Talk:Mike Gabbard

Critical passages removed

Since 29 January, BillF (talk · contribs), StanfordB (talk · contribs), and JakeW (talk · contribs), have successively gutted the article of all criticism, including a delete of large blocks of material with no discussion and no attempt to seek references or revise. This accounts for the article's current state, which is basically a pure puff piece for its subject. An attempt should be made to restore balance. -- IslandGyrl 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Restoring. Ashibaka tock 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Politically Motivated

In my last five postings, I have added a sentence related to Mike Gabbard’s announcement to run for State Senate. I corrected an error, which stated that Mike Gabbard lost his race for Congress “overwhelmingly”. I also deleted the ridiculous statement that Hawaiian Toffee Treasures are “blessed”. The external link to the “Anti-Mike Gabbard site was removed because it is defammatory and makes many unsubstantiated and false statements. Ashibaka and IslandGyrl are obviously politically motivated to criticize and disparage Mike Gabbard during an election year. This forum should be used as an encyclopedic reference and not for mud-slinging. - Bill F

"…obviously politically motivated…" How about turning the passion down a notch, and read Wikipedia policies Assume good faith and No personal attacks? Most articles about political figures include criticism and controversy sections. If you find a passage is unfair, rewrite it to describe the criticism in an neutral way—that is, make it report what was said by whom without taking a position as to whether any claims by either side are true or false. Simply deleting material you don't like, on the other hand, is considered uncool.

As for the link, I would think any reader would expect an encyclopedia to give "anti" sources as well as "pro". Let the reader hear all sides and decide for him/herself what's true. --IslandGyrl 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Links are Not Inflammatory & Biased

I did a quick survey of the bios for several notable political figures (George Bush, John Kerry, John McCain, Neil Abercrombie, Linda Lingle). None of these political figures had external links that were negative, inflammatory, and based on false, unsubstantiated information. Islandgyrl is incorrect in her assessment of the purpose of a reference tool, such as Wikipedia. - Bill F

No, there was originally critical material in this article and it is standard Wikipedia practice to require it be rewritten in a neutral manner with citations, rather than simply making it disappear. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this. People obviously can and do disagree. Here, those who like Mr Gabbard have their POV, those who dislike him have theirs. The encyclopedic course is to create a text that does not favour any particular viewpoint (see neutrality) and does not try to judge who is right.

I have no particular interest in this subject but if Honolulu mainstream media (see verifiability policy) did report that, for example, Mr Gabbard has ties to an ex-Hare Krishna swami named Chris Butler, then that material can and probably should have been kept in the article or at least linked to. Try phrasing like "A Honolulu Weekly article published on (date) maintained that Gabbard such-and-such." Or: "John Doe, an opponent of Gabbard's, asserts that Gabbard such-and-such." These are legitimate statements, provided they can be documented. Simply stating "Gabbard such-and-such" outright, on the other hand, would be unfair unless there is broadly accepted proof. Can we agree that far at least? --IslandGyrl 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out the Rick Santorum article, which devotes extensive space to controversies regarding the Senator and does contain critical links. --IslandGyrl 01:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt at compromise, I would be willing to accept having an external link to the Honolulu Weekly article, though it by no means is considered “Honolulu mainstream media”. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honolulu_Weekly) MikeGabbard.info breaks both Wikipedia’s “neutrality” and “verifiability” policies because it’s only intention is to defame and slander Mike Gabbard. – Bill F

In a recent edit summary, Bill F wrote, "Link breaks Wikipedia neutrality policy." Bill F is mistaken. Including links to sources critical of the subject is necessary for a neutral presentation. I also ask that he use the edit summary just to narrowly summarize the edit, and use the talk page for explanation and discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion: The Honolulu article information should definately be included, as it comes from a reliable and verifiable source. Remember that one of the key points in WP:V is, "Verifiability, not truth." As for the link to the anti site, I think it can be included, as long as two conditions are met:

1. it is clearly labeled an anti-site
2. it is a notable proponent of a point of view in this article (taken from WP:EL)

In summary, there seems to be quite a bit of controversy surrounding this elected representative. None of it is represented in the article at all, and that needs to change. --Hetar 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the recent comments made by Tom, Hetar, and Geni. According to Wikipedia Credible Sources Policy “Without credible third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material." The information on mikegabbard.info is original research and has not been published in a third-party source. The external link can also be considered "libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person." - BillF

The external link to mikegabbard.info is not a source at all; it is a link to a site critical of Gabbard, and is clearly labeled as such. Including that link in the article does not constitute original research, does not violate our guidelines on verifiability, and is necessary for a neutral presentation. If we said in the article something about Mike Gabbard and sourced it to mikegabbard.info, that might be a problem, or it might not. For example, we could write, "According to mikegabbard.info, thus and so. According to a report in the Times (linked), this is not the case, but instead X."

Separately, please use the edit summary to accurately describe your edit. The summary, "External Link removed: original research, not verifiable, added two external links" seems to suggest you added links, though this is not the case. Finally, as I mentioned on your talk page, please review Wikipedia's policy of no legal threats. Someone not reading closely might mistake your remarks about libel as a veiled threat, which I'm sure you do not intend. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Politician vanity article

The article has clearly been captured by pro-Gabbard forces determined to remove all criticism. He's a controversial politician, with a long history of anti-gay activism and a lot of skeletons in his closet (Chris Butler, for one). He is LOATHED by many people in the islands. None of that shows up in the article. Article should show both sides. Much work needed. Zora 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds familiar.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535412/from/RS.3/

I believe we're still experiencing biased editing on this article, like the overall approach of this edit. Sumana Harihareswara 19:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What did he actually do to oppose same-sex marriage?

I'm having trouble nailing down what this person actually did to oppose same-sex marriage in Hawaii, and the question is also coming up on the Tulsi Gabbard page, which I'm particularly working to improve right now. Did Mike Gabbard help write or campaign for Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)?

I've checked around the web (Civil Beat is unclear on this issue) and started checking the references for LGBT rights in Hawaii. Can anyone give me some pointers and citations? Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara 03:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Gabbard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standupforamerica.net/about.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standupforamerica.net/articles/christmas04.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://standupforamerica.net/?
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standupforamerica.net/articles/rosemond.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"became a naturalized U.S. citizen"?

He was born in Fagatogo, American Samoa, but "people born in American Samoa are American nationals, but are not American citizens unless one of their parents is a US citizen..."(see American Samoa#Nationality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@TFD, FYI, I had been collecting notes on this a while ago and then saw your edit:

As you might have seen, American Samoa#Nationality covers this. To capture that succinctly, maybe

1. Restore the text Samp4ngeles changed in that para here and
2. Put in a footnote, the following from the only source I found that specifically addresses American Samoa: "Section 301(e) Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in outlying possessions to one U.S. citizen parent who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person." (INA § 301(e) corresponds to 8 U.S.C. § 1401(e))
3. Maybe also include this cite from the American Samoa article in the footnote.

Aside — Samp4ngeles's edit summary was unsourced and incorrect: "given that he was born in American Samoa and would therefore be a natural-born citizen.” Humanengr (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed per above. Humanengr (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, After you again removed the citizenship information, and I reverted, you re-inserted the 'citation needed' tag, this time saying "The previous two citations are not RS". On what grounds do you claim the two cites, and , are not RS? Humanengr (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr One of the sources is Gabbard's own website. We can probably even just delete that. The other is a manual from the State Department, which explains how Samoans get citizenship, but there is no analysis related to Gabbard. This suggests it is WP:OR rather than a reliable secondary source. A previous edit to this page said that "Gabbard became a naturalized U.S. citizen at one year old. He graduated from Choctawhatchee High School class of 1965 in Shalimar, Florida." That calls the "citizen by birth" claim into question. There is a citation to support the part of the citation related to high school, which I will add to the article, but not the citizenship part.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

When you refer to an edit, it would help if you provide a link. Humanengr (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Needs more sources

This article needs more sources. A number of facts are not cited to sources. In particular, a sentence on Gabbard's citizenship is unsourced. I found a source that supports the statement (http://www.samoanews.com/local-news/why-american-samoans-cant-run-office-or-even-vote), but am not certain whether it is reliable and do not have time to check into it so I have not added it. Thoughts, anyone? SunCrow (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Notable that all content relating to his anti-LGBT views have been removed from the page. Very suspect Political Vacuum (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable that all content relating to his anti-LGBT views have been removed from the page. Very suspect Political Vacuum (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential bias in writing of page

This page makes absolutely no mention of Mike Gabbard's socially conservative LGBTQ views, despite it being potentially the most notable aspect of his political career. He ran anti-gay political organizations, and anti-gay radio shows. The editing seems extremely suspect and biased. Political Vacuum (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Christine Gralow

I recently fixed a link that misleadingly suggested Christine Gralow had republished her blog posts at the Honolulu Advertiser. In fact, her posts were republished on Hawaii Free Press. Not sure this can be considered an RS... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

In the only discussion at RSN, the replying editors found it unreliable.[1] An article about the editor in Civil Beat makes me think it probably is not rs.[2] Even if it were rs, it is unlikely that the reprinted blog would meet rs. TFD (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this at RS/N, TFD. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Let's Talk Straight Hawaii" q&a

@Samp4ngeles, You inserted the following in this edit on 10/21:

From 1988 to 1992, Gabbard and his wife owned The Natural Deli, a vegetarian health food restaurant in Moiliili, Hawaii. Gabbard closed the restaurant following picketing by activists following remarks by Gabbard on his self-funded radio show, "Let's Talk Straight Hawaii," on K-108, saying, "If [two applicants] were both the same, then I would take the one that is not homosexual." …

References

The Tanahara article (from 2/10/92) says:

The activists started picket­ing after Gabbard stated on his KGU radio show that, if all else were equal, he would hire a heterosexual over a homosex­ual.

Tanahara did not indicate what, if any, question(s) Gabbard was asked, and did not quote Gabbard's statement.

The Ryan article (from one day later, 2/11/92) says:

Gabbard answered a call-in ques­tion on his radio show on whether or not, if all qualifications were equal, he would hire an openly homosexual or heterosexual person."

"I said ... I would hire the heterosexual," he said. "I've never broken any labor laws; I’ve never discriminated against anyone in hiring or firing practices. I’m not a hate monger."

Gabbard said a person's sexual preference is not part of his hiring practice. He believes he was "set up" by homosexual activists call­ing in and asking the same question several times.

The question was phrased "what if the person was openly homosexual," he said. "Gee, if he was openly heterosexual I might not hire him if I was worried he would keep hitting on my female employees."

Before the quoted material from Gabbard, the text by Ryan has a closing but not an opening quotation mark, so it's unclear what if any part of the question is quoted.

The Edgerton article (from three weeks later, 3/5/92) says:

Gabbard replied to a hypothetical question about hiring gays vs. straights thusly: "If the (two applicants) were both the same, then I would take the one that is not homosexual."

Edgerton did not quote the "hypothetical question" and it is unclear what the "two applicants" text inserted by Edgerton replaced in the quote attributed to Gabbard.

The text you included with an unverifiable direct quote attributed to Gabbard would not be allowed anywhere, much less in a BLP. Also, you say that Gabbard made "remarks", not that he answered a call-in question or questions. What the context was and what Gabbard actually said is not verifiable across the 3 cites. Given the lack of consistency in the references, and given that Gabbard's opposition to what he considered the "promotion" of homosexuality during that era three decades ago is already given DUE weight in the article, the text you inserted is not appropriate for inclusion.

Humanengr (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr, I changed the wording to take out the word "remarks." Other than that, all of these RS paint the same picture around what happened. With regard to WP:DUE, that's a distraction from what is at its core WP:NEUTRAL. The discussion of the radio show and closure of the deli simply help explain how Gabbard went from being a health food store owner to a political activist and eventually a politician.Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT Activism vs. Traditional Family Activism

Simple solution to this. Use "LGBT rights opposition." That is precisely what he was trying to do. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, though I don't have access to any of the refs for the first sentence, so am basing my support on the CNN and Honolulu Magazine refs later in the paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The 'LGBT rights opposition' heading would insert presentism given that, at the time (the 90s) the constitutional amendment was passed (by 69.2% of the voters), the issue was understood as "defense of traditional marriage". A better solution would be to eliminate the subheadings under Activism. Humanengr (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not when we're already starting the section by specifically identifying the timeframe. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, per BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say.” [emphasis added] There are no sources that report Gabbard’s 'activism' with respect to bisexual or transgender/transsexual individuals or 'LGBT rights opposition'. The proposed heading change would add present interpretation or judgment synthesizing various sources, not allowed under NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanengr (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the heading needs to be more precise.

Can I assume you do not support the current heading?

Are you opposed to linking LGBT rights opposition?

Are their better articles that we can link instead? --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It's such a short section, I think it would be better not to have subheadings under 'Activism'. Maybe the link to 'LGBT rights opposition' could be under "See also" if such topic links are appropriate for BLPs? I'll look for other articles. Humanengr (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We should be linking to related articles that put content in a larger context, with the article body wherever possible.

There are many articles related to LGBT rights opposition. I was overwhelmed when I quickly searched for something more precisely on topic. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The LGBT rights opposition article covers the history of this issue, going back to the 1920s (and 1950s in the United States). Mike Gabbard's activities were in fact a piece of that history. Furthermore, Gabbard himself was not specific to the marriage issue. For example, he was against hiring gays regardless of their marital status. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the basis of your claim "he was against hiring gays regardless of their marital status”? Humanengr (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

He himself said it on his radio show. More broadly, Gabbard originally opposed the homosexual lifestyle full stop. Gabbard said in 1992, "Homosexuality is not normal behavior, it's not healthy behavior."> That quote was unrelated to marraige. His activism was in no way limited to marriage or traditional families. In 1993, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Honolulu Advertiser stating, "And it's not just the military ban on homosexuals we're concerned about. It's first-graders in New York being taught to accept homosexuality; it's the push to legalize same-sex marriages . . . it's the constant barrage by the media propagandizing that homosexuality is a healthy, normal lifestyle." There are numerous other references along these lines.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You still have not provided evidence that he said "he was against hiring gays regardless of their marital status”. What you demonstrated is that you are engaging in original research to draw inferences you would like to see included in this BLP. Humanengr (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Can always count on your to distract from the conversation and come up with wild claims like that. The references are already in the article, and all of this is sourced, rather than original research. If you're still trying to push for insertion of "Traditional Family Activism" that issue is now WP:DEADHORSE. Samp4ngeles (talk 12:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see your claim of "he was against hiring gays regardless of their marital status" reported in the sources. Please provide the specific text here in talk, and refrain from any further sanction gaming. Humanengr (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please drop it. It's irrelevant to the questions of the section title and what other articles we link. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Improper original allegation by editor against Gabbard

My purpose here is, per WP:BLP, to

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;

2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research)

The allegation made above by Samp4ngeles that Gabbard "was against hiring gays regardless of their marital status" would amount to violation of Hawaii labor laws. This is the editor's original inference, unsupported by cites: in fact, available information refutes this inference (see below). Adding this unsupported allegation, even on a talk page, is a violation of WP:BLP: 1) "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page"; 2) "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."

The fact that the available evidence actually *goes against* the editor's allegation makes it more egregious than it would be otherwise, and allowing such degrades the quality of the discourse on the talk pages.

1/29/1992 Yamaguchi article:

• Picketers Jim Grise and Sharyle Lyndon said they knew of no instance in which Gabbard had not hired applicants because they were gay.

2/10/1992 Tanahara article:

• Gabbard, who denied discrim­inating against anyone in his hiring or firing practices, said yesterday that if he had said on the show that he would hire the homosexual, he would have been discriminating against heterosexuals.
• When asked if he had ever hired a homosexual, Gabbard said he didn't know. “I never asked.” [emphasis added]

2/11/1992 Ryan article:

• I've never broken any labor laws; I’ve never discriminated against anyone in hiring or firing practices. I’m not a hate monger."
• Gabbard said a person's sexual preference is not part of his hiring practice. He believes he was “set-up" by homosexual activists call­ing in and asking the same question several times.
• The question was phrased “what if the person was openly homosexual," he said. “Gee, if he was openly heterosexual I might not hire him if I was worried he would keep hitting on my female employees."
• Woods and another gay rights activist, Sharyle Lyndon, don’t know of anyone not hired by Gab­bard because they were gay …

There is no evidence that Gabbard ever asked about sexual orientation or discriminated. The picketers say they "don’t know of anyone not hired by Gab­bard because they were gay". If any edits are to be made to this locked article, these facts should be included for WP:NPOV. Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I see the article has been full-protected. Insofar as there isn't much breaking news on either Mike Gabbard or the SIF, this is a potential solution. A better one would be administrator attention to the root problem. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been no proposal to insert this language in the article itself, so Humanengr is wasting a lot of time here. With regard to the underlying question of Gabbard's view on hiring gays (whether it was something he would not have done or whether it was something he thought others should not have done), that stemmed from a comment he made on his radio show, which was broadly consistent with all of his other rhetoric on LGBT rights. It is well documented that Humanengr's argumentation above relies almost solely on statements attributed Mike Gabbard himself, which can in no way be assumed to be WP:NPOV. --Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Socially Conservative Catholic

2 of the 3 citations for his being a "socially conservative Catholic" are his own website and washington examiner - not reliable sources.

Other sources suggest he was an eccentric who was/is a member of a South Asian, Krishna influenced religious cult who raised all of his children away from his own attested faith.

Skepticism of subject's own claims should be used in favor of more reliable sources

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)