Talk:Neera Tanden

Voice

I heard her on NPR today (http://www.npr.org/2015/06/12/413849106/hillary-clinton-to-address-economic-issues-in-campaign-speech) and was astonished to learn that she is 35 years old. Her voice is that of a 6 year old. ---Dagme (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Viewpoints

The most interesting thing about Tanden, I think, is that she shows the debate within the Democratic Party, on appointing minorities vs. white guys, or not attacking Bernie Sanders,l for example. Much of this came out in Wikileaks in more detail than you usually get in politics. I think we should have more of it in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks "revelations"?

The section presents three different attempts to use Neera Tanden's stolen private emails to attack her. None of these attempts was particularly astute or on target, but Wikipedia is currently promoting them just as the Clinton-attacking team wanted to see them used, but omits context in which her emails were sent.

• Mentions the classy response from Lessig but not the date (August 11, 2015) of Tanden's email or the context, that Lessig just launched his own exploratory campaign for president at that time.[1] Let me also mention part of Lessig's classy response our article doesn't include: "Neera has only ever served in the public (and public interest) sector. Her work has always and only been devoted to advancing her vision of the public good. It is not right that she should bear the burden of this sort of breach."
• Pushes the "Israel is depressing" quote without informing our readers it was a response to email from Podesta about recent election victory of right-wing Israeli leader Netanyahu.
• Saying (again, in a private and stolen email) that HRC's instincts were "suboptimal"--how did this frank comment have any impact on HRC's campaign, on the career of Neera Tanden, or on anything else?

I am going to shorten this section drastically (WP:UNDUE) and change the POV title "Wikileaks revelations" to something more neutral. The point of this biography is to provide encyclopedic information to people who want to learn more about Neera Tanden, not to provide a COATRACK for people who hope to use it to embarrass her. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be sections on the controversies involving her?

I can think of at least three off the top of my head:

1. Calling for Libya to repay the US for the invasion

2. Getting Matt Bruenig fired for calling her a "scumbag"

3. This latest sexual harassment stuff.

I came here to refresh myself on these and could not find anything on them. (Comment above by IP [2]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article is a place to find reliably-sourced information relevant to Neera Tanden's career, which is what most people want when they come to Wikipedia. If your goal is to review attacks on Neera Tanden, Google can help you. When/if some controversy becomes significant enough to win a place in our short narrative of Tanden's career, that controversy will show up in Wikipedia, with citations from reliable sources that think it is significant. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So HouseOfChange has a history of consistently removing all controversies related to all political figures they have personal admiration for. This is not how Wikipedia works. I added information about the sexual harassment stuff, and they deleted it instantly, and called for me to be banned from editing altogether, this despite the fact that I used multiple credible sources, including reporting from the Center For American Progress (where the controversy happened) journalistic arm, "ThinkProgress".

You should be banned from editing if your only goal here is to shove things down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezau (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agree! Seriously, the absence of controversies renders this article useless for anyone who actually wants to know what a person or an organization is all about. I thought "Controversies" was pretty standard as a section in biographies of living persons. When someone is professionally involved in political faction-fights, their omission is ridiculous. I've encountered dozens of criticisms and controversies concerning Ms Tanden while trying to follow American politics from abroad by means of skimming internet news and half-listening to panels and commentaries. I was never able to get a clear understanding of what it was about, other than its having something to do with her upholding Hillary Clinton's brand of corporate centrism—so I came here to review the basics, and found no clues, just the usual claim made by such people to being "progressive" and so forth. Surely someone knowledgable is capable of explaining Tanden's positions and the argumentation around them? Also, there seems to be a pattern in both this and the related article about her CAP PAC, of referring to any kind of criticism as an "attack" without any suggestion of substantive issues involved — as if it's all gratuitous and without merit, perhaps from hate groups. I'm not suggesting the article should be hostile or dismissive; it would be great to see some substantive and reasonably respectful summaries of both sides of various controversies so readers can make up their own minds. That would certainly show more respect for Ms Tanden than the current puff-piece. Do you believe she really wants to be written up as if she were a professional hostess for debutante parties, or a spokeswoman for a harmless ineffectual charity? If she does, she surely should have chosen some such line of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.74.218 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Neera Tanden is a controversial figure and her reputation as a "progressive" is highly debated. For example, she is famous for criticizing the progressive platform of Bernie Sanders (the most progressive platform in mainstream American politics). She has also assaulted a journalist for asking questions about the Iraq War. It's a serious offense, relevant to her career in politics, and should not be omitted. Yet it has been deleted from her Wikipedia page. That's not right. --Ummyaaaa (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there is an entire cottage industry out there manufacturing attacks on Tanden, misrepresenting her, or blowing her comments or actions out of prop, I am firmly siding with HouseOfChange. It’s a Wikipedia article. Unless you all plan to email Tanden and get her to tell her side of the story so it can be included, we shouldn’t include attacks either. Let me put it this way: the Wikipedia entries of a lot of more prominent and more "controversial" individuals do not have sections devoted to "controversies", this shouldn't be any different here just because the people with a grudge against Tanden happen to be Very Online. User1956a (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Not liking Bernie Sanders" does not mean her Wikipedia page has to include smears of her. This is personality cult level stuff. User1956a (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the above unsigned user was unable to find any details on controversies surrounding her, and in fact found a description of them incomprehensible, tells you how valid they are. Disagreeing with Bernie Sanders is not a controversy. Bewildered Oregonian (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CAP sexual harassment news

This April 27, 2018 BuzzFeed article provides context and NPOV account of a recent story that Aheezau wants to see added: [3] Here is a quote from that story: "In an all-staff meeting on Wednesday, Tanden named one of the women who reported Strong "unintentionally," according to a CAP spokesperson. But the name disclosure left some staffers questioning Tanden's ability to handle issues of sexual harassment at the organization."

This story belongs in the Center for American Progress article, but I am not sure Tanden's blunder in a staff meeting is going to be important enough to her career to be added to this article. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over "associated with the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party."

There's a revert war going on the heading of the page over this phrase. I find the characterization to be non-controversial and sourced, but perhaps it would be worded in a more neutral manner? I think it's an important detail because it gives context to her activities post-Obama. @User:Farlandia, what's your concern? Jonathan Williams (talk)

Tanden explicitly contradicts, in the article cited, the claim that CAP is "Clinton wing":

In a 30-minute phone interview with The New Republic, Tanden stood by the quality of CAP’s work and the organization’s ability to push a diverse set of progressive ideas, pointing to CAP proposals like paid family leave, which were adopted by Sanders and not Clinton. She noted CAP’s work on issues like income inequality, foreign policy, and education, some of which have not been picked up by Clinton...

If you want to "give context to her activities post-Obama" it makes sense to mention her support for Hillary Clinton, even in the lead. I have changed the lead so that it now says this. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Incoming flak

This article is seeing a surge of vandalism, probably as a result of a letter written by Bernie Sanders that called out CAP and Tanden saying she "repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas." It would be good if the article could be semi-protected for a week or so, so we don't have to clean up after edits such as "her masterful ability to troll earned her the epithet “Scumbag Neera”" snd "She is best known for her attacks against healthcare and working mothers on welfare." 02:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hawkish

"She was described as a "hawkish". In September 2013"

Reference? ---Dagme (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Just took a look at this. The word 'hawkish' is used by both references in the previous sentence, to articles in Salon and The Intercept. Mind you, neither is exactly a politically neutral source themselves. Robofish (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Political Views

The recent additions made concerning foreign policy have been tendentious and hostile rather than neutral. If the leaked email - which did not lead to her or CAP endorsing the position she inquired about - is deemed by the majority to be crucial to describing Tanden’s views (I don’t thing it is a good representation of her views at all, especially because she has repeatedly clarified that she does not hold this position), it needs to be kept in a more neutral and less openly biased tone. Repeated edits to reverse it to a more leading description of her position do not seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia’s mission User1956a (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I restored the wholesale deletion of the paragraph so that people can make an effort at presenting the material from an NPOV. Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather than leaving two heavily POV paragraphs in the article, we should reach consensus here on the talk page before installing a version people agree on. The first paragraph, cited to InfluenceWatch, which is a wiki not RS, implies guilt by association for CAP. This is the article for Neera Tanden, not for CAP. The paragraph is not only POV but offtopic. It contains zero information about Neera Tanden. The second paragraph re-visits a controversy pushed back in 2015 by Intercept (hardly RS regarding Tanden), ascribing to Tanden opinions that she has disclaimed. There is zero evidence presented that she ever acted on or promoted these particular ideas she discussed in private emails. There is therefore zero evidence that these represent Neera Tanden's "Political Views." HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, you reverted both of my edits in a single revert. One of the edits was to restore the original opening paragraph wording. I will be reverting that as I don't see having the description of CAP match the CAP article itself as being controversial. Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the list of CAP donors doesn't make sense on a page about a person. The intercept article, while certainly not from a NPOV, provides commentary on emails from Tanden. Many other publications have cited Tanden's comments on Libya's oil: Jezebel, Salon. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Propose rewording the introductory statement containing "hawkish" to be more neutral. We should unclude the Libya comments as their significance has been noted in a variety of publications. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Including that kind of libelous crap material cited entirely to partisan, fringe sources on an article like this (that has higher standards per WP:BLP) would be undue. There's also problems with the writing style of the content and the sources themselves (Jezebel for example is a problem source per WP:RSP). If you have to include this stuff into the article, then there at the very least has to be a qualifier for it. Flaughtin (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue if we include a reference to her Libya email, we should make it clear that this was a question she asked one single time, that she has made no similar foreign policy statements, and that she has expressed regret about asking this question. We should take care not to present it as “her foreign policy views“, as the original addition did, because there is no evidence this is an accurate reflection of her overall views.

I also agree that removing the paragraph about CAP’s donors is the right move as it is not relevant to Tanden’s political views. User1956a (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not think a question from a single email that had literally no impact on her or CAP’s argued position needs to be mentioned in her Wikipedia article at all, but once again if the majority thinks it is relevant enough to be included, we need to take great care to accurately convey the context and her statements expressing regret for even asking about this User1956a (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: I agree 100%. I personally think, given Tanden’s own explanation and the hostile (to her) lean of the sources we should not include this at all, especially because it does not reflect her views on foreign policy. If we choose to include it at all, we have to take great care how to present it accurately and in a non-biased non-tendentious fashion. User1956a (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this topic is coming up again with recent edits: in my opinion it is not appropriate to include the leaked Libya email issue in the Political Views section, since those are demonstrably not Tanden’s political views, as she has repeatedly clarified.

I have also not yet seen evidence why this should be included at all, since it does not in my opinion rise to the level of relevance for her career to be part of her Wikipedia entry User1956a (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to repeat my suggestion that because of the repeated vandalism and hostile/misleading/tendentious edits to this page, all major changes or additions to the page should be drafted and discussed here before being published. This will ensure that the tone of the article remains neutral/objective and the content appropriate User1956a (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here except for @Jonathan Williams: argued against including the reference to the Libya email, I do not see how that justifies his repeated attempts to singlehandedly include them anyway. @HouseOfChange: suggested reaching a consensus here first, which we have not done. User1956a (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose we address the Libya comments separately – the above discussion also related to CAP donors and other parts things that have been mangled by your continued one-sided policing of discussion. No one else has specifically addressed the Libya comments other than us. Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well @HouseOfChange: has stated views on re the Libya email and so has @Flaughtin:, both in my opinion clearly against including it User1956a (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There has to be some standard as to what can be called a person's political views, and I don't see how a single question could meet any standard. Especially since she's flat out said that's not her position! Bewildered Oregonian (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CAP is widely characterized as "liberal" and/or "progressive"

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. The article about Center for American Progress does plenty of deep diving into its politics and what critics say about it. But there is no excuse for censoring from the lead of the article that it is widely regarded as "liberal" and/or "progressive." For example: NYT "the Center for American Progress, the progressive think tank", Detroit News "Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank.", The Hill: "liberal think tank Center for American Progress". HouseOfChange (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, there is no question that CAP is widely seen as liberal/progressive User1956a (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

New Sections or major changes

Given the level of vandalism this page receives, I suggest we don’t allow new sections or major changes without first going through the talk page process User1956a (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Libya comments

Attempt to reach consensus on the inclusion of content related to leaked emails about Libya? - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neera_Tanden&type=revision&diff=940512694&oldid=940500705

• For: I think the material is notable. Including or summarizing CAP's response to the Intercept article seems like decent way to avoid POV? “We’re a think tank, and we have internal discussions and dialogues all the time on a variety of issues. We encourage throwing out ideas to spur conversation and spark debate. We did not take a position on this, but ThinkProgress covered it. The posts certainly did not endorse the idea.” --Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Against Tanden has repeatedly said she does not hold these views; the sources about it are written with a negative tone and the intention to ascribe views to her that she does not hold; have I mentioned she repeatedly stated she does not hold these views? How does something she asked about in an internal email one single time almost nine years ago and has repeatedly refuted since then rise to the relevance of being included in her Wikipedia page, especially under "Political Views", since those are not her political views.

Neither Tanden nor CAP have ever adopted those views; not even the leaked email shows her defending this stance after her initial question. Including it at all represents a POV because it elevates this as representative of her views when she has consistently and repeatedly made it clear that she does not support this position. User1956a (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content - while the tone of the source cited may be biased, it remains factual. Are we supposed to evaluate, based on Tanden's statements if she holds such views –– or should we simply report that she stated that she does not hold those views? To take her at word rather than merely report on her statements is an NPOV violation. Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We would be ascribing views to someone based on one single statement (in form of a question!) from a decade ago, something that is not backed up by her work or her other expressed views. User1956a (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence she's ever advocated for this? Because a question isn't advocating for it. If we declare something to be a person's political views, we should have at least two incidents of it being mentioned at all, especially for a political figure who presumably talks about their views all the time. Bewildered Oregonian (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)