Talk:Neera Tanden

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User1956a (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 24 December 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New Sections

As per MOS:BODY, I created sections to enhance the readability, and reference value of this article, which was previously a wall of sentences and paragraphs in strict chronological order. Editors are invited to discuss my stylistic remodeling here. Critical Chris (talk)

Business Insider and centrism

Twenty-Sixty-two recently added text calling Tanden a "centrist" that is attributed to the following source:

Relman, Eliza (2020-11-30). "Biden's decision to pick Neera Tanden for a top economic role exposes an ongoing rift with Bernie Sanders-allied progressives". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-12-11.

I have two potential issues with this, one nitpicky and one not. The nitpicky issue is that the relevant portion of source says Sanders-aligned progressives have for years been critical of Tanden's centrist politics …, which could be taken as a characterization of Sanders supporters' views and not Business Insider's views. The second is that there is no consensus at WP:RSP about the reliability of Business Insider. Of course, an absence of consensus is just as much support for inclusion as non-inclusion, so I'm not sure what to do. I am personally wary about including this, but wanted to see what others think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would not include for the reasons you noted. More reputable/trustworthy sources have generally tended to describe her as liberal or center-left, not centrist User1956a (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "multi-payer healthcare"

Someone wikilinked this phrase to Universal healthcare, but that article has nothing about it. In fact, Multi-payer healthcare is a re-direct to Single-payer healthcare, a page that in fact says nothing about multi-payer. Surely there should be some information somewhere about what Tanden prefers to single-payer. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange, The evidence as to Tanden's own views is not super clear. I recently removed material ascribing the multi-payer view—which is apparently synonymous with "Medicare Extra for All" to Tanden. That edit was reverted on grounds that Tanden spoke in favour of the policy as head of Center for American Progress. I still don't think we should ascribe this view to Tanden herself without better sourcing. The best I could find about Tanden's own views was this op-ed which does not mention multipayer or Medicare Extra for all, this article in Jacobin which ascribes some views to Tanden by citing her tweets, and this NYT longread, which doesn't ascribe much to Tanden personally either. I would be inclined to remove the material about her health care views because the most definitive evidence we have is CAP's position (which need not be identical to Tanden's in her personal capacity). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings: Thanks for clarification, and for the good edits I can see you have been doing to this article. It is a tough job, because most of the news coverage of Tanden comes from those who dislike her opposition to Bernie Sanders. It is hard to know how to balance that with the fact that her tweets also criticize Republicans. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruenig

I (and others) have tried a couple of times to include a section on her conflict with Matt Bruenig and it keeps getting reverted with the suggestion it is minor and unimportant. If I wasn't assuming good intentions I'd suspect someone of making a dedicated effort to prevent the subject from being mentioned. This conflict is central to understanding Progressives objection to Ms. Tanden, which is a source of a great deal of coverage about her. I would like to achieve consensus that this conflict IS significant enough to include here. Litch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Litch, Please provide some reliable sources to show that this conflict is appropriate for inclusion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few articles from major news sources discussing the issue at the time:
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/21/11724298/bruenighazi-matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-demos
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/breunig/
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-joan-walsh-hillary-clinton-223439
Here is a recent article from WaPotwo weeks ago discussing it again:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/05/neera-tanden-biden-omb-cap/
Litch (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Litch, your edit on November 30 did include a reliable source, but was problematic. You imply that Tanden had something to do with Bruenig's firing, which is what Bruenig implied, but not at all what the Vox piece you cite says. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the vox piece Demos, his former employer, stated that the reason for him being fired was they "have agreed to disagree on the value of the attack mode on Twitter" immediately after his conflict with Ms. Tanden. And to quote from the last graph of the article "powerful members of the center-left political establishment colluding to get a vocal leftist fired" sounds very much like what I implied in my edit. Whether she actively attempted to have him fired or organized such an attempt or simply had powerful friends who organized such an attempt on her behalf it nonetheless illustrates the danger of publicly saying something about her she doesn't like. Litch (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Label as an "American conspiracy theorist"

Numerous reliable sources exist to support Tanden being categorized as an American conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist label has been applied to various members of Congress and the threshold for the label is rather low. For example, John Barrasso is labeled an American conspiracy theorist based off a single Washington Post article describing his support for what is described as a conspiracy theory. Tanden has been cited by at least three reliable media sources for support of what is described as an "unverified conspiracy theory" as well as by Glenn Greenwald (who is reliably cited numerous times in this article).173.63.84.145 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you added was quite slanted with a right-wing WP:POV. Labeling as an "American conspiracy theorist" would be a BLP violation. Sending out some tweets hardly makes one a "conspiracy theorist". If it makes you feel any better, I took the category off of Barrasso's page because that was inappropriate too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]