Talk:Pete Buttigieg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

I think this is a notable political figure, though I do think his bio needs more outside sources just to avoid any hint of campaigning. I am not affiliated with this candidate's campaign, and put this up after his election was over. Streeling (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

Tagged as a POV problem. Is any of that content worth keeping? At a glance it looks like IP POV pushing may have constituted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pete Buttigieg Official Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Was elected to his first term as a mayor in 2011, not 2001. He would have been 19 years old in 2001 and 29 in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg#Mayor_of_South_Bend 47.12.112.168 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it.- MrX 🖋 00:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Seven Languages

The article quoted says he can "at least order a sandwich" in seven languages. That isn't really enough to say he "speaks" those languages. Does anyone know what the Wikipedia policy is on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LebanoGranado (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pete seems to be really a nice guy, but this language braging isn't very encylopedic, is it? I mean "speaking a language" for me means that one has a profound knowledge. That is far more than just ordering a sandwich. Could he take part in a political debate in Maltese or French? I doubt hat. Americans tend to have a inferiority complex when it comes to languages since the whole world speaks English and there is objectively seen no need to learn a foreign language. Otherwise, an open minded and polyglott person from the US wants to show just that -- but J'aimerais avoir un sandwich avec du fromage, du jambon, de la mayonnaise mais pas d'oignons. Je vous remercie! or Nixtieq li jkollok sandwiċ bil-ġobon, perżut, xi mayonnaise iżda mingħajr basal. Grazzi! is just not enough. At least not to be mentioned here in the current form. I would like to see the wording changed to a modest "Pete has an interest in foreign languages". That would reflect the reality much better in my mind. Best regards from Germany! --2003:E3:D3E5:2B00:5135:CF57:3A4F:3899 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The article asserts his language ability as a fact, but none of the citations prove it. As far as I know, there is no public evidence that he can speak 7 foreign languages. He has *tried* to speak Norwegian and Italian while campaigning for president, but the videos of those displays show him unable to communicate in the languages. Both times he stumbled briefly trying to say anything, and then asked to switch back to English because he can't remember/doesn't know the words needed to communicate. That is not what professionals in language acquisition call being able to "speak" a language. You would fail your oral exam in a first-year college level course if you could not even speak a few complete sentences and communicate an idea in the language. The article should therefore be changed from "he speaks" to "he claims/asserts that he can speak".

Naval Reserves -- in the past

The lede in this article states that Buttigieg is a Naval Reservist, yet this status ended in 2017 according to the citations that accompany the claim. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Positions

The article arguably paints Buttigieg as more liberal than he really is. For example it states that Buttigieg supports labor unions, but the source quotes him merely as saying "the Democratic Party and organized labor need to make sure they are in dialogue and working together." This does not seem to me a statement of strong support for labor unions. It could also be interpreted as advocating that labor unions subordinate themselves to the Democratic Party.

The article also says that Buttigieg supports "universal healthcare", but the cited reference says: "Buttigieg says he's 'all for' a single-payer health care system. But he has said he wouldn't immediately jump to single-payer from the current system. Instead, Buttigieg would first implement an all-payer rate setting — a system that would not eliminate private insurance companies." It would be more accurate to say "he supports the 'incremental introduction' to a single payer healthcare system while at the same time favoring the retention of private insurance." Mballen (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are fair points. ZiplineWhy changed the healthcare information so it would be good to get their thoughts as well. I've been adding position content to the campaign article, but it probably needs some cleanup also.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

rfc ; Sub-par Lead Section

Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg ( /ˈbuːtɪdʒɛdʒ/; born January 19, 1982) is an American politician, serving as the 32nd Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, since 2012.

• A member of the Democratic Party,
  • since when?
• Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard University, a Rhodes Scholar,
  • what did he study? degree?
• and a veteran of the War in Afghanistan.
  • rank? specialty?

He is a candidate for President of the United States in the 2020 election, and as such is the first openly gay Democratic and only the second ever presidential candidate. If elected, he would be the ¿first openly gay president? as well as the youngest elected at age 38, and the youngest to serve at age 39.

 Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What religions and background were both his parents?

Why is his being a veteran fore fronted as the most important thing about him? Mballen (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Magna cum laude?" Is this really necessary? 91% of Harvard grads are either "Summa" or "Magna" or merely "cum" laude ("with greatest", "with great", or merely "with" praises). Also the article is very repetitious. Needs pruning and/or more concrete info. Mballen (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mballen, speaking of "concrete info", do you have a source sayng that 91% of Harvard grads receive honors? Because I'm calling #fakenews on that statistic. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-graduated-cum-laude-so-did-everyone-else-1530523801 May I remind you to assume good faith, and also, Google is your friend Mballen (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

An article in Pro Publica about the presidential son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was graduated from Harvard, "with honors", claims (parenthetically) that "About 90 percent of Jared’s 2003 class at Harvard also graduated with honors". https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard -- Parenthetically, I myself also graduated "magna cum laude", though admittedly not from Harvard, and never thought much of it. Mballen (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The title "Summa cum laude" ("with the highest praise" -- i.e., "distinction") is only given to the top five percent of the class and hence worthy of mention as the more significant honor. Mballen (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

2017 DNC

We say only that he withdrew on the day of the election. The source says "The other five candidates dropped out of the race before the second round of votes.

Mayor Pete Buttigeig of South Bend, Indiana, did not make it to the voting process, announcing during his nomination speech earlier Saturday that he would be exiting the race. Buttigeig, 35, built a national profile as an emerging dark horse in the race for the chairmanship with the backing of former DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

"It looks like I’m not going to be the next chair," Buttigeig said..."

Is this something candidates for this office typically do when they can see they aren't going to be elected, maybe as a way to make sure they don't draw votes from one of the other candidates who has a better chance of winning? It left a question in my mind, wasn't sure how to find sources on this and was hoping someone more familiar with these races might know how to find a source to answer this. --valereee (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Running?

I don't see sources where he has actually announced he is a candidate for President; thus far he has only formed an exploratory committee, not formally entered the race. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct, but he is expected to launch in a week and has all of the hallmarks of a full candidacy (significant fundraising, stumping, etc.).- MrX 🖋 16:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

He officially announced that he is running for president today. Amkutzko (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This entry is completely biased.

I posted cold hard statistics regarding murder rates, poverty rates, etc. during his tenure as Mayor of South Bend Indiana from an in depth 600 city comprehensive study and they were deleted:

40. South Bend, Indiana > Population: 102,442 > Median home value: $77,400 > Poverty rate: 24.7% > Pct. with at least a bachelor’s degree: 24.1%

South Bend, Indiana is one of the most dangerous cities in the United States. There were 1,012 violent crimes in South Bend for every 100,000 residents in 2016, more than double both the state and national violent crime rates of 405 incidents and 386 incidents per 100,000 people, respectively. As is often the case in high crime areas, property values in South Bend are depressed. The typical home in the city is worth just $77,400, less than half the national median home value of $205,000.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/06/10/50-worst-cities-to-live-in-3/3/ https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/money/economy/2018/06/13/50-worst-cities-to-live-in/35909477/ https://patch.com/indiana/south-bend/south-bend-one-worst-cities-live-study-finds

And yet mentions of an award from an obscure website/podcast is worthy of note and left in? This isn't an encyclopedia article it's a campaign ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.237.175 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You would need to establish the relevance of these statistics to Buttigieg's life (the subject of this article). First, please familiarize yourself with our content policies WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Those policies have to be adhered to for any content added to this article.- MrX 🖋 18:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

He was mayor. Statistics showing the state of the city is relevant. It’s pretty obvious. EthelFrith (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is also zero evidence that he speaks any of the languages mentioned with any fluency. EthelFrith (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Statistics about the city are relevant to the city, unless you have independent sources stating that Mayor Buttigieg is personally responsible for these statistics(not just as the Mayor). There is video evidence of him speaking at least one non-English language, with him speaking Norwegian well enough to converse with a Norwegian reporter. Speaking other languages would also have been necessary for his military work. From your posts here it seems pretty clear you are here to push your point of view on this article for political purposes. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

He claims to be a polyglot. Huge exaggeration. EthelFrith (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on the other thing you posted as an IP [1] I would say WP:SPA applies here. ♟♙ (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

EthelFrith, no, it's not.[2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Devout Christian

Is it fair to categorize Buttigieg as a "devout Christian" in the article? The claim has recieved intense mockery from some members of the Christian right, who see his beliefs on LGBT issues as violating what could be loosely called "traditional Christian orthodoxy." Would "devout Anglican" or "devout Episcopalian" be an improvement? I'm trying to think of a sentence that could be theologically and politically neutral while still accurately describing his faith. ZiplineWhy (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@ZiplineWhy: Maybe a footnote could work? I am not against including what members of the Christian Right say about homosexual christians being included here per se. However, I do not want to provide them with WP:UNDUE weight. The source provide that mentions this claim seemed to overwhelmingly dismiss this claim. If we get consensus for putting a neutrally worded statement in this section. provided it meets WP:BLP, I don't see why a properly cited footnote wouldn't suffice here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize it's a thorny issue. But I can see people (from a certain theological perspective) be pretty doubtful/dismissive of the notion that Buttigieg is a "faithful devout Christian." The Episcopal Church accepts and performs same-sex marriage rites, which is why a description of him being a "devout Episcopalian" seems to make the most sense in this. My suggested edit would cut out a lot of the fat in his personal life subsection, and would prevent this from turning a "he said, he said" on what a "true Christian" actually is. What do you think? ZiplineWhy (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

We should not call him a devout Christian in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think we need to include mockery from members of the Christian right, unless it becomes the subject of sustained coverage in multiple sources. Also, we should never shoehorn such material into the beginning of a personal life section.- MrX 🖋 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Only in the US do people equate "Christian" with "Evangelical". Anglicanism is one of the first Protestant denominations, and was considered 100% Christian before Evangelicalism was invented in the US in the 1800s. The fact that some radical Fundamentalists mistakenly consider his sexual preference to be "un-Christian" is hardly worth mentioning. One could say that his preference is not acceptable to Evangelical voters, as a political observation, but it is incorrect to suggest that a Christian denomination - Anglicans - would consider him to be "un-Christian".77Mike77 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Devout" is editorializing. Nobody can assess with certainty the strength of others' beliefs.

Comment

Not sure how to post this as page is inaccessible to edit. I would just point out that "attended Christ Church" (at Oxford) needs amplification. Christ Church College is one of the many colleges that constitute Oxford University. However, that College also contains, within its walls, Christ Church Cathedral, seat of the Church of England Bishopric of Oxfordshire. (The Bishop of Oxford is also Dean of the College.) So it would be more accurate to say "attended services at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford". Confusing, but I can't think of a simpler way to put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.192.118 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Being in the Naval Reserve ain't quite the same as being a "former Naval Intelligence Officer"

Being in the Naval Reserve ain't quite the same as being a "former Naval Intelligence Officer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk • contribs) 21:17, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

According to which source?- MrX 🖋 21:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

After being commissioned in the Navy Reserve as an ensign, he was formally trained as an 1835, became qualified in the Navy's IWC community, and served as an intelligence officer in the active reserves with a joint intelligence unit near Great Lakes NTC on the north side of Chicago. Even if he hadn't deployed to Afghanistan on active duty status for the war effort, he would still be a "former Naval Intelligence Officer" by any meaningful definition understood to U.S. military personnel. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Christ Church Cathedral

In the personal life section there is a reference to when Mr Buttigieg was at Oxford, he attended Christ Church Cathedral, which has a hyperlink. Currently this hyperlink takes you to a page on a Christ Church Cathedral in Indianapolis, however I would imagine that, as he was in Oxford, he was attending the Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford, especially as this is attached to a college of Oxford University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.135 (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done by TimBentley Please feel free to use {{edit request}} if you want next time :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I decided that because no one knows how to pronounce his name, we should probably include an audio file as well as the traditional MOS:IPA. This is what I have come up with: Should I re-record? Does this meet our WP:BLP inclusion standards? I used two clips of him pronouncing it for reference. I feel like it is safe, but I could be wrong.

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: Swarm, should I post a link to this in WP:BLP/N? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your pronunciation seems fine, but, to me, the enunciation seems muted. It might be best if you can use his name within a sentence, making sure you don't slight the initial B and the ending, then edit out the rest of the sentence. It's like the "island effect" in ecology: when you isolate something, it degrades.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I re-recorded with that process, but I keep feeling like I have the same results. Which version of Buttigieg.ogg do you like the best? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The second is clearer. What a name to have in the US, eh?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Reverted Yeah... ^{you could say that again.} I'll post this to the article within the next few days (in case some editor out there has some uber objections). Thank you for your help! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use a sound clip of him saying it? I wouldn't want to hear what some guy on Wikipedia thinks it sounds like, I'd want to hear an authoritative clip. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jason A. Quest, if it was Mayor Pete himself who said his name, then he would be the one to have the copyright on the clip. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't work that way... if it did, the president would be able to issue take-down notices for every recording of him that he doesn't like being circulated. Regardless, some random person's "I think this is how to pronounce it" clip is not a reliable source. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I know: works by the federal government are generally under the public domain. An audio clip of what you said normally falls under copyright protection. News organizations are allowed to play short sound bites, however, per Fair use. On the flip side, our own policy (WP:NFCCP#1) says that non-free content should generally passed over in favor of free content. My own audio clip is free content, and I did publicly reveal the methods of its creation. I would be just as okay with re-recording it to your satisfaction. As another editor uploaded the aforementioned clip of the subject's own pronunciation, I have inquired on commons as to its copyright status. It awaits review my another contributor over there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, we would use Buttigieg's own pronunciation of his name. I've added my comments at the Commons discussion as I think the one second recording of Buttigieg pronouncing his own name is not copyrightable.- MrX 🖋 01:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The pronunciation "/ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ BUU-dəh-jij" is sourced to an article in Politico, but in fact the article doesn't mention pronunciation at all, so that should be deleted. I'd question the intervocalic /d/ in /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/. I expect it's /t/ phonemically, realized as [d] in Buttigieg's Midwestern accent. That is, you'd expect a Brit using Received Pronunciation to say ['bʊtədʒɪdʒ] or ['bʊtʰədʒɪdʒ]. Finally, the "vernacular" transcription "BUU-dəh-jij" seems unhelpful. I'd suggest something like "BOOT-uh-jij or BOOD-uh-jij (the first syllable rhyming with FOOT or WOOD)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.18.162 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Additionally - it seems that it's not an /i/ at all in the last syllable but rather an /e/ or an /u/. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnkVtpGW434 - especially towards the end where his spouse offers some helpful options: boot-edge-edge / buddha-judge / boot-a-judge / boo-tuh-judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.244.128 (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My take is that the final vowel can be a schwa, probably reduced from /ɛ/ (that is, the DRESS vowel), thus leaving the options /ˈbuːtədʒɛdʒ/ or that reduced form /ˈbuːtədʒədʒ/. Americans tend to hear the schwa as the same as the STRUT vowel in "judge". This explains why Buttigieg's own husband actually gives both of these as options, with his own phonetic spellings "boot-edge-edge" OR "boot-a-judge". See here. Therefore, I think we should be citing this source. Wolfdog (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for the pronunciation /ˈbuːtədʒɛdʒ/. In the respelling ‘boot-edge-edge’, the first ‘edge’ doesn't stand for /ɛdʒ/, so the second ‘edge’ needn't stand for /ɛdʒ/ either. All the four respellings given by Buttigieg's husband are compatible with /ˈbuːtədʒədʒ/. Libhye (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the final "edge" must be /ɛ/ in an environment of secondary stress in the name, otherwise why would he use "edge" at all (which we would never pronounce /ə/ on its own)?? It's easy to see how the eye-spelling "boot-edge-edge" (most literally /ˈbuːtɛdʒˌɛdʒ/ -- notice the secondary-stress marker) is actually something that reduces in real speech to /ˈbuːtədʒɛdʒ/; whereas, it's not easy to understand why the husband would use "boot-edge-edge" to represent two schwas /ˈbuːtədʒədʒ/. There's no "edge" there whatsoever! And, furthermore, the husband in fact felt the need to clarify that there are "options" -- in other words, pronunciation variants -- another one indeed being the schwa-like sound in "boot-a-judge". That's why I transcribed TWO options on the page. Wolfdog (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll address your second point first: ‘Options’ does not imply pronunciation variants. The husband's ‘options’ are simply four different ways of respelling the same pronunciation. Just like his three last respellings refer to the very same pronunciation /ˈbuːtədʒədʒ/, so does the first one. There is no basis upon which to assert that the first ‘or’ means something different from the next two.

To your first point: Why would he use ‘edge’ at all? Because it allows for the use of a common English word twice, thereby making it easier to remember the respelling. This respelling was invented by Pete Buttigieg, whose campaign sells coffee mugs with ‘BOOT EDGE EDGE’ on them. The first ‘edge’ is clearly not intended to be pronounced /ɛdʒ/ – it corresponds to ‘ig(i)’ in the spelling – and if the first ‘edge’ isn't intended as /ɛdʒ/, the second ‘edge’ may not be either.

Let's review the totality of sources given in this discussion and the article. We have three video clips of Pete Buttigieg pronouncing his name /ˈbuːtədʒədʒ/. Then we have four respellings, three of which are incompatible with the pronunciation /ˈbuːtədʒɛdʒ/. The only indication we have that /ˈbuːtədʒɛdʒ/ may be a possible pronunciation is a respelling that can also be interpreted as /ˈbuːtədʒədʒ/. In my opinion, that's not sufficient to include the /ˈbuːtədʒɛdʒ/ pronunciation in the article. Libhye (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I get your points and feel that both of our arguments are feasible. Video clips just aren't a great indicator unless we can hear a speaker pronounce the name slowly and articulately, syllable by syllable. The actual best-case scenario would be asking someone in the family "Does your name rhyme with judge, smidge, or edge? Eye-spellings are obviously not very clarifying. I suppose the schwa variant is the safest bet. I'll drop the issue unless some better source can be uncovered. Wolfdog (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's multiple "better sources" of him saying his last name when questioned on the issue. It most certainly does not rhyme with either judge or smidge; but part of the problem is that the accent is on the "boot", which naturally swallows up the rest. Two examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fse9CrV5Jxc&feature=youtu.be&t=29 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWSxQ5RAe8&feature=youtu.be&t=44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.244.128 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

In this clip I think that he says /ˈbuːtɪdʒədʒ/.

The second vowel is /ɪ/, not /ə/ (it's a schwi). Remember that our transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/English are diaphonemic, which means that they should cover both General American and Received Pronunciation (and preferably other accents) wherever possible. Received Pronunciation doesn't feature the weak vowel merger (at least not its extreme form found in Australia) and so the second vowel must be transcribed with /ɪ/. The second consonant is phonemically /t/ as intervocalic alveolar flapping is a predictable allophonic process that happens not only in GA but also in other accents such as Australian English.

Now, I'm not sure about the first and the last vowel. The first vowel sounds to me like /uː/, but it could also be /ʊ/ because it's affected by both pre-fortis and rhytmic clipping, meaning that both /uː/ and /ʊ/ would have basically the same duration in this position. The vowel is a bit too close to be /ʊ/ (at least to my ears, in Australia it'd pass for /ʊ/ but only because of how front their /uː/ is) and so I trust you that it's actually /uː/.

Actually, because of how variable English vowel length is, dropping the length marks (as it's often done in IPA transcriptions of AmE) would be perfectly fine and /ˈbutɪdʒədʒ/ is just as correct a transcription as /ˈbuːtɪdʒədʒ/ (that is, if I'm hearing everything correctly). But Help:IPA/English uses the length marks and so should we (⟨u⟩ is actually used in a different manner there, as an unstressed-only vowel that represents a neutralization between /uː/ and /ʊ/ in prevocalic contexts).

When it comes to the last vowel, IMO it's either /ə/ or /ɪ/. /ə/ is more likely because an overabudance of unstressed /ɪ/'s within one word would sound too British. The woman who repeats Buttigieg's pronunciation says the last syllable as [-ˌdʒʌdʒ], with STRUT and secondary stress. But it's [ʌ] because of the secondary stress. Buttigieg doesn't use /ʌ/ but /ə/ and the latter is a more logical choice. In English, /ʌ/ would never be spelled with ⟨ie⟩, including widely used loanwords (in which it can be spelled ⟨a⟩, as in AmE what). It's a very unexpected pronunciation that Buttigieg himself doesn't use. Remember that our help guide for English is diaphonemic and it doesn't treat /ʌ/ and /ə/ as allophones of one phoneme (as many Americans do). We don't assume that unorthodoxy and an orthodoxy are homophonous or even variably homophonous. In our system, we'd transcribe the former as /ʌnˈɔːrθədɒksi/ and the latter as /ən ˈɔːrθədɒksi/ (the space between /ən/ and /ˈɔːrθədɒksi/ doesn't change the syllabification, it's only there so that the IPA matches the orthographic version more closely). See strut-comma merger for more information.

Both /dʒʌdʒ/ and /dʒədʒ/ are extremely rare syllables in English. I think that the latter doesn't occur in any native word, and the former only in judge and its derivatives. Because /ʌ/ and /ə/ are often thought of as allophones of one phoneme in American English, it makes perfect sense to respell this surname as boot-a-judge, boot-ih-judge or something similar, at least in the context of AmE. There aren't many alternatives to that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Kbb2: Point of clarification: there are certainly other rhymes of judge in English: budge, nudge, fudge, smudge, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I know. I was talking about /dʒʌdʒ/ and /dʒədʒ/ as English syllables that begin in end in the same voiced palato-alveolar affricate. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the original Maltese pronunciation: Sounds to me like ['bʊtɪdʒɪːdʒ] or even ['butidʒiːdʒ]. We definitely should include it in the article, just as we give the Standard German pronunciation for "Arnold Schwarzenegger". --Transalpin (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My God! What a topic! lol To me, the issue is quite simple. Rachel (of Rachel's English) is a popular dialect coach of American English, a phonetic expert, and according to her analysis of the way Buttigieg pronounces his own name, it is /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (with a flap T sound), respelt BUU-dəh-jij. The way I hear it, her IPA transcription is the most correct one. I'd definitely go w/ her transcription or add it to the current one. It may take a bit more space, but I think it's appropriate. Not all speakers make the flap T (light D) sound, but this is how Buttigieg pronounces his name, and it's very common in North American English.

Editing Wikipedia is very hard in the sense even the most proper sources may be challenged, and a lot of time must be spent discussing, debating and so on. Rachel is a reputable dialect coach (arguably the most popular one online), so why not just accept her sound (as in reliable, involving the use of good judgment, thorough) analysis? I have gone over all the transcriptions in this discussion, and I honestly find Rachel's one to be the true accurate one. All she did is listen to Buttigieg say it himself. That's all! I once edited that section of the article, but several edits ensued.

I mean, there is a difference between /ˈbuːtɪdʒədʒ/ BOOT-ih-jəj and /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ BUU-dəh-jij. Just watch to the video linked in the source above (it includes Buttiegieg's own voice), and compare! What sounds the most accurate to you? Israell (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: Rachel seems to be a reliable source.

Help:IPA/English (which is a diaphonemic guide that covers multiple dialects) treats the alveolar flap as an allophone of /t/ and /d/. We write it with ⟨t⟩ because /t/ and /d/ are consistently neutralized in this position only in North America (and perhaps also Australia), in other dialects it's more variable (or the flap doesn't occur at all).

Perhaps she's right that the first vowel is /ʊ/ and the last one is /ɪ/, but I'm not sure about the second vowel. If speakers without the weak vowel merger (such as those of RP or Southern England English in general) are likely to reduce it to /ə/, then we should write this name /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ə-jij. If not, it should be written /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ih-jij.

When it comes to the first vowel, I thought it was /uː/ because (to me at least) it sounds unusually close. The spelling does suggest /ʊ/, but American English is known to prefer tense vowels in stressed syllables of loanwords regardless of the spelling or the original pronunciation. This is why I and other editors thought it was /uː/. This shows that the two vowels are (or can be) more similar in North America than in England or Australia, where the distance between the two is bigger and /uː/ is more strongly diphthongal. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. What about we go for /ˈbʊ⟨t⟩ədʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ə-jij? This would be the most accurate choice. Rachel used the /d/ symbol since the flap T is a light D sound, but since the T pronunciation is also correct, this option is the best (readers that take their cursor to the IPA transcription are given an explanation of each symbol, of how it sounds). /ʊ/ as is "book" is quite different actually than /uː/ as in "food". What matters here is how Buttigieg pronounces it himself, and the way Rachel analysed it, it's /ʊ/ as "book", and this is what it sounds like to me. Now, in some cases (such as the word or name "Buddha" in American English), both sounds may be used: /budə/or /bʊdə/. In Buttigieg's case, I'd use /ˈbʊ⟨t⟩ədʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ə-jij (and maybe also use the BUUD-ə-jij respelling to match the flap T). Israell (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: Did you mean /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/? Because /ˈbʊ⟨t⟩ədʒɪdʒ/ isn't IPA. I'm using the angbr template to better separate the symbol from the sentence.

I think that Buttigieg himself says /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ (with a schwi), not /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/. I think that /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ih-jij is a safer transcription and that's how I think we should transcribe this name. In American English you can contrast Rosa's /ˈroʊzəz/ with roses /ˈroʊzɪz/, but Martin is /ˈmɑːrtən/ (unlike RP, where it's pronounced /ˈmɑːtɪn/, with the same weak /ɪ/ as in the second syllable of roses). The respelling makes it clear that the second vowel is an unstressed-only schwi (a weak vowel like /ə/), rather than the strong /ɪ/ of kit, bit etc. (in which case we'd respell it BUUT-ij-ij - this probably suggests that the last syllable has the strong /ɪ/). Actually, the last two vowels of Buttigieg seem to be the same as the ones of everything (where the middle vowel can be /ɪ/, /ə/ or even /iː/).

What I wrote a few days ago (namely this: When it comes to the last vowel, IMO it's either /ə/ or /ɪ/. /ə/ is more likely because an overabudance of unstressed /ɪ/'s within one word would sound too British.) is actually rubbish. I got the rhythm of the surname wrong, and it is /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/.

In /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/, ⟨t⟩ doesn't represent a T sound but a /t/ phoneme (or, more accurately, a diaphoneme). Alveolar flap is one of the allophones of /t/ and /d/ in English, and because Americans are so consistent in flapping their /t/ and /d/ it makes sense to write both with ⟨d⟩ when you're transcribing American English - but we're not doing that. Help:IPA/English covers American English as well as Canadian English, Received Pronunciation, Australian English, Scottish English, Irish English, etc. (to varying degrees - it's probably most accurate in representing the first four). In her transcription, Rachel uses square brackets, which indicates phonetic transcription, rather than one that is phonemic or diaphonemic. We shouldn't confuse them.

It depends on what you mean by /ʊ/ and /uː/ (again, see the difference between phonemes and allophones). In AmE at least, these aren't really [ʊ] and [uː] but [ʊ] and [u̟] (or [ʊu̟]), with variable length (see clipping). In that clip, Buttigieg seems to pronounce /ʊ/ as something that is rather unusually close to /uː/ (again, ignore the length mark as it's only retained here for the sake of tradition and because Help:IPA/English uses it. The main difference between the two vowels (at least in America) is quality, not length). That's the reason that I and some other editors were fooled to think that he says /ˈbuːtɪdʒɪdʒ/ instead of /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/, also because Americans strongly prefer to use /uː/ instead of /ʊ/ in stressed syllables of loanwords. In other words, we heard what we expected to hear (/uː/), rather than the vowel that's actually there (/ʊ/).

AFAIK, there aren't many minimal pairs between /uː/ and /ʊ/; the main contrast is between /uː/ and /ʌ/ because historically, /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ belonged to the same phoneme (see foot–strut split). This is why when speakers of Scottish English use [ʉ] for both /uː/ and /ʊ/ (they'd say [ˈbʉtədʒɪdʒ] or perhaps [ˈbʉtidʒɪdʒ] for both /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ and /ˈbuːtɪdʒɪdʒ/) they're still intelligible to most other natives. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I initially meant /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (as shown in Rachel's video). You then mentioned ⟨t⟩ since it represents both the true T and the flap T sounds. It's getting very complicated and technical, but we've already got our answer: /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (flap T) or /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/ (true T). As you've noted, not all speakers make the flap T sound, so maybe we could include both (or use a symbol that represents both sounds). Buttigieg pronounces him name w/ a flap T—that's why Rachel used the /d/ symbol. According to her, the second vowel is the schwa /ə/; I've listened to Buttigieg say it again, and the way I hear it, the second syllable is /ə/ (very fast and short), and the last vowel (more pronounced) is /ɪ/. I honestly think Rachel's analysis is spot on! I'd go with it.

Regarding differences between dialects... The proper noun "Canada" is pronounced [kanada] in standard French, but the lead of the Canada wiki article says: "(Canadian French: [kanadɑ])". Maybe this article should say: "American English: /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ BUUD-ə-jij, English: /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ə-jij." But if there were just one choice, I'd go with /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ BUUD-ə-jij as explained by Rachel's English. Israell (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: Again, see allophone, phoneme and diaphoneme. Our system on Help:IPA/English is diaphonemic, which means that it's two steps removed from the actual phonetic transcription (which would be different depending on the accent). There's no need for a separate transcription of AmE because /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ already covers General American [ˈb̥ʊɾɪ̈dʒɪd̥ʒ̊] just as it covers RP [ˈb̥ɵtʰɪ̈dʒɪd̥ʒ̊], Australian [ˈb̥ʊɾədʒid̥ʒ̊], etc. On the recording, the middle vowel is [ɪ̈] or perhaps [ɘ] but not [ə]. Rachel's transcription is broad, which means that she transcribes the initial consonant with ⟨b⟩ even though it is only partially voiced, the second consonant as ⟨d⟩ even though it's a flap not a stop, the second vowel as ⟨ə⟩ even though it's close, not mid and the final affricate as ⟨dʒ⟩ even though, again, it's only partially voiced, like the initial /b/. It's not WP:OR to write /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ based on her analysis.

Help:IPA/French proscribes a broad phonetic transcription of European French. In that sense it's very unlike Help:IPA/English, a guide which is diaphonemic (and therefore much more abstract) and which covers more dialects than e.g. RP.

WP:RESPELL is also diaphonemic as it's based on Help:IPA/English. Respellings should match the IPA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2:, my question is... Is /ˈbuːtɪdʒədʒ/ more accurate than /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/? My answer is no. The first vowel sound is definitely not /uː/—it is /ʊ/. As for the second one, to Rachel and I, it sounds more like /ə/ than /ɪ/. It may be [ɪ̈] or [ɘ], but do English dictionaries (in general) ever use those symbols? Does Wikipedia use them in English IPA transcriptions in leads of articles? You are very, very technical about it (you've explained the first vowel sound may be a slight variation of /ʊ/), but the thing is, most dictionaries (English or French) do not get that technical (for instance, French dictionaries use /ə/ even if it's often pronounced /ə̹/).

And a side note—though this symbol, /ɾ/, used to represent the Spanish R sound may also be used to represent the English flap T sound, the Spanish R sound is different in the sense the tongue comes back to its initial position. Some English dictionaries use this symbol, t̬, to represent the flap T. Rachel is a phonetic expert, so why not accept her analysis? Maybe yours is more technically correct, one may agree or not, but the lead of the article is still not being rectified. Israell (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: The relevant question right now is whether to write this surname /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ or /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/.

I'm sorry but you've clearly not read any links that I've provided. Rachel's transcription is enclosed within phonetic brackets [...], which means that it's allophonic or phonetic - see Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad transcription. Her transcription can be called broad phonetic. Her [ə] denotes any of the allophones of the schwa (actually [ɪ̈] in this context), which in English covers a vast central area from [ɘ] to [ɐ] (in GA it's probably [ɪ̈] to [ɐ], but in RP [ɪ̈] belongs to the /ɪ/ phoneme). In English transcriptions, ⟨ə⟩ never denotes an exactly mid central vowel, regardless of the accent.

These transcriptions: [ˈb̥ʊɾɪ̈dʒɪd̥ʒ̊] (for GA), [ˈb̥ɵtʰɪ̈dʒɪd̥ʒ̊] (for RP), [ˈb̥ʊɾədʒid̥ʒ̊] (for Australian English) are narrow phonetic.

/ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ is a diaphonemic transcription that is 3x more abstract than Rachel's transcription and 4x more abstract than my [ˈb̥ʊɾɪ̈dʒɪd̥ʒ̊]. It's very abstract and none of the symbols in /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ represent sounds (phones) but diaphonemes that should be interpreted however they need to be interpreted depending on your accent. Again, see Help:IPA/English. The consensus is that any transcription enclosed within the IPAc-en template should not deviate from the system used in that guide. As far as I can see, the second vowel of Buttigieg is the same as in everything, a weak /ɪ/ of roses (not Rosa's) and, in RP, Martin and rabbit. If anyone can provide convincing evidence to the contrary (that RP speakers would consistently say /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/, which IMO is unlikely), then we can transcribe it /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/. If not, we should write it /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/. See also weak vowel merger. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure that millions of speakers of Southern American English who lack the weak vowel merger would also say /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/, not /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/. We have two kinds of /ɪ/ on Help:IPA/English: a strong one of kit, bit etc. and a weak (unstressed-only) /ɪ/ of roses, Martin and rabbit. The latter can be interpreted as either /ɪ/ or /ə/, depending on the accent (just as /i/ can be interpreted as either /iː/ or /ɪ/). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Transalpin:,@MJL:, @Quisqualis:, @Jason A. Quest:, @MrX:, @Wolfdog:, care to weigh in? Please watch this video by Rachel's English (where Buttigieg is seen and heard pronouncing his name, and Rachel, a phonetic expert, analyses it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT36PvjxbRA. She uses the /d/ symbol for the flap T, but since this type of flapping is not specified on Wikipedia, we'd use the /t/ symbol: /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ə-jij. I honestly believe this to be more accurate than what the current lead shows. Israell (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: You're slightly misrepresenting the discussion above. I'm still of the opinion that this surname should be written /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ih-jij. Help:IPA/English is a diaphonemic guide for multiple accents of English, not a phonemic one for American English. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. If we use a pronunciation guide in the article, it should be explicitly and reliable sourced without any WP:OR. It should also be determined by consensus. - MrX 🖋 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Rachel is taking a single clip where Buttigieg is rapidly pronouncing his own name. But the whole problem has been we've ONLY heard him rapidly pronouncing his own name as well as never providing an appropriate rhyme that would help to perfectly narrow down what that final vowel is. In fact, in the video where an interviewer specifically asks if it's [-ɛdʒ] or [-ʌdʒ], the mayor is still too polite to specify! The only thing I can say for certain is I personally hear him saying [ɛ~ɪ~ə]; I don't hear him saying [ʌ]. Wolfdog (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: thank you for the ping. I have honestly not been keeping up with this section, so it's nice having someone ask for my feedback on a specific question. I am honestly surprised by how controversial this section ended up being. I mainly started it because I can't read IPA and have no clue what any of this means. If I were to re-record, I probably would make it sound less like it rhymes with Drudge (as in Drudge Report) and more like jedge or JEH'DGE (if you can interpret that).
I did see Rachel's video, but it all flew over my head. As to including a file (the primary reason I opened this thread in the first place), there was some traction on Commons with this thread with insight from MrX on having Mayor Pete just saying it, but the file ended up being deleted as it had no license tag.
This all needs a healthy does of RFC if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, I think we should explore Transalpin's suggestion of including the original maltese pronunciation. I liked that idea~! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2:, yes, I agree that /ˈbʊtɪdʒɪdʒ/ BUUT-ih-jij (it's not just American English as it uses the true T) is more accurate than what the current lead shows. Israell (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Scribd is not a reliable source

Scribd is a self-published and is not a reliable source for BLP claims per WP:BLPSPS. Qwmnpozx, please do not restore your edit without citing a reliable, third-party source that supports the material.- MrX 🖋 11:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What was fixed?

Hey, Davey2116. I'm hoping you can help me out. You recently reverted my edit, stating you fixed something? I looked, but I couldn't find what it is that I broke. Can you point me in the right direction? Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We can wait for a response from Davey2116, but I must admit I'm confused about your edit that initiated the change. Articles about politicians on Wikipedia who have served in the military routinely carry associated images like that in their BLP infoboxes. Take a look at Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, and Adam Kinzinger for some examples. Why strip them from the article here as "cruft"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ask yourself what is gained through them. Do these icons contribute to our understanding of Pete Buttigieg as a person, or are they purely decorative? Stating other bios use decorative icons is like stating three men make a tiger. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing much of a connection with that Chinese proverb; the point of "Three men make a tiger" is that false information can be perceived as true if enough people keep repeating it. Saying that BLPs routinely carry associated images like that in their BLP infoboxes is not false information, it's just a straightforward factual observation. In so far as what is gained from them, they just give the reader additional information in the visual sense. For example, if someone doesn't know what the military rank of a naval "lieutenant" looks like when reading this subject's article, they can click on it to enlarge the image and gain that understanding. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict:

Honestly, that's a perfect example. You're absolutely right when you state that someone who doesn't know what the rank of a naval lieutenant looks like now probably knows it. The point is what is it doing here? How does a decorative icon of lieutenants' stripes supplement one's understanding of Pete Buttigieg? And how does this same icon contribute to one's understanding of the rank of naval lieutenant as a concept?

You're basing this off the assumption that people coming here who don't now what naval lieutenants' stripes look like would want to know what they look like. I'd argue that's false information. Sure, a handful may actually want to know. I suppose these people generally tend to use the accompanying link that sends them to the appropriate article with the rank of naval lieutenant as its subject, which—appropriately—is supplemented by images that illustrate how this rank is "visualized". Using your rhetoric, wouldn't you agree that we could also argue that we should add the flag of South Bend, the flag of Ohio, the U.S. flag, the Democratic Party logo, and the Harvard and Pembroke colors or blazons? Imagine if it'd actually look like that.

On the other hand, please know that I think this is a fun and interesting argument. I'm always curious to know hear others' opinions. But truthfully, I'm really not all that bothered by decorative icons. I remove 'em sometimes, however, there's a very real possiblity you'll find that I added 'em somewhere within my last 50 edits. In short: I feel that the use of such icons is more appropriate in bios about people whose sole notability is military-related, but honestly I won't contest using them here if you judge them appropriate. My judgement tells me otherwise, but it's well established that my judgement may be off from time to time (ok, maybe frequently, haha). Anyways, take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 23:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. In addition to creating an unnecessary redirect, your edit removed the military icons as AzureCitizen points out. For both changes, there are plenty of other articles which reinforce the current precedent, and breaking from this precedent doesn't add any benefit to this article. For not creating redirects in the infobox offices, see:

Kasim Reed, Keisha Lance Bottoms, Andrew Young, Bill White, Annise Parker, Sylvester Turner, Jim Kenney, Ron Nirenberg, Greg Stanton, Kate Gallego, Mike Duggan, Bernie Sanders, etc.

For maintaining the military icons, see the examples above given by AzureCitizen, as well as:

John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Eric Garcetti, Jim Webb, Richard Blumenthal, Martha McSally, Tom Cotton, Eric Greitens, etc.

To reiterate, you haven't shown yet that there's benefit to being inconsistent with all of these other articles. Hope this clears things up. Davey2116 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Davey2116. Good to actually talk you for the first time, haha! Anyways, I feel like most of what I said to AzureCitizen can be reiterated in my response to you, in the sense that using precedent as the sole argument for your case automatically nullifies it. All it's saying is "we do it this way because this is how we've always done it," or "if everyone's doing it, surely it can't be wrong?" Think about your daily habits, for example. You may a have a habit of visiting the gym or going for a run every other day. That's a good habit. On the other hand, you may be a smoker, which I hope you'll agree is a bad habit, right? (Been trying to quit for longer than I care to admit, myself.) So yeah, you get the idea. Just because something is habit doesn't mean it's a good habit by default.

Did you honestly take the time to read some of the links that I used in my edit summaries during our little edit war? Cause I have to admit that it sounds like you didn't, and that truly disappoints me somewhat. If anything, please read MOS:NOPIPE. It's just a single paragraph. Of course it's not a rule set in stone, however, it is a generally accepted guideline established through consensus—if you put any value into that type of thing.

Also, same as I told AzureCitizen, I can definitely be swayed and I have no problem with backing out of this whole thing if only to put all our minds at ease. (Cause what are we arguing over, really?) Finally, I do regret namedropping you over at the incidents' board without even contacting you beforehand a little while ago. That was a bad show and for that I apologize. Anyways, you take care, too! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Great to talk to you, too. I'm also often guilty of not using talk pages as much as I should; this is much less impersonal than edit warring (and the incidents board) and I appreciate it.

I've now read MOS:NOPIPE; apologies for not doing so before. It seems that the two advantages listed there don't apply in this case, since there won't be an article called "Mayor of South Bend" and hence there is no need to gauge the demand for an article with that title. (As an aside, I would prefer all of these "List of mayors of X" articles to be merged as sections in articles titled "Mayor of X", or simply to be renamed to "Mayor of X", but I'm not sure if there's popular will for that habit to be broken. Maybe there's a benefit to having them as separate articles that I'm not seeing yet.) So my argument is that although having a redirect is not bad, we shouldn't be creating them when there is negligible benefit over bypassing them.

Of course, you're correct that this was quite an insignificant thing for the both of us to be worked up over previously. Take care, and I wish you luck in quitting smoking (I have a few close ones also trying to quit; it's difficult!). Davey2116 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Language Section

I'm a bit confused when this article starts talking about Buttigieg's language ability. It starts by saying this:

"Buttigieg taught himself to speak a measure of Norwegian and has some knowledge of Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic, Dari, and French in addition to his native English, though his level of fluency in those languages is unclear."

That sentence makes total sense. But then, I saw this line following it:

"leading commentators such as Michael Erard and Jay Caspian Kang to question whether Buttigieg is using a combination of mythology and superficial mastery to appear proficient."

I skimmed the articles referenced at this line, and one thing that Michael Erard said that stood out me was:

"None of this is meant to cast doubt on or give credence to Buttigieg’s actual language abilities."

Both of these articles aren't really questioning Buttigieg's language ability, but rather using it to start a larger discussion. Erard talks about how vague it is to say someone "speaks" a certain language, and Kang talks about identity politics and how we are focusing too much on his credentials. So, then that begs the question, **is this sentence really necessary?** I mean, just by proof of interviews and videos, we know he at least speaks (to a certain extent) Spanish, French, Arabic, Italian and Norwegian. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxtvXaRe2lg) He even says in that video that he isn't fluent in all these languages.

I think the best course of action would be to remove this sentence. Thoughts? ChipotleHater (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is not an article about his language skills.- MrX 🖋 11:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As someone who actually knows all of those languages (other than Norwegian) to a measurable degree of proficiency, I agree with removing the sentence entirely. Some of the languages he clearly does speak to some extent; others it's obvious that he's memorized no more than a few words or a badly composed sentence (which he can't reproduce without errors). If that counts as "speaking a language" then most US politicians will need a line in their Wikipedia page about how they "speak" Spanish because they've uttered a few Spanish words on the campaign trail. In any case we don't need to argue about how one defines "speaking" a language non-fluently, but I think we can agree that someone having memorized a few phrases of a language is decidedly non-notable. Alexanderj (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Iowa Standard

I have removed an out of scope sentence which is also from a questionable source. The age difference between Buttigieg and his husband doesn't seem to be all that relevant. Further, the "reporter" is linked to Infowars, which is certainly not in favor of her credibility, the article uses sarcasm quotes for the word "husband" and a quick perusal of The Iowa Standard's fb page indicates they are anything but credible. Finally, is such an isolated question relevant for a BLP? I think not. https://theiowastandard.com/buttigiegs-husband-doesnt-say-if-love-has-an-age/ Buttigieg’s ‘husband’ doesn’t say if love has an age], The Iowa Standard'MisterCSharp (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the editor who added the sentence and source [[4]] also created the Kaitlin_Bennett WP article, so this appears to be a COI.MisterCSharp (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't belong in this article.- MrX 🖋 11:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Iowa Standard is a reliable source it just simply isn't liberal and it clearly thinks same sex marriages are weird. Furthermore he wasn't being asked if their age difference was in question farther Bennett was referring to pedo relationships and the full interview is available for all to see and he had to "think about it"! It should be included Corey's l voters should know what kind of man is running for president!Ndołkah (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

So Bennett's question was an attempt to "bait" the candidate's husband? All the more reason it should not be included. And it's not merely an issue with the Iowa Standard, but the reporter who has been linked to Infowars which is plainly NOT an acceptable source.MisterCSharp (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the article, doesn't seem to add anything or be particularly notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

AR-10-toting Kaitlin Bennett apparently makes a career of getting booted from campaign rallys when she's not mocking gay pride and stringing for Infowars. No thanks. - MrX 🖋 15:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX, thanks for posting the link to her twitter feed. The "content" she posts speaks for itself as to whether she's a journalist or merely a troll. As for the Iowa Standard, their own about ([5]) page says all one needs to know about their reliability. MisterCSharp (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree this will be the gotcha moment of his candidacy... regardless of your opinions for our against gays, pride, Buttigieg, chasten, infowars, or kaitlin. Can anyone find more sources or propose different wording? We should not editorialize rather paraphrase what the sources state, even if he was baited which i don't think he was he thought about it and wasn't confronted suddenly like Bernie was.Ndołkah (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement noted. This is a biography in an encyclopedia. The content you proposed is irrelevant to the subject, poorly-sourced, and WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it is irrelevantNdołkah (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Promotional language

Buttigieg's military service is noted extensively elsewhere in the biography. The effort to place "combat veteran" language at the very top of the biography is promotional for a political candidate and not consistent with other pages (such as Seth Moulton, who spent over 8 years on active duty). While Buttigieg's military service is a minor component of his resume, it is being leveraged to promote this campaign, and Wikipedia is an inappropriate place to do so.

It is also quite startling to see how fast the Buttigieg Campaign and it's surrogates revert any edit within seconds of being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwmnpozx (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Qwmnpozx Please do not accuse other editors of affiliations without direct evidence(taking care to also avoid outing). 331dot (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it's promotion or misplaced. Now, if we wrote "he is a courageous war hero", that would be promotional. - MrX 🖋 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. Regardless of whether or not it is "promotional", I agree that "combat veteran" does not belong in the first line of the lead. Buttigieg is primarily notable for being a politician, not for serving in the military; his military career constitutes just one paragraph of the article. See WP:LEAD: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. The current emphasis on his veteran status is clearly undue. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Qwmnpozx Two people in favor and two people against does not mean you have consensus. I strongly suggest that you stop edit warring on this article, as you were warned in May. - MrX 🖋 01:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: I've yet to see any specific arguments for the inclusion of the text "combat veteran" in the first line of the lead that are based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Do you have any? So far all I've seen is "I disagree that it's promotional" and "Career always goes here per Wiki standard", neither of which are very compelling arguments (the first doesn't connect to any policy/guidelines, just the editor's personal opinion, and thus boils down to WP:ILIKEIT; the latter is an indefensible invocation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—it's not at all standard across articles for a politician's military service to be frontloaded in this way, and leads do not need to exhaustively list every career a person has ever held, or else the lead would also include "consultant", "intern", etc.). I've made the point above that the text is misplaced per WP:LEAD and would welcome a substantive response. We can only reach consensus if editors are willing to engage in discussion. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

He served as an officer in the military for 8 of his 37 years, including seeing combat duty. This has been the subject of significant coverage. There are more than twice as many news search results for "pete buttigieg"+"war veteran" than for "pete buttigieg"+"McKinsey". Per MOS:LEADBIO the lead should include (among other things) "The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played;" His combat experience easily qualifies as noteworthy based on 6400+ mentions in the news.- MrX 🖋 02:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The text we're discussing is "combat veteran", not "war veteran"; I'm not sure why you searched for "war veteran" instead. You may also want to have a look at WP:GOOGLETEST: Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Comparing the number of hits for one phrase vs. another is not a reliable way to judge relative notability.

Questionable methods aside, something being "noteworthy" does not mean it belongs in the first line of the lead, let alone ahead of the primary reasons the subject is notable. Buttigieg is primarily notable for being a politician; any mentions of his combat experience (or his work at McKinsey) are made in the context of his run for president and/or his mayoralty, and his role in the military is already detailed in the very next paragraph of the lead. The current emphasis it is receiving is undue. Have a look at the page for Tulsi Gabbard, who also has noteworthy combat experience but is also primarily known for being a politician. Her military service is given ample coverage, but it comes after her political role and it is not implied to be the reason that she is notable. I think that's a better model to go with. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Mother's name in the infobox

@Therequiembellishere: Regarding your recent edit here, can you comment as to why you removed Buttiegieg's mother from the infobox? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

One conservative org's assessment of the Green New Deal

A ten-day old account is spamming text about one conservative organization's assessment of the costs of the Green New Deal to the pages of various Democratic politicians. The text is not a NPOV summary of RS about the GND. NPOV instructs us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Spamming one conservative org's assessment of the GND is not compliant with NPOV. Furthermore, the cited sources make zero mention of Pete Buttigieg, making the text WP:SYNTH. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I clearly stated where the cited cost information came from. As Snoog stated, Neutral Point of View instructs us to represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The huge estimated cost to implement the Green New Deal is certainly significant. I have no idea what SYNTH means, but I am not "spamming" anything - I cited properly and mentioned the source of the estimated costs in my insertion. Finally - why does it matter how long I have been editing? Surely you aren't claiming that only seasoned editors are allowed to edit this article.BattleshipGray (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I re-inserted the language removed by Snooganssnoogans (talk). The issue should be discussed here on the article Talk page, rather than just reverting my edit without valid reason, and without discussion let alone consensus. -BattleshipGray (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

BattleshipGray, WP:BRD says there should be consensus before including it in an article, not keeping it there while discussion is ongoing. I reverted your edit. Your edit summary was not correct in explaining the reasons for the revert; though Snoogs did mention the age of your account, which isn't necessarily relevant, they also referenced WP:NPOV. I have taken it out because it's a WP:COATRACK and you're using it to try to score political points against the subject of the article. It doesn't directly relate to the subject of the article, and does not belong on this article at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Background for Peter Buttigieg's presidential run.

With Peter Buttigieg in the top 5 of Democratic presidential candidates, the following topics are pertinent. These provide a better understanding of what he would bring to the presidency if elected.

First, his senior thesis at Harvard tied together Puritan sermons on American exceptionalism and the mind set that led us to war in Vietnam, including the Puritan concept that we were a city on a hill and Graham Greene's "The Quiet American."

Second,he is a linguist, including improving one of his seven languages, Arabic, by moving to North Africa for a time after college. This linguistic ability increases his ability to communicate internationally.

Third, he then had two intense years of study at Oxford in their Philosophy, Politics, and Economics program. On that basis he was prepared for the next two years as a business consultant at Mackenzie, where he focused on economic problem solving for businesses to make them more successful.

Fourth, he served as an intelligence officer in Kabul, including regular trips "outside the wire," beyond the safety of the base and into the streets and countryside of Afghanistan. To complicate the thoughts that he had about the risk, another soldier cautioned him that the war was already over.

Fifth, his experiences as Mayor of South Bend have included both successes, like working with a Republican Governor, Mike Pence, to help develop the city economically, and difficulties, like dealing with racial issues involving the police force. Even as mayor his powers over the police department were limited, but it is an issue that has already been used against him in a debate. Buttigieg himself would balance difficulties like these with the advances that have been made, including dealing with 1000 abandoned houses, revitalizing downtown, and recycling an abandoned Studebaker car factory with high-tech industry.

Sixth, he was involved in John Kerry's campaign for the presidency in 2004, so that he has background for his own campaign and a view of the country as a whole, and not just his home town of South Bend.

<All of this comes from his book, "Shortest Way Home.">

50.48.79.245 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)George Lewinnek, Aug. 16, 2019

George:

1. These points would need to be supported with reliable sources to be included in the article.
2. As a linguist I have to point out that knowing multiple languages does not make someone a linguist. A linguist is someone who studies language from a scientific perspective. (See our page on Linguistics.)

— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

71.184.117.17 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC) The "eventual retention" phrase must be some kind of typo, as it makes no sense. Perhaps it is meant to be "indefinite retention"?

Biased Editors

Per wikipedia article on Noah Oppenheim, wikipedia "white washing" permeates this website; a serious problem for all of us. Editors have made biased editing here refusing to acknowledge that crime increased during Pete Buttigieg's tenure, and they are downplaying friction between the African American community and Buttigieg. The article needs updating to reflect reality in a similar way to my proposal in the thread above. 172.58.230.134 (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@172.58.230.134: First of all, this is not a page for you make criticisms about Wikipedia, or its editors, so stop it. Every user has voice in the editorial process. It's up to each to make convincing, meritorious arguments to sway consensus. There are 6,928,480 articles on Wikipedia that can be improved, if you are here to support our goal of building an encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 11:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

THIS article needs to be improved. A mayor's crime rates are an important part of that person's record as mayor. Every other article about mayors indicates as much 172.58.230.197 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

When you can source that a specific action or policy by the mayor that increased crime in his city(as you have been repeatedly asked), as those other articles do, I'd be happy to see it. For example, "The crime rate went up due to the mayor firing half the police force" or "the were more break ins because the mayor shut down all the after school programs". Not just a general increase in crime that happened to occur while he was mayor and cannot be tied to a specific policy or action. If you can source that there are increased racial tensions due to Buttigieg's demolition program, let's see it. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Buttigieg’s “1,000 Houses in 1,000 Days,” a project to knock down vacant and abandoned homes to develop the town, has been criticized for disregarding the communities of color — something Buttigieg has acknowledged." 172.58.230.201 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Combat veteran"

Does he not meet the definition of a "combat veteran"? He was deployed to an active military zone. Plenty of sources refer to him as a combat veteran. [6][7][8][9] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I'm fine with the Reuters source being added and him being described as a combat veteran using that source. I removed "combat" because the rationale given for its inclusion was "He is veteran who was in Afghanistan at the time it was a combat zone. Therefore he is a combat veteran." which is WP:OR, and he is not described as a "combat veteran" in the cited source. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources and original research aside, it helps to understand that technically the Department of Defense considers any veteran who deployed to a combat zone a "combat veteran," regardless of whether or not they personally engaged in actual combat. There is persistent danger being there, in recognition of which the Department pays every service member an additional $7.50 per day no matter where they serve or for how long in the combat zone (adding up to $225.00 per month, it's called Imminent Danger Pay). For comparison, note that the article for Senator Joni Ernst mentions in the lead that she is the first female combat veteran elected to the United States Senate; during the Iraq War her service was entirely in Kuwait commanding a transportation company (with Kuwait of course being included in the designated Iraq War combat zone area). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I am aware of the difference between an edit summary and a citation. How could reverting to consensus be considered original research?Dosbears (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Buttigieg is not a combat veteran. That distinct for a naval officer is quite clear. Those who have experienced combat are awarded a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon). Mr. Buttigieg does not have one. The distinction is awarded by the US Navy (and Marines), not any news organization or other punditry. The army has separate distinguishing devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.11.10 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The Department of Defense considers all veterans who have deployed to a combat zone a "combat veteran." Sure, the services have ribbons and badges like the CIB, CMB, CAB, CAR, etc. to specify direct participation in actual combat, but Wikipedia uses the common convention used in the reliable sources. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• @AzureCitizen: Where exactly does the DoD define anyone who has been deployed in support of a contingency operation a "combat veteran"? That's news to me, and I'm the guy that processes the paperwork for the CAB. As "that guy" I can confidently say that having HDIP added to your LES doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. In the guy's own words he considers himself merely a veteran, because, you know, he hasn't seen combat. The four sources provided above look a lot more like the power of Google than they do the agreement of the preponderance of sources. GMG^talk 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You won't find a precise definition spelled out in an official regulation or instruction, but the DOD and the VA commonly refer to veterans who have served in combat zones as "combat veterans". If you want an example, look at this communication from the VA dated December 2011, in which the first sentence mentions extended health care eligibility for "Veterans who served in a theater of combat operations" and then at the end of that sentence, it refers to those veterans as "commonly referred to as a combat veterans...", etc. If you've processed the paperwork for CABs before, you know that you it takes quite a bit more than qualifying for CZ danger pays to earn one, but that's not really relevant here. Under the "combat veteran" authority in the linked document, you are entitled to those benefits regardless of whether or not you earned a CAB. Sure, plenty of veterans who have deployed over there do not personally think of themselves as "combat veterans" unless they participated directly in combat, but that's the way the common DOD/VA parlance and the media refer to it (as evidenced in the sources). As an aside, I'm sure no one would object to you adding Buttigieg's comments that he personally doesn't think of himself that way. Did you check out the lead of Senator Ernst's Wikipedia article for comparison on this issue? It mentions she's the "first female combat veteran" ever elected to the Senate; do you agree or disagree with that in so far as how Wikipedia should refer to her? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, that may be the way VA determines status for certain benefit eligibility (and/or "OEF/OIF Veterans" and/or "Operation New Dawn Veterans") but the VA ain't the DoD, and even the VA feels the need to use scare quotes. If we want to trade sources, there are plenty that don't refer to him as a combat veteran ([10] [11] [12] [13]). I'm also not in any way bound by some phrasing inserted in some other article by an IP some time two years ago that doesn't seem to have ever been thoroughly discussed on the talk page. You've backed away from "the DoD considers" to "common DoD parlance" but I'm still not seeing much of an argument there. Good luck standing up to some CSM and telling her that "you're a combat veteran" unless you've got a pin on your chest, because she's going to make short work of you, because she does, and you don't. GMG^talk 00:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, you've listed the same source twice in your 3rd and 4th links, but I'm not seeing how sources that happen to mention that Buttigieg is a "veteran" support a counterargument against sources calling him a "combat veteran". The real issue here is at what end of the spectrum, in the narrow-to-broad sense, Wikipedia should use in it's descriptions for Buttigieg, Ernst, and anyone else who is described in the news as a "combat veteran". Let's begin by a having a common understanding of that spectrum, after which point we can argue which convention Wikipedia should follow.

On the narrowest end of the spectrum, you have individual serving members from the armed forces with strong opinions as to what the words "combat veteran" mean, which is not actually defined in any service branch regulations (your hypothetical CSM telling others they aren't "combat veterans" if they aren't wearing CABs, etc.) I'm well versed in this culture after 33 years of active & reserve Army service including deployments; our common understanding is that just being in a combat zone does not mean soldiers should portray themselves to others as having been "in combat", and we have bright line rules on how CABs, CARs, and the like are authorized and documented. The same sentiments carry over when those soldiers leave the service and become veterans; veterans frown on other veterans who describe themselves as "combat veterans" if they never actually participated directly in hostile action.

On the broader end of the spectrum, you have the way the DOD and the VA (not to mention Congress) view the larger strategic policy issues of drawing distinctions between veterans who never deployed to a combat zone during their career and those who did (with some of that group participating directly in combat and others just being there for months or years under the threat of enemy action with no actual contact). Broader still, you have the way our society looks at those groups, and the labels they tend to apply to service members as being "combat veterans" or just "veterans"; as the amply available sourcing readily provides, our society commonly refers to them as "combat veterans" if they are veterans who served in a combat zone under threat of hostilities without regard to whether or not they participated directly in combat. Mainstream reliable sources reflect society's attitudes in this regard, so it's unsurprising that Wikipedia would do the same. CSMs can criticize Ernst for spending her wartime service in Kuwait and Command Master Chiefs can criticize Buttigieg for driving around Kabul and to/from Bagram dozens of times without ever actually getting shot at, but there is no service regulation or instruction they can point to that explicitly defines the words "combat veteran" to their way of thinking as opposed to the way the VA and our overall society commonly use the term and its ambiguities.

Now that we've laid out the left and right limits of this spectrum, which end of it would you argue Wikipedia should adopt as to how these kinds of high profile veterans should be described in the context of their "combat veteran" notability, and why? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Where does the DoD lay out their definition of combat veteran exactly? I've already asked once. GMG^talk 22:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Find the post above where you asked, and then re-read the very first 14 words of my response (where I wrote "You won't find a precise definition spelled out in an official regulation or instruction"). If that's not clear to you and you're confused, I'll restate it this way: The DOD doesn't specifically define what a "combat veteran" is with regard to differentiating between those who deployed to a combat zone during hostilities and those who engaged directly in combat. Sure, we have the CAB, CAR, etc. to grant specific recognition for those that qualify, but the DOD doesn't have a regulation or instruction that specifically addresses what the two words "combat" and "veteran" mean when placed adjacent to each other in a sentence. When soldiers leave the service they become veterans, and that veteran status is administered by the VA. Since the DOD itself does not have a precise definition of what a "combat veteran" is, it has deferred to the VA in the de facto sense to decide what veteran status means, and "combat veteran" has come to mean any veteran who served in a combat zone during a time of hostilities. Individual soldiers may have strong feelings about it and disagree, but at the macro level the DOD doesn't contradict the VA, and our society on the whole (of which 93% have never served in the military) have adopted the same parlance. Consequentially, the reliable sources reflect the meaning commonly understood by society, and Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. See how the dots connect? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

South Bend Police and Crime Statistics

Clearly the current article has WP:Undue issues by claiming there have been no problems between the South Bend community and police there for the years Buttigieg has been mayor. This -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Buttigieg&oldid=920629258#Eric_Logan_Affair_and_South_Bend_Policing_Crisis -- in some form should be added. WP:TW is a very improper response to something that clearly merits inclusion. Pete Buttigieg is not scandal free. I believe I make strong case that something similar to the above needs to be added. 172.58.187.229 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: @331dot:

The 2012 police controversy is already in the article, and there is already a paragraph about the Logan shooting. We don't need an additional three paragraphs tying these two incidents to statistics about the number of black citizens versus police, and to the rise in crime. At most, we can summarize the increased crime rate in the existing section, being careful not to blame it on Buttigieg.- MrX 🖋 00:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the place to document everything bad that occurs in South Bend while he is mayor. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There are many details in the link that are not present in the article. Boykins was replaced by 2 white police chiefs. Body cameras were not turned on for Eric Logan's murder. 26% of the city is black, 6% of the police force is black.

And none of this is mentioned either: Furthermore, A city-commissioned study on racial inequalities in the city from 2017 found the black population in South Bend has higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the country. About 40 percent of black residents are living below the poverty line, and there’s an 11 percent unemployment rate in that community.

Reports of violent crime increased nearly 18 percent during the first seven months of 2019 compared to the same period in 2018. The number of people being shot has also risen markedly this year, after dropping last year. The city’s violent crime rate is double the average for American cities its size. Since Mr. Buttigieg took office in January 2012, there were 100 homicides through the end of 2018 — an increase of about 30 percent from the seven years before he became mayor.

Probably the best thing would be to create a separate section as this does not fit neatly into the existing sections, but since Buttigieg is a presidential candidate who refers to his record as mayor, it would be WP:Undue not to include these details. 172.58.238.181 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References

It's undue to load this article down with everything bad or unjust that happens in South Bend while he is mayor; he's not personally responsible for a high murder rate in his city unless independent sources have documented some specific relation to Buttigieg(it's the responsibility of the people doing the murdering). Some of it might be appropriate for the South Bend, Indiana article about the city in general. This article should only cover actions specifically tied to Buttigieg's activities. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. A police department reports to the mayor, and it's successes and failures are a reflection on the mayor.. are you biased in some way? Are you a support of Buttigieg? 172.58.235.242 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have an independent reliable source that ties the high murder rate of South Bend to a specific policy or action of Mayor Buttigieg, I'd love to see it. You are just posting crime statistics which are better suited for the article about the city. My political views are not relevant, just as yours are not. I don't care if you are an opponent of Mayor Buttigieg (though I assume you are since you immediately assume I am a supporter). 331dot (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Look at Rudy Giuliani and how often crime stats are mentioned in his article. WP:BLP does not mean ignore all a living person's controversy. South Bend crime and racial inequality are very controversial elements of Pete Buttigieg's tenure as mayor, and it is a violation of WP:NPOV to ignore them. 172.58.235.74 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Giuliani had specific policies that were targeted at and affected the crime rate(implementing the Broken windows theory). As I've asked, if you have independent sources that tie South Bend's high crime or murder rate to specific policies of Mayor Buttigieg, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)r

From the vox article I cited and you erased.. " Notably, Buttigieg’s recent comments after the shooting have been criticized by the local police union, which put out a statement calling the mayor’s response “divisive” and “solely for his political gain and not the health of the city he serves.” " ; " Several black residents openly questioned whether he cared more about winning the votes of black voters in places like South Carolina than he does about fixing the injustices in his city’s public offices. " ; " Buttigieg’s “1,000 Houses in 1,000 Days,” a project to knock down vacant and abandoned homes to develop the town, has been criticized for disregarding the communities of color — something Buttigieg has acknowledged. " ; " Efforts to introduce body cameras has failed " 172.58.235.74 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be valid to put claims that his presidential campaign is distracting him(unintentionally or otherwise) from issues in his city, or how his constituents feel about his policy about abandoned structures, but that would not be a license to load this article down with every crime statistic from South Bend unless- as I said- sources tie the high crime rate to a specific policy or action. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Another dead end for you.. Minority communities have a problem with Buttigieg. Crime rates in Minority communities increase because of said problems. That's as clear a tie as possible. Will edit the article tomorrow 172.58.235.74 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The content you added is not in direct relation to Buttigieg himself, and the way it is presented is undue weight of extraneous statistics. You do not have consensus to put this in like that. Reywas92^Talk 05:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I will phrase things well. Buttigieg himself is related to the increase in crime from his tenure 172.58.238.227 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that you put your proposed changes here to obtain consensus first. His being mayor is not a sufficient tie to a high crime rate. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You would? I would suggest logically applying WP:NPOV. 172.58.227.29 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please look in the mirror. You want to put every negative crime statistic from South Bend you can find in this article and somehow tie it to Buttigieg to embarrass him. Hardly neutral. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You want zero crime stats in the article. There is documented friction between Pete Buttigieg and the African American community; he replaced a black police chief with a white police chief and crime in the black community of South Bend increased as a result. To revert 1 of the sentences I wrote means you're thinking. To revert all indicates bias. 172.58.230.134 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

All claims made in the most recent edit to the main article are sourced in the above 2 articles. Make the change @LuK3:

Please offer the source that indicates crime in South Bend increased directly due to the fact that the police chief was replaced. When the criminals were arrested, did they say "I committed my crime because the mayor replaced the police chief"? If you have sources that discuss increased racial tensions due to the mayor's action, you might have something to contribute, but that needs to be well sourced as a cause and effect, and if it's that clear you should have no problem obtaining consensus for that on this page first. That's what's supposed to happen. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies and WP:CONSENSUS has not been reached.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about this edit -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Buttigieg&diff=921472644&oldid=921457066 -- I made 3 claims that are well backed up in the sources here. 1. Body cameras were not turned on for Eric Logan's murder --> this upset the black community 2. The city has a large black community and a small black police force --> this upset the black community and 3. The black police chief was replaced by white police chiefs --> this upset the black community. Yet you chose to delete not 1 but all 3 facts. Your edits have been bad for the wikipedia community 172.58.230.197 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

OK let's talk about it. "Boykins was replaced by two white police chiefs, and despite being a city that is 26% black, 6% of the police force is black." does not have a citation, let alone one that make it relevant to Buttigieg's biography. Regarding "He has been criticized for disregarding the communities of color, many of whose houses were demolished — something Buttigieg has acknowledged.", none of the three sources support Buttigieg acknowledging that he disregarded communities of color. If I missed it, please point it out. Regarding "Body cameras were not turned on for Eric Logan's murder.", neither source refers to the shooting as a murder, and your wording is non-WP:NPOV because it strongly implies a conspiracy to cover up a murder.

Your edits are indicative of someone pushing a point of view. We don't do that here. We reflect sources faithfully, without adding tone or editorializing. If you are here to pursue justice, then you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 20:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

From Vox: "Buttigieg’s “1,000 Houses in 1,000 Days,” a project to knock down vacant and abandoned homes to develop the town, has been criticized for disregarding the communities of color — something Buttigieg has acknowledged." From npr "South Bend's police force is 6% black while the city is 26% black." https://www.npr.org/2019/07/02/737976138/buttigieg-tries-again-to-woo-black-voters-amid-race-controversy-in-his-hometown . A town that has a high black population and a low black police force is a contributing factor to the increase in crime because of Buttigieg. And yes, "Body cameras were not turned on for Eric Logan's death" would be a good sentence to add. 172.58.230.201 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Did Buttigieg order the police to not turn on body cameras? A lot of this sounds like a good basis for an article such as "race relations of South Bend, Indiana" but isn't necessarily appropriate here. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg has not fired the officer who did not have his body camera on, an indication that Buttigieg did not implement a policy here that was not followed. Section "race relations of South Bend, Indiana under Buttigeg" would make more sense given that the majority of black ire is directed at Buttigieg himself as per here and other sources https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/buttigieg-seeks-a-relaunch-after-his-candidacy-gets-mired-in-fallout-from-police-shooting/2019/06/28/9dcd2dde-9864-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html 172.58.227.174 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This article's claim that it's [ˈbuːtɪdʒɪdʒ] seems likely to be right in view of the Maltese original, but if so, then the (perhaps generally reliable) source given for it is wrong, because it claims it's Boot-a-judge (that would be [ˈbuːtəˌdʒʌdʒ]) or Buddha-judge ([ˈbuːdəˌdʒʌdʒ]) or Boot-edge-edge ([ˈbuːˌtɛˌdʒɛdʒ]). As for the Politico article, it seems to be miscited, since I don't find any info on the pronunciation in it.--77.85.55.14 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The citation currently given says that he would pronounce it "Boot-edge-edge" or, more smoothly, "Boot-e-jej." Why isn't this pronunciation used? Rachel Maddow has interviewed him a few times and that is the pronunciation used -- 173.90.75.20 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Military Service.

I was thinking the page should say that Pete Buttigieg was honorably discharged due to "enlisting in the US military generally entails an eight year commitment, served with a combination of active and reserve service" (it wouldn't be a word for word quote but mentions the 8-year commitment). It would also include a link to the Military Discharge page (United States).

I was reading the Military Service section and it didn't click with me at first. I think an explanation would help clarify for the reader that Buttigieg wasn't discharged because of another factor such as unsuitability and/or misconduct.

It would probably read "...and was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2017 due to finishing his eight year commitment." (reword as needed).

FireSparkling (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) FireSparkling

References

We would need a source that actually says that about Pete Buttigieg. We are not allowed to use original research. - MrX 🖋 03:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Height

Can’t seem to find Petes height on here, there should be height listings for all- not just for all who want it, no? Some sites say 5.8” but we should probs go with a solid 5ft just to play it safe, yes? OwSiedits (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What source says 5.8 inches? - MrX 🖋 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Political positions listed in presidential campaign section

These should probably be solely listed in the section dedicated to his political positions. Am I wrong? SecretName101 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Racial disparity in South Bend

Seems there is a need to find a place to put information regarding racial disparity in South Bend under Buttigieg's mayoralty. Seems like a gaping hole for us not to be including this, as significant media coverage has been attached to this topic.

Information regarding this includes information regarding racial disparity in marijuana arrests, as can be found in this article from The Intercept and this article from The Crime Report

Criticisms have been lodged on his "1,000 homes in 1,000 days" initiative for disregarding/harming communities of color, as is mentioned in this Vox article

Issue has been taken with the racial makeup of the South Bend Police force not matching the city's demographic makeup, as is mentioned in this Salon article and this The Hill aricle.

Data might also be found in the 2017 city-commissioned study on the city's racial wealth divide and the 2019 city-commissioned study on disparity.

SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, would like to propose some wording based on the sources relevant to Buttigieg, keeping in mind WP:DUEWEIGHT? - MrX 🖋 23:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure what wording would be used, as I am not sure where/how we would format it to fit in to the existing article.

Other sources that might be useful include South Bend Tribune's "Timeline of events that escalated police tension in South Bend", The Guardian's article "Pete Buttigieg: police killing exposes mayor's troubled history with minorities", this article on Buttigieg taking ownership during a debate of the failure to achieve a diverse police force, and this article. SecretName101 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a potential look it might have, it could be a sub-section of his mayoralty

Racial inequality in South Bend

During Buttigieg's tenure, he and the city have had several criticisms raised about their actions in relation to racial inequality in South Bend.

Some have criticized Buttigieg's Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative for having negative impacts on minority communities.

Many controversies relate to the South Bend Police Department, part of the executive branch of the city's government.

As of the end of 2018, the South Bend Police Department's force was 88% white and only 5% hispanic and 5% African American, having a force which is notably less diverse than the demographic makeup of the city's population. Buttigieg has publicly declared personal accountability for his failure to diversify the city's police force.

During Buttigieg's time as mayor, a number of policing-related events have been credited with increasing strife between minority communities and the police force.

Buttigieg has declared that national racial disparity in rates of marijuana arrests are evidence of systemic racism, which has attracted attention to statistics showing this disparity to be significantly worse in South Bend than it is nationally.

Some efforts have been taken by the city to address disparity during Buttigieg's tenure. In 2017, the city released a report it had commissioned to study the racial wealth divide in South Bend. In 2019, the city released a report it had commissioned on disparity in general.

SecretName101 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This needs a bit of work. My first question is why is this in seven paragraphs, rather than one or two?

• Combining all of this under a heading 'Racial disparity in South Bend' is not a fair representation of the sources. Perhaps something like "Criticism from communities of color" would be better.
• The Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative had aspects of gentrification, and is as much an economic disparity issue as it is a racial disparity issue. If we are going to attribute criticism to "some" then we also need to acknowledge that large majority of South Bend citizens favored the program.
• "Many controversies" seems like editorializing. How about "Some controversies"?
• I would reject the sentence that starts out "As of the end of 2018,.." as not relevant to Buttigieg's bio. Adding it to the other content is WP:SYNTH. The sentence "Buttigieg has publicly declared personal accountability for his failure to diversify the city's police force." is not really NPOV. How about "Buttigieg has acknowledged his failure to diversify the city's police force."?
• I would like to see mainstream sources that show the South Bend marijuana arrest stats meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. The Intercept is usable, but not by itself. I would have to be convinced that The Crime Report is a reliable source.
• I'm opposed to using primary sources 8 and 9. If this is noteworthy, we should be able to find a mainstream source for it. - MrX 🖋 17:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be careful here. Much of the coverage of this issue up until very recently has been dominated by stories originating with reporting by "The Young Turks," a highly biased and unreliable source. "Racial disparity" certainly exists in South Bend now, and has ALWAYS existed. Any discussion of this topic, as it relates to Buttigieg, should be couched in historical context. Data without trends is not useful or relevant. Also: there has been an incredible amount of misinformation and, frankly, propaganda, relating to both the demotion of the Police Chief by Buttigieg, and also the "!000 Homes in !000 Days" program. So reliability of sources is extremely important here. Jrwsaranac (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Crime Stats

Hundreds of families (680) made homeless by Buttigieg's "1000 Properties in 1000 Days" program led to a spike of a few dozen additional homicides annually (very significant for a city as small as South Bend). Perhaps more alarmingly, however, with regard to this article is that the most recent suppressed edit by User:DouggCousins was NOT an RD1 violation, so it should NOT have been suppressed. 172.58.227.230 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that ties the increased homicide rate to this policy. That's been asked for repeatedly; general crime statistics should not be added to this article unless RS specifically tie them to an action or policy of Buttigieg. The edit in question did not do that, and was properly suppressed IMO. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

DouggCousins directly copied and pasted from copyrighted sources. That is the textbook definition of a copyright violation per RD1. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, just because you're editing while logging out doesn't mean you count as more people. You're engaging it sock puppetry and could be blocked for that alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet - you 2 probably are though.. And logs indicate the most recent suppression was not a copyright violation. As far as tying an extra 30 homicides to over 650 homeless families - it's quite clear they are tied. I recommend you "2 different people" delete your accounts since you are not interested in making this website a legitimate encyclopedia. Crime rates under every Governor or Mayor are the responsibility of that Governor or Mayor. 172.58.227.184 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Only if you can tie them to a specific policy or action by the Mayor. For example, Rudy Giuliani discusses the broken windows theory he implemented in New York which reduced crime. Otherwise, general crime statistics should go in the article on South Bend. Posting then here without tying them to a specific policy of Buttigieg using independent reliable sources that draw that conclusion serves only to attempt to embarrass him.

And if you have actual evidence I am a sockpuppet, I'd love to see it, and I invite you to present it in a formal SPI. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, this is clearly Doug Cousins editing while logged out. Do you think we should bother filing? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably don't need to bother. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That was my inclination as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

689 homeless families made homeless by Pete Buttigieg's "fix your house or lose it" policy is clearly tied to an increase in 30 homicides since desperate people take desperate action. Taking away someone's house is a hostile action and that was the reason for the retaliation. DouggCousins (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's "clearly" your original research. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, your belief is that a mayor has nothing to do with the crime rate in his city? And that 689 families who previously had homes being cast aside would not add friction to the city? Cause and affect is not original research. I see you also accused me of vandalism on my talk page. Please avoid casting aspersions and making personal attacks. DouggCousins (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't say it's related unless reliable sources say it is. And you've been warned many times that you're editing disruptively and should stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your belief is that a mayor has nothing to do with the crime rate in his city? Both Vox and NYTimes explicitly mention Buttigieg's policies cause discord with the black community, so yes reliable sources have said they are related. Furthermore, the police chief, who is appointed by the mayor -- and in this case was even fired by the mayor -- is responsible for dealing with crime. Therefore, the edit is a good one. DouggCousins (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Causing general discord with the black community is very different than causing people to go out and commit crimes, and I haven't seen a source yet that makes that connection between crime and a specific policy of Buttigieg. There are possibly sources for the former, though. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg's specific policy was to appoint Ronald Teachman, then Scott Ruszkowski as chief of police. Under their tenure, crime rose. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/why-south-bends-police-department-has-become-a-campaign-issue-for-mayor-pete/ DouggCousins (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Then you would have to show why the police chief was directly responsible for the increase in crime- and even then that would merit coverage in an article about the police chief, not Buttigieg. Overseeing something doesn't make someone directly responsible. You need to stop edit warring. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A city's crime stats are a mayor's responsibility. Period. You need to stop edit warring. Truth is life or death. 172.58.227.5 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. @172.58.227.5: Are you the same editor as DouggCousins? - MrX 🖋 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You disagree? A mayor's responsible for crime in his city. That's a fact. That's like saying you disagree that Andrew Wiggins scored 33 points in last night's basketball game. It's just a fact. 216.130.236.20 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between overseeing an increase in crime and being responsible for it. The mere fact that Buttigieg is Mayor does not mean that he is responsible for the increase in the crime rate. He is responsible for doing something about it, but that doesn't mean he caused it- unless, as has been asked for repeatedly- you have a reliable source that ties an increase in any crime statistic to a specific action or policy of the Mayor. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Wiggins scoring 33 points has nothing to do with this. A mayor is not able to control all the factors in the crime rate. It's also like how Donald Trump said the American economy was terrible, and then said it was great as soon as he was inaugurated. It's not solely up to the president how the nation's economy is, and it's not solely up to the mayor how much crime the city has. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Crime statistics may not be a mayor's total responsibility, but that's not the question I think we need to ask. What we need to ask is whether crime statistics have relevance to Buttigieg's mayoralty. SecretName101 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think crime stats are relevant for any mayor. How else would someone determine how effectively a mayor keeps his constituents safe? Just like Giuliani/de Blasio had/have explicit plans for keeping citizens safe, not having a plan's just as noteworthy. The police chief reports to the mayor, not the other way around. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM. And I am greatly alarmed at your edit here. The text you added tells the reader that "violent crime increased in South Bend from 2012 to 2018" (leaving the unstated, but obvious, implication, that "it's all Buttigieg's fault"). But the NYT Upshot source cited conveys the exact opposite — that a "deeper dig into South Bend's crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime" and that attacks on Buttigieg related to urban crime are misleading. Please don't abuse sources in this manner, which is cherry-picking at best and can be viewed as deceptive. Neutrality^talk 04:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Text cited to news articles that make no mention of Buttigieg

Is there any basis to include text cited to news articles that make little or no mention of Buttigieg? I refer specifically to this content, which I removed and which was restored:

During Buttigieg's first term, infighting on the Common Council became a problem. Former mayor of South Bend and former Governor of Indiana Joe Kernan held a press conference in July 2014 alongside other civic leaders in which he harshly criticized the Common Council's conduct.

References

• 2014 Stopczynski local TV article: no reference to Buttigieg
• 2014 local TV article on Kernan: no reference to Buttigieg
• 2014 local newspaper article: passing mention of Buttigieg (two sentences).

Is there any rationale for relying on these kinds of sources? The text strays from the core topic and use of these sources seems like WP:SYNTH to me. Neutrality^talk 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Given that nobody has spoken up here in defense of this content, I will remove these two sentences. Neutrality^talk 01:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Difficult to argue this is original synthesis since the point being made's literally in the title of the article. I think 1 sentence as a kind of backdrop to South Bend's political operations during Buttigieg's tenure should be added; it's probably more relevant background than a lot of other information. A play by play of each debate, for example, is a bit excessive. Kindof like a dead IDF closet as we say in IT.. More important than that though - crime stats are an important indicator as to a mayor's effectiveness and that definitely should be added. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Two of the three articles make no mention about Buttigieg. The third makes a passing mention. That's precisely what WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is designed to prevent - editors seeking themselves to identify what is "relevant background" and then inserting into articles, rather than allowing the sources to make those connections. Neutrality^talk 16:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The common council of South Bend's relevant background to the politics of the South Bend mayor. If the edit said something like "Pete Buttigieg caused infighting in the common council", THAT would be original research. Noting that there was infighting on the South Bend common council, however, is just a fact relevant to the mayor of South Bend. And it's only 1 sentence long. Certainly a lot more relevant than a May 2019 decision by Alabama legislature.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That does not respond to the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issue. I believe at least two editors have removed or objected to this content, so again, please leave it out. If you have a source that directly and substantively speaks to Buttigieg's relationship with the Common Council, and would like to propose a summary of that content here, then I would definitely be open to that. Neutrality^talk 01:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kindof a dead IDF closet from my forward point. I talked to the editor who did the deletion and he's ok with re-add. Seems you're the last open opposition, so majority want content re-added. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, that is not responsive to the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. I realize you are a new editor, but please take the half-hour to read through the policy carefully. Your last statement is also incorrect, as SunCrow, has just reverted your latest attempt to re-insert this content. Again, you lack consensus on this one, so please don't attempt to strong-arm it into the article. Thanks, Neutrality^talk 04:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not a new editor - I just started a new account because I couldn't remember my old account info. Based on this thread -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SunCrow#Pete_Buttigieg_Page -- it seemed SunCrow was cool with this re-add as it's just 1 sentence that adds good background to South Bend politics under Buttigieg as mayor. However, apparently he doesn't feel it's worth adding. I'm willing to compromise here and not re-add this content as it's not essential. But we still need the article to be as neutral as possible. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Acquaintances and alleged friends

Politico has a long article about Buttigieg's Harvard days. It briefly mentions that Stefanik–who was two years behind Buttigieg–was a member of a "group of students that worked with pollster John Della Volpe on the IOP’s annual national survey of the views of politics and public service of college undergrads." Buttigieg co-chaired the group. There is no mention in the article or any other RS that they were friends. Not sure why WP mentions him being acquainted with an SNL cast member when it doesn't mention that one of his friends was Mark Zuckerberg's roommate (and "Buttigieg was the 287th person to register for Facebook"). Quite a bit of trivia in Education and Professional career sections (internships) that appear to be OR. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it worth re-adding the sentence While at Harvard, Buttigieg befriended future Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik and was acquainted with future Saturday Night Live cast member Colin Jost..

If we do, I propose we revised it to;

While at Harvard, Buttigieg was acquainted with future Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik, as well as future Saturday Night Live cast member Colin Jost.

SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is something more substantive about these relationships (beyond what the articles mention), this detail really seems WP:UNDUE. Samp4ngeles (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd need to see a source for that Facebook/Zuckerberg fact. SecretName101 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If good sourcing could be found, I'd also add Kate Gallego as a college acquaintance. This and the Politico article may be a start SecretName101 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This also seems WP:UNDUE and isn't in line with what you would find in similar Wikipedia articles. Samp4ngeles (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

When did mayoral tenure end?

We seem to be in disagreement as to when Buttigieg left office as mayor. Was it at the end of December 31, 2019 at midnight (see New York offices) or was it during January 1, 2020? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

When his successor was sworn in at noon on January 1, 2020. The infobox "In office" term ought to read January 1, 2012–January 1, 2020, IMO.

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

But did his successor's term begin at noon? or was it 12 hrs earlier? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

According to Buttigieg's successor, as cited by the South Bend Tribune: Municipal code dictates the newly elected mayor takes over the office at noon in the new year, and Mueller said the ceremony was conducted so there was “no lapse in leadership.” Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Marijuana

Hatting discussion originated by topic-banned editor. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article mentions several times that Buttigieg supports marijuana legalization, but his record says otherwise -- https://theintercept.com/2019/11/26/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-marijuana-arrests/ . Anyone wanna help with a NPOV explanation for the disparity? A person's record's more important than their rhetoric.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "The Intercept" is not a high-quality source, and material along the lines of what is included in that piece is undue weight for this article. Mayors don't create state drug laws in Indiana. Details about marijuana arrest rates and racial disparities are far better suited to the article South Bend, Indiana (which currently makes no mention of crime at all) or Cannabis in Indiana. Neutralitytalk 04:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Be real. The intercept's a very high quality source. You've disparaged the hill and the Washington Free Beacon - are you accusing the authors of the 2 sources, the intercept and the crime report of lying? Wouldn't then Buttigieg have sued them for slander? For reference, here's the bit I think's needed to remove the new NPOV tags on that section --> Though acknowledging the problematic nature of the disparity in black and white marijuana arrests, South Bend's black residents are 4.3 times likelier under Buttiieg to be arrested for Cannabis possession than white residents. This represents a rate higher than Indiana (3.5 times likelier) and the US (3 times likelier). References Our actions matter more than our words. You're editing the article in such a way to hide Buttigieg's record, which, as with all humans, is far from perfect. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Please don't make personal attacks here. No, "The Intercept" and "TheCrimeReport.com" is not a high-quality source along the lines of the Washington Post, New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, etc. The Washington Free Beacon is a right-wing outlet and is similarly not good to use. And the link to The Hill that you tried to add was actually an op-ed blog post. Again, please actually read and understand the principle of undue weight. Neutralitytalk 15:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC) I have not nor will I make personal attacks on this site. According to this -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources -- the intercept's considered generally reliable. WFB, TCR don't appear on that list one way or another. And upon re-reading the undue weight article, I am only reassured that not reporting Buttigieg's record prosecuting Marijuana puts undue weight on his rhetoric.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC) [1] Accusing others of trying to "hide Buttigieg's record" is a personal attack. So are comments like "Be real." [2] WP:RS/P explicitly says that "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." [3] You still have no consensus for including this content, and as the proponent of new material the onus for establishing that belongs to you. If you want to go to an formal RfC, we could do that. It stays out in the meantime. Neutralitytalk 14:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) You are hiding Buttigieg's record User:Neutrality. He has a record of prosecuting marijuana users at a higher rate than others in his state. You deleted that record from this article. That's not a personal attack, that's just a fact. Furthermore, comments like "please actually read and understand the principle of undue weight" IS a personal attack. Ironically, considering you are the admin, User:Fifth Harmony Fanboy has a better understanding of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT than you. If anything, Buttigieg's rhetoric should be deleted and only his record should remain with regards to discussions about Marijuana. If I talked about how I was better than Michael Jordan at basketball, that would be less important than my history as a basketball player. Beyond that, you deleted a New York Times source which explicitly stated aggravated assaults had increased 130% because it was "misleading/deceptive". However, you ignore the fact that WP:RS/P has a giant green check mark next to The Intercept as well as the quote "There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news." And the potential bias in The Intercept generally slants in favor of and not against Democrats, so that's all there too folks 116.84.110.175 (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC) The New York Times source is literally headlined "South Bend and St. Louis, Where Crime Statistics Can Mislead": "But a deeper dig into South Bend’s crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime. ... In other words, the evidence is telling us that South Bend didn’t become more violent; it simply changed how it counted assaults." So yes, citing this source for an "130% increase is aggravated assaults" is obviously misleading and deceptive. Neutralitytalk 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Interesting you didn't apologize to FHF for falsely claiming he personally attacked you, since you factually deleted Buttigieg's record on Marijuana arrests. You didn't acknowledge your fight against The Intercept took the idea of a potential bias (against Republicans) out of context. You instead talked about an article no one's trying to re-add, largely because it was written in Dec 2019 and acknowledges it has no 2018 crime stats available. Meanwhile, whereas Buttigieg has not sued The Washington Free Beacon for printing lies, its article, which does mention crime in 2018, was just deleted by another editor on purported grounds of it being libel. Odd. Please actually read and understand the principle of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A section discussing the Douglass Plan must include the public reaction to it. And discussions about Buttigieg in Marijuana must mention how it was processed under Buttigieg's mayoral term. Claiming these are not significant viewpoints is a violation of undue weight. 116.84.110.175 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)