused CNN for airing "Russian Puppet" remarks made by Bakari Sellers. Later CNN did not invite Gabbard to their town hall events leading into the New Hampshire primary, despite polling higher than several other attendees. Gabbard said that her campaign has reached out several times but, "I don't even think we've gotten a response to date about why they're excluding the first female combat veteran ever to run for president, the only woman of color in the race."

Sources

The material improperly elevates Gabbard's self-serving quote. It is based on questionable sources and opinions, and gives WP:UNDUE coverage to a minor recent incident. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I only made one revert, also fixed the POV to be more neutral in that revert. My earlier edit was only adding references. Should the quote be removed entirely? Paul "The Wall" (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paul "The Wall": Read your talk page and please self-revert. I wrote nothing about you making more than one revert. Your assertion that your edit fixes POV does not stand up to scrutiny. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't just object to the quote. I objected to the entire edit, including the sketchy sources. - MrX 🖋 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Political positions

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

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

PoC:

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

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

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

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

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

Bad sources

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

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

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

Yes, Some of the other candidate's bio are in terrible shape. We should be using them as the prototype. We should always look for the most reputable sources for any material. If material can only be found in press releases, newsletters, blogs, primary source documents, or the subject's own website, it should almost always be left out. Any editor who wants to to include such marginally sourced content needs to make the case on the talk page per WP:ONUS. An example of where this is problematic is the self-sourced claim that she "led an effort to pass legislation to assist victims of military sexual trauma". The reality is that she only co-introduced it into the house. Also, the resulting senate bill has been criticized for doing the opposite of what Gabbard gushed about in her press release.[77] - MrX 🖋 14:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr. Reason.com, the website of the Reason Magazine, is a reliable source. There is a list of their staff: [78]. MrX, you have no support in policy for your claim about which material should almost always be left out. You wrote [79], we should always look for the most reputable sources for any material, but you inserted the same factually false claim into this BLP four times [80] [81] [82] [83] although I had explained [84] to you why the claim is false and although you previously also inserted sources disproving that claim.[85] [86] You never attempted to build consensus before inserting false or otherwise inappropriate (obsolete or non neutral) content, or before deleting pertinent reliably sourced content. You claimed to edit WP:BOLDly instead. Therefore don't argue that other editors have the WP:ONUS to build consensus with you before adding material. WP:POTKETTLE The policy which determines which true factual statements should be included is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Xenagoras (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure why you wholesale reverted all my edits,[87] Xenagoras. Why don't we discuss the content, item by item, and see if we can come to a compromise or concession. Kind of like how I compromised on the wording of the LGBT material in the lead, and conceded on military service in the lead, Samoan-American in the lead, and many other such disputed items. And please, no accusations of bad faith or wrongdoing. We're all trying to make the article better. - MrX 🖋 03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

SharabSalam, you wrote "Challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus." Then why did you just re-add [88] the Equality Caucus material; the Gabbard-sourced "very socially conservative home" material; the Distinguished Honor graduate material; the self-congratulatory (and self-sourced) military sexual trauma material; and the intertwined material? That is exactly the opposite of what you claimed here and in your edit summary. - MrX 🖋 04:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

References

Removing duplicate material and reordering LGBT section

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

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

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

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

MrX, please stop trying to damage her image by removing information about her pro-LGBT activism and replacing it with her obsolete anti-LGBT activism as you did again. [89] Xenagoras (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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