Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

"war machine" §

@Nblund, Adjusted in view of your edit and critique ("this is campaign rhetoric, but I don't think it really constitutes a foreign policy stance that would warrant a separate subsection. We definitely shouldn't be talking about the 'war machine' in WP voice"):

Per Real Clear Politics, Gabbard denounced the neoliberal/neoconservative war machine in a web ad: "The neocons, neolibs, and mainstream media are all singing from the same song sheet, saying, 'We Want War, We Need More War'." Gabbard goes on to say "As commander-in-chief, I will end these counterproductive, wasteful regime change wars. And work to end the New Cold War and nuclear arms race and use our precious resources to care for the needs of the American people …”

Thoughts?

The phrase "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine" seems really over the top, and I'm not sure whether Tim Haines really represents the views of Real Clear Politics writ large. Ultimately, I think this is more heat than light: clearly Gabbard is a non-interventionist who opposes foreign interventions and has criticized what she believes is outsized influence from the military industrial complex, but we should try to communicate that using neutral language that appears in reliable secondary sources rather than extensively quoting from her campaign materials. Nblund ^talk 23:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

re: "I'm not sure whether Tim Haines really represents the views of Real Clear Politics writ large." Is that your call to make? Humanengr (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's RCP's call to make. I'm raising a factual question - op-eds and editorials are usually attributed to the author of that op-ed or editorial, rather than to the papers as a whole (e.g. "David Brooks says" is not the same thing as "The New York Times says". Nblund ^talk 23:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this an op-ed or editorial? It's filed under 'videos'. His work product has been cited previously on WP without attribution to him as an individual. Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding: Also, it's quite well within Tim's purview and expertise to make such characterizations as he has been doing this for RCP since 2012. Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Re ‘campaign materials’ — how is that different than anything a candidate or politician says by any other means? Re "quoting extensively” — I see longer quotes on other candidate and politician pages. Humanengr (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You’ve heard of ’neoconservative warmongering’ here, here, …, or 'neocon war machine' (17,000 hits), right? Are you unfamiliar with the combo ’neocon-neolib’ (or its variants — 37,000 hits for "neolib-neocon" OR "neoliberal-neoconservative")? Humanengr (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the term, but it's neither neutral nor precise. I really don't know if it's an editorial, but if we can't make that determination, then we probably shouldn't be claiming that RCP said it. WP:OTHERSTUFF: problems at other articles don't give us a reason to make more problems here. The article is already a WP:QUOTEFARM, and we probably should rely more on high-quality secondary sources and work on trimming some of the fat here. Nblund ^talk 02:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "it's neither neutral nor precise": Well, it certainly seems well-enough understood by a whole class of political scientists, pundits, etc., and the general public. Re "I really don't know if it's an editorial, but if we can't make that determination": Yes we can: It's not an editorial. RCP didn't list it as an editorial; it's under 'videos'. Re WP:QUOTEFARM, that's not policy. Re: WP:OTHERSTUFF (also not a policy): Unless you want to admit WP should enforce a bias wrt candidates running for the same position, that is at minimum inappropriate. Humanengr (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We currently quote her in text using the term "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine". Are you saying you're not satisfied with that? If not, what would you like to change? Otherstuff is an essay that elaborates on a policy. The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, which applies to all pages on Wikipedia. Saying "this other article has an NPOV problem" doesn't accomplish anything, because the existence of other problems elsewhere doesn't solve anything here. Nblund ^talk 03:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thx for asking. I'll reconsider in toto and suggest. Humanengr (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: A section that fleshes out that text you pointed to:

§ Establishment war machine

“Bending the arc of history away from war and toward peace” Gabbard proclaimed at her campaign launch “will require every one of us to stand up against the military industrial complex and powerful, self-serving politicians who have a vested interest in perpetual war.”

She elaborated in a campaign ad: “The neocons, neolibs, and mainstream media are all … saying, 'We Want War, We Need More War.'” In a campaign email and video, she said: "Today, our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests … in the pocket of the 'establishment war machine’” which deploys journalism "as a weapon against those who call for peace” and "to silence debate and dissent”. The Honolulu Star Advertiser reported that "Gabbard has blamed the political establishment and mainstream media for ignoring or smearing her, suggesting in campaign materials that they are in the 'pocket of the establishment war machine.’"

Humanengr (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

References

This seems like we're just reprinting her campaign materials, and it says very little of substance about her foreign policy views. The claim that "the war machine" has smeared her, for instance, might be relevant in a section on controversies about her views, but it's not really related to foreign policy at all - it's about her domestic press coverage. It also still uses the phrase "estabishment war machine" in a section header. I really think this is excessive, and I'm not sure what's wrong with the current description. Nblund ^talk 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We’re using her campaign materials because the MSM does not report them. It clarifies her foreign policy views by identifying those in opposition. It’s not just domestic press coverage, it’s all western-allied coverage. “Establishment war machine” is not excessive; it’s exact. What’s wrong with the current description is that it’s inadequate to describe her position. But I do think we should add a section on coverage of (not controversies about) her views.

Also, your repeated reference to OTHERSTUFF ignores that “has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Humanengr (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that they are not reported by the mainstream media is precisely the problem. WP:DUE says that we should include things in proportion to their prominence in reliable secondary sources. If her campaign materials aren't covered elsewhere, then they won't be covered here. Wikipedia can't fix media bias. Nblund ^talk 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop mis-citing policy. WP:DUE does not say ‘reliable secondary sources’. It says reliable sources. Humanengr (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sure, but Gabbard's campaign materials are really not reliable either, and since they don't receive much coverage from other sources, they should be accorded less weight here. I would object to extensively quoting campaign languages even if it did receive press coverage - simply because it is usually vague and flowery. WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:IS provide some additional clarity here. At best, we can use her campaign materials for bare minimum facts about herself, but not for self-serving claims about others. Nblund ^talk 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Now you’re making up policy. There is no “since they don't receive much coverage from other sources, they should be accorded less weight here.” Humanengr (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I took the discussion to the BLP noticeboard for more input. Feel free to comment there. Nblund ^talk 15:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so honest question, why are extensive campaign quotes WP:DUE? Has this position of hers had any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage? Because it seems this article is full of wP:CRUFT. (Note: I am not an American, don't have a horse in this race, dislike all the Democratic nominees about equally and really would just like to not see a new Tulsi Gabbard thread at BLP/N three times a week.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Re your q1: Because they ‘campaign materials’ are not WP:UNDUE. Also, define ‘extensive’.Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean it looks from the conversation at WP:BLP/N like the campaign materials are WP:UNDUE if they haven't attracted significant attention in secondary sources more reliable than RealClearPolitics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, ok with most of your changes. But 'Establishment war machine' in the title connotes more than 'Military-industrial complex'; it also includes "The neocons, neolibs, and mainstream media". Also, we should retain "corporate media and military-industrial complex" in the last part, probably in a quote. She frequently cites Eisenhower's farewell — actually his draft (as I think others have noted here) where he had already broadened to 'Congressional military-industrial complex'. Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can't really say all that in a header. The easiest solution is to just not create a separate section for an issue that is barely over a single sentence. The quoting here is already excessive. Nblund ^talk 02:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Given a choice between 'Establishment war machine', 'Neoliberal/neoconservative war machine', or 'Neolib/neocon-media-congressional military industrial complex', which would you prefer? The first don't say it all, but do enough the sense beyond 'military industrial complex'. Am ok with reducing quoting, as long as her sense in certain key phrases is not diluted, buried, or disappeared. Humanengr (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The answer is "none". None of those headers are descriptive or neutral. If you want to find a place to merge the section, that would be ideal. I don't really get the sense that you're okay with reducing the number of quotes since the phrase "corporate media" already appears once in the the section, and you're saying it needs to make a second appearance. Nblund ^talk 02:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with reducing 'corporate' to one mention; added re Eisenhower's speech — which leads to another option: "Media-Congressional-military-industrial complex". Humanengr (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a word salad. I'm not sure how any of this is distinct enough to warrant a separate section. She generally opposes foreign interventions - and "says stuff about the establishment" is not so much a policy position as a general anti-interventionist worldview. I put the quotes in the intro to the foreign policy section, which should allow us to avoid the problem of finding a header. Nblund ^talk 15:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard quote on Modi (and quotes in general)

This quote seems like a non-sequitur. The preceding sentence says that Theintercept reported she has connections to a Hindu Nationalist organization, but it doesn't mention Modi at all, and the article doesn't really base its claims primarily on her meeting Modi. So why do we quote Gabbard bringing him up here?

More broadly: there need to be some bare minimum standards placed on the decision to include quotes here. If Gabbard says something and we can't find any secondary reliable source that bothers with mentioning it, then it really isn't worth covering here. She's running a campaign, it's her job to say stuff. She says stuff every single day. We can't document it all. It makes sense to say she rebutted the claims, but every single paragraph doesn't need a quote. Nblund ^talk 16:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have rewritten that section removing the long quote. The person who added that had originally titled the ref rather flamboyantly (as "response to yellow-badging"), and while I'd changed the ref name to something more conservative, I hadn't thought about how to rephrase it yet. Given that Shankar's piece required the Intercept to retract part of the article, and given also that Shankar's article is/was overused in our entry, I think giving TG a right to response is normal. (For the entry's history, it might be worth noting that the article was first added by a now-blocked (and allegedly mis-identified) sockpuppet as a Honolulu Civil Beat reprint, possibly to avoid linking to the article where the retraction is noted). By a strange coincidence I was being personally attacked on my talk page by an SPA who will likely soon be blocked (§) at precisely the same moment I was getting an edit conflict trying to restore Gabbard's response. (You mentioned yarn & corkboard on another page, I believe... ^^) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Weird synchronicities aside, are you satisfied with the rewrite? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what your user page has to do with any of this. The rewrite addresses some of the quotefarm issues, but it still brings up Modi out of nowhere, and the larger problem is that the amount of detail is unbalanced. We should either be equally vague: The Intercept accused her of connections to ... and Gabbard rebutted these claims, and called the accusations bigoted. Or, alternatively, we should be equally specific: The Intercept accused Gabbard of connections to ... citing .... Gabbard rebutted these claims, explaining ... I think equal brevity is preferable here. As it stands, we are vague about what The Intercept said, but fairly specific about Gabbard's response. It gives the impression that The Intercept published an accusation based primarily on perusing her donor lists and meeting with Modi, when - in reality - neither of those things were particularly important in the story. Nblund ^talk 17:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

In re personal attacks, wouldn't a normal response be, "Geez that sort of behaviour is reprehensible"? Why, yes, I think it would be. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the substance, Gabbard is not responding only to Soumaya Shankar but to the general smear being repeated in the media. You are aware of this smear I believe since you recently pulled the only sentence out of a WaPo article recycling it and added it to the third sentence of the India section. The sentence you refer to begins: "Among other things, she’s been dogged by protesters who..." in the WaPo. You paraphrased that as "some critics ... charge". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's not a response to Soumaya, then why is it being quoted in a paragraph where every other sentence is about Soumaya's article? I'm aware that people have said she's too close to Hindu nationalists, but I'm not aware of anyone who bases that accusation solely on the fact that she met with Modi. It seems like we're "rebutting" a criticism that doesn't actually appear in the article. Nblund ^talk 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

1) It is a response specifically to Shankar's article that goes beyond Shankar's article, specifically mentioning the media campaign (you wanted that specificity deleted, as it went into too much gory detail...) 2) I'm confused. In my preceding comment, I pointed out that you added a sentence referring to critics criticizing Gabbard about Modi, and above you seem to be saying it doesn't appear in the en.wp article, despite being mentioned in the second (author: Snoogans) & third (author: Nblund) sentences of the section. 3) It seems a bit disingenuous to divert attention from Modi since his name is part of the first noun phrase in the Shankar article and is repeated 18 times. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay - can you cite the part where Shankar says Gabbard is a Hindu nationalist simply because she met with Modi? If we're citing the counterpoint, we have to cite the point itself, so you need to find that part of Shankar's article. The intro paragraph states that she has been criticized for her support for Modi because she has repeatedly praised him, it does not say that she has been criticized simply for meeting with Modi. Her links to him obviously go far beyond that, so it's really misleading to portray the debate that way. Nblund ^talk 18:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that content shouldn't be included unless it's sourced to reliable secondary sources. In other words, no content sourced to the campaign itself or Gabbard comments plucked out of transcripts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, this represents an evolution from your policy on the Jill Stein page where you cited tweets and WaPo interview transcripts extensively. Have you gone back and removed all that stuff? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of my edits on that page were made as a novice editor. As I grew more experienced, I learned Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't you go back and fix your mistakes? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

World Hindu Congress

I'm not sure what readers are supposed to take away from this stuff about Gabbard declining to participate in the World Hindu Congress. The paragraph doesn't even explain what the event is, or why her planned participation was significant. Again, it seems like we're citing Gabbard's rebuttal to a criticism without actually citing the criticism itself. My preference would be to simply remove the paragraph - but if we're going to talk about it, we should explain why anyone would care. Nblund ^talk 18:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We're simply providing evidence from RS that Gabbard refuses to engage in partisan Indian politics. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Providing evidence"? That sounds more or less like you're saying we should cite this because it helps to rebut a criticism of Gabbard. That's... not what Wikipedia does. The Intercept notes that the World Hindu Congress was organized by a Hindu nationalist organization, and that Gabbard had previously had no problem participating with other events organized by Indian political parties. So, once again, we're citing a rebuttal but not the criticism. If you want to include this, then it means we need to add the context that explains why anyone should care. Nblund ^talk 18:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Add away.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My preference would be to avoid adding more of this, because its just a bit of minutiae in an article that has entirely too much already. Can you explain why it's significant? The reason above seems transparently non-neutral. I suspect the reason this article has so much WP:CRUFT is because editors have done exactly this "if I can't remove it, I'll just add more crap to balance it out" in the past. It doesn't improve the entry. Nblund ^talk 18:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Simple, because she's being smeared as a Hindu nationalist supporter, which she does not appear to be. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Where does the cited source say that?Nblund ^talk 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, this earlier version also had problems, but it did explain why the event was being covered: it was organized by the same Hindu Nationalist groups (the VHPA and the RSS) that The Intercept has linked her to. That source cited her initial involvement as evidence of her ties to India's far right, and so I don't really so how we can justify spinning it to imply the opposite of that. Like I said: I think covering this is really just kind of WP:UNDUE, but if we discuss it with appropriate context, that means we're going to be discussing the smears in even greater detail. Nblund ^talk 20:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

quotes in general

[referring to cmts above]

@Nblund: Re your "If Gabbard says something and we can't find any secondary reliable source that bothers with mentioning it, then it really isn't worth covering here." Can you cite specific policy text supporting that?

Same to Snooganssnoogans re your "I think a lot of the content sourced to RS can be trimmed and that pretty much all the 'pol positions' content sourced to Gabbard can be removed." and "Agreed that content shouldn't be included unless it's sourced to reliable secondary sources. In other words, no content sourced to the campaign itself or Gabbard comments plucked out of transcripts." Humanengr (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE weight. Obviously we can't just copy-paste her entire stump speech here, so how do we differentiate between what warrants inclusion and what doesn't if we don't defer to other sources? What other standard would you prefer? Nblund ^talk 22:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Which part of WP:DUE are you referencing? As to "entire stump speech" — a) do you have a particular cite for that and b) what fraction of that do you estimate was quoted? As to "what warrants inclusion", which specific policy text are you referring to for that? Humanengr (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The part that says we cover things in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. If the only place we can find something is on Gabbard's webpage, then the "appropriate" proportion is close to zero. My reference to her stump speech was a hypothetical: if we say "all materials from her website can be included" then what would stop someone from just copying her entire stump speech here? We need an objective standard in order to decide what to include here. The best standard is to look at reliable sources to see what gets covered and what doesn't. Nblund ^talk 00:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this the phrasing you are citing: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" ? Humanengr (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be the most important part, yeah. That's also part of the general thrust of sections like WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but to be clear: we don't have explicit rules to prohibit every bad idea, so there's not going to be a policy page that says "campaign quotes can't be included in articles about candidates". Nblund ^talk 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nblund. If news media ignore something, then it lacks weight. ABOUTSELF presents another issue: stated positions are sometimes not clearly presented. While that may or may not be a problem with Gabbard, it can be with many politicians, particularly on the fringe. The far right for example usually describe themselves as pro-free speech supporters of racial equality, religious freedom and democracy, while reliable sources describe them as opposed to all of them. While we might quote their stated positions, we only do so once we present how they are described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Military records, WP:V and the concept of truth

We had two reliable sources that were deleted along with the (possibly impossible) accomplishments accredited to Gabbard. I would like to caution editors that WP:OR means your personal background is entirely irrelevant; nor is there any special privilege to edits with "do not revert" appended to their summaries. The Guardian is about as good as a corporate media RS can get, and the Hawaiian outlet also appears to be a reliable source. Please do not delete reliable sources just because your original research disagrees with them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As the person who added that factoid about her being an MP as well as a medical specialist on her first deployment, I would like to say that I appreciated the contradiction, as I thought the Guardian source might well be wrong (someone farther up on the talk page wanted something clearer than "specialist", which is what sent me looking for RS on the matter). Generalist RS (young journalists) make mistakes on details and it's good to have subject experts pop in from time to time to clue us in to that, no? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We have no way of validating who is a subject expert. If you want to push the elimination of newsmedia as an RS category, I'll blow that trumpet for you. But under our current regime, it doesn't get much more reliable than the Guardian. Certainly it's a more reliable source than a random editor who claims to be an expert. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting

The "Political positions" section of the article has become so detailed that I believe it is time to split that section into an article titled "Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard". The length and detail of the section has made navigating through the article quite difficult. Samples of politician articles who've been split include Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand and Political positions of Elizabeth Warren. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This probably makes sense, although I do think we should take a close look at some of those sections and determine how much of this material is actually WP:DUE for inclusion. There's a ton of stuff here that isn't actually covered by secondary sources. Nblund ^talk 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a lot of the content sourced to RS can be trimmed and that pretty much all the 'pol positions' content sourced to Gabbard can be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting makes sense to me as well. Humanengr (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 If I had the time to do it now I would. It obviously would pass AfD given the solid sourcing. Thought should be put into a one or two paragraph summary (somewhat thicker than the current introduction) of her political positions that would remain on her BLP. In a recent Rolling Stone "Useful Idiots" podcast, she mentioned that some of her earliest motivation for getting into politics was related to the environment. She also frequently mentions "aloha" and the idea of politicians serving people (rather than, for example, corporate persons). Going beyond individual issues while respecting her language use would be ideal... but I'm not sure to what degree MSM/RS have faithfully covered her positions with that degree of abstraction. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

On those themes, I see this to draw from:

In her quest for peace Gabbard draws inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost all other candidates, in contrast, seem indifferent to King’s teaching about the folly of U.S. militarism.

In a 2018 address, Gabbard said: “Dr. King’s convictions were formed in the crucible of Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam War. Dr. King was a forceful voice against the regime-change policies that create a perpetual state of war, fueled by the military-industrial complex.…Dr. King’s powerful message represents the values of aloha that I grew up with — respect, compassion, and love — and that are so needed in our world today.”

and

She then began to explain what “the aloha spirit” is, and why it is the basis of her campaign.
“‘Aloha’ for us in Hawaii is a word that means so much more than ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye,’” Gabbard said. “When I greet you with aloha, when we greet each other with aloha, what we’re really saying is ‘I love you,” ‘I respect you.’”
That spirit can inform American politics, if people are willing to embrace it, Gabbard said.
This love and respect gets beyond and transcends any of the things that people tend to use to divide us. Whether it be the color of skin, who we love, how we worship, how much money we make — the things that people in positions of power often use to tear us apart — when we come together in this spirit of aloha, this is what brings us together, this is what connects us and unites us.
A deliberate strategy of divisiveness has been used by people in power — “people who are part of the professional political class in Washington, self-serving politicians, greedy corporate interests or lobbyists” — to advance their own narrow interests at the expense of everyone else, Gabbard said.

References

Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Folding some of that in with the existing sentence at the top of Political_positions:

For Gabbard, "foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy” and ending "regime change wars" is the best way to pay for other things Americans need.

Gabbard draws inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Dr. King was a forceful voice" during the Vietnam War era, against "regime-change policies that create a perpetual state of war, fueled by the military-industrial complex" and sees a close connection between Dr. King’s message and the "values of aloha" she grew up with. She explains that those values extend far beyond a simple ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’ to include "compassion, respect, and love" which "can inform American politics, if people are willing to embrace it". Gabbard sees the possibility of transcending things such as "color of skin, who we love, how we worship, how much money we make" that “people who are part of the professional political class in Washington, self-serving politicians, greedy corporate interests or lobbyists” use to divide us "to advance their own narrow interests at the expense of everyone else".

References

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That really doesn't say much about her actual political positions. I think the best approach here would be to look at the material from major secondary sources and try to summarize the key points. Politifact and The Guardian both have fairly recent profiles that briefly summarize her political views and could serve as good models here. Nblund ^talk 01:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Split effected: see Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard; see also new summary. Humanengr (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad you took the initiative Humanengr, thank you. I do wish we didn't have 1RR on this page, though, because the summary could still stand some ironing out. Well, I used up my 1RR fixing the claim Gabbard was saying stuff from military training in Indonesia (which I imagine would be illegal). Nblund has already accidentally violated 1RR. Should we ask admins to raise the limit for a while or not? (I won't be getting involved for at least 24 hours due to work obligations.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And a thx to you and Nblund for your help (and to all others who have contributed to this point). I'm ok with removing 1RR for the day but would defer to someone more experienced with such issues. Humanengr (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're referencing wrt to violating 1RR, but I think the current constraint is working reasonably well. If we all agree that an edit is reasonable, I'm sure we can just agree through local consensus to set 1RR aside for specific issues. Nblund ^talk 00:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"best way to pay for other things Americans need"

@Nblund, revisiting this edit: This is the key aspect of her framing; it distinguishes her from other candidates who say domestic needs can’t be addressed until we ‘balance the budget’ by fixing things -within- the domestic side, e.g., by ‘fixing entitlements’. Humanengr (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do we have to pussyfoot around the issue (both sides of this edit)? Gabbard believes because of our interventionist foreign policy [1] causing regime change wars [2] we spend too much on Defense [3] and by reducing Defense spending it will leave more money available to fix domestic issues. Euphemistic phrases confuse people. Spell it out so our readers, remember that is who we are writing an encyclopedia for, can understand what her platform is. Trackinfo (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that's fine too. I think the stuff about the link between foreign and domestic policy is itself kind of a needless rhetorical flourish. My personal inclination is just to communicate that she is opposed to US foreign military interventions, but describes herself as "Hawkish on Islamic terrorism" and leave domestic policy for a different paragraph. That is more in line with how she's described by secondary sources like this one. But I'm all on board with direct language however we go about doing it. Nblund ^talk 00:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s not 'rhetorical flourish'; it’s federal budget math. Tulsi’s elaboration:

This is why I’m committed to serve as president and commander-in-chief, to bring about this change in our foreign policy that will end wasteful wars. Bring troops home, and take the trillions of dollars. We spent $6 trillion since 9/11 on these wars. This breaks my heart. As I travel across the country what I hear from folks at home, big cities and small towns, people say our teachers need to get paid with a deserve -- get paid what they deserved to teach our kids, they need supplies to make sure we had the best education. We need health care for everyone who needs it, whether they make a lot or a little bit of money. There are urgent needs but time and again, they are told there is not enough money. Yet they write a check, 4 billion dollars every month to afghanistan. That is what we are spending right now. The opioid epidemic is ravaging new hampshire, so many people across this country, yet we lack the kind of treatment facilities and opportunities for those who are victims of this epidemic. Told again, sorry, not enough This is why I will say it over and over, foreign policy cannot be separated from domestic policy. It’s why it’s critical that we end these wasteful wars and redirect these resources towards serving urgent needs here at home.'Conversation with the Candidate' with Tulsi Gabbard: Part 2

Clips from the links Trackinfo provided:

• an anti-interventionist Democrat who supports a populist economic agenda.
• "regime-change" wars … are an undue burden on the country spending, "adding trillions" to the deficit. "Those are dollars out of our pocket that will not be spent on our community," Gabbard said.
• Gabbard is calling for defense spending cuts and redirecting funds to address issues on the home front.

Thx for suggesting the "Hawkish on Islamic terrorism" point. I had left it out for brevity; will see about where to fit that best. Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "Gabbard favors cutting defense spending and redirecting those funds to domestic issues" or something along those lines would be good. I realize that's part of her campaign messaging, but that's why I think we should be wary of repeating it here. Campaign messaging is carefully crafted to make a case for why a candidate should be the nominee, so we run in to WP:NPOV problems if we rely too heavily on it to write the entry. The core question is not "how does Gabbard frame this issue?" its "how do reliable sources talk about her stances on issues"? Nblund ^talk 02:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How about we use your text in the main body and, in the cite or footnote, include this quote: "[F]oreign policy cannot be separated from domestic policy. … [I]t’s critical that we end these wasteful wars and redirect these resources towards serving urgent needs here at home." Humanengr (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How about both: Gabbard sees foreign and domestic policy as inseparable and favors cutting defense spending and redirecting those funds to domestic issue. Humanengr (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that if it is phrased as "Gabbard has said she sees" - I know it sounds verbose, but we can't give readers the impression that we're reading her mind. Nblund ^talk 03:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

When there is a dispute about an opinion expressed by a subject, I prefer to get it out of the horses mouth. I think the quote above can be pared down, remove the stumbles so it is cleaned up to achieve that result. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why I’m committed . . . to bring about this change in our foreign policy that will end wasteful wars. Bring troops home, and take the trillions of dollars. . . . There are urgent needs but time and again, they are told there is not enough money. Yet they write a check, 4 billion dollars every month to afghanistan. That is what we are spending right now. . . . This is why I will say it over and over, foreign policy cannot be separated from domestic policy. It’s why it’s critical that we end these wasteful wars and redirect these resources towards serving urgent needs here at home. Trackinfo (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a good approach Trackinfo. The quote seems to be a good summary of her thoughts. A direct quote bypasses Nblund concern and should produce a less tortuous sentence. Burrobert (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a direct statement like what was proposed above (change "sees" to "says" and the quibble about seeing into someone's thoughts disappears, since she has actually said this):

Gabbard says foreign and domestic policy are inseparable, and favors redirecting money spent on regime change wars to domestic issues.

This is meant to be an overview, long quotes can go into the quote fields of references or to the political positions page. Also in re: "rhetorical flourish" / carefully crafted language: keep in mind that the defense in defense industry is "language carefully crafted to encourage" spending on bombs, missiles, fighter jets, etc., etc.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see the problem with a direct statement, and we use far too many quotes already. Changing "sees" to "says" looks good to me. The "defense" in defense industry is also a widely accepted terminology, and it's not really our job to correct biases inherent in vernacular English, but we could also say "military spending". Nblund ^talk 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Reform

@Xenagoras: these edits to the campaign finance reform do add a lot of useful material on her policies, but I removed some of the stuff that didn't appear relevant to Gabbard herself. There's also a lot of reference to congressional bills, but its not clear to me that her co-sponsorships received any recognition in reliable sources. I think there's some space for including primary sources in this entry, but to have a section that is mostly based on those is a problem. Do you know of other sources that have covered these bills? Nblund ^talk 22:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I added sources that mention the HJR 48 and the Government by the People Act. My original version of this policy section served the purpose of giving an introduction to the problem, Gabbard's actions to fix it, the context of Gabbard's action (her coordination with the No PAC Caucus and related legislation like the No PAC Act) and a chronological ordering of everything aforementioned. I would like to have some kind of introductory paragraph describing the type and severity of the problem of special interest money in Congress. Maybe you can come up with a concise description? Xenagoras (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so there's 4 sources in this edit (1, 2, 3, 4) but none of appear to mention Gabbard. HR 20 had 163 co-sponsors in the 115th Congress. That's about 80% of the House Democratic Caucus, and Gabbard has co-sponsored over 1000 bills. I really don't think this is all that noteworthy for her. Can you point to reliable secondary sources that cite her involvement as important?

Explaining the larger problem with corporate money is kind of outside the scope of the entry - for the same reason that we don't explain climate change in the section on environmental policy. Nblund ^talk 01:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I did a make-over of Campaign finance reform, adding many sources. I am convinced H.R.20 is noteworthy since the Financial Times calls campaign finance reform a "signature policy" of Gabbard and the Intercept reports Gabbard is one of only 4 Congressmembers that do not take corporate donations, which means campaign finance reform is extremely important to Gabbard.

Your point about explaining climate change in environmental policy is valid, but keep in mind that climate change has been talked and written about in vast amounts and for many years. On the other side, the problem with campaign finance is neglected by corporate mass media. There is only an extremely low number of corporate mass media articles about the campaign finance reform, and the few who write about it even dismiss reform as useless or even claim the "effects of so-called big money on American politics are largely positive". They don't bite the hand that feeds them. Xenagoras (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the FT source - could you briefly quote the material you're referencing? Campaign finance reform may be a signature issue for her, but I'm asking specifically whether her involvement in HR 20 is significant. The Intercept does not mention her involvement, for instance. If readers need more information on the context surrounding campaign finance reform, they can click the links to the other Wikipedia entries. Nblund ^talk 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, The FT article contains a profile of the 2020 democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. In this context, it describes her in short sentences and lists her prominent features. One of these features are her "signatures policies", for which FT lists 3 policies, one of them being "campaign finance reform". Ballot Pedia mentions H.R.20 as a legislation by Gabbard.

Wikipedia offers information to the world about Tulsi Gabbard and her policies, e.g. on campaign finance reform. You should not try to make it harder than necessary for the world to find out which political actions Gabbard conducted and which plans she has. Overall you added 3005 bytes to Gabbard's article (mostly by reverting your own deletions) and deleted 19903 bytes (which is 25% of all info on Gabbard). Your net contribution to Gabbard is negative 16898 bytes of text. Xenagoras (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like the FT source doesn't mention HR 20 at all, correct? The Ballotpedia mention appear to be quoting directly from her webpage. I think one way to make things easier for readers is by ensuring that the article is brief and neutral, and covers only the significant points that are relevant to the encyclopedia. So I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more. I'm not trying to be difficult, but unless you can demonstrate that this is WP:DUE for inclusion, it needs to go. Nblund ^talk 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, please read WP:DUE again and also my elaboration below. WP:DUE requires that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." WP:DUE regulates how much space "minority" opinions may consume in relation to "mainstream" opinions. The fact that Gabbard co-sponsored H.R.20 is a fact, not an opinion. And the content of H.R.20 is also a fact, not an opinion. Therefore WP:DUE does not apply here, because it only applies to opinions. Xenagoras (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not correct. WP:DUE applies to "views or aspects" of an issue. Even factual information can be WP:UNDUE. Per WP:BALASP some facts may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.. This is also part of WP:IINFO. Obviously, we could write a article with purely factual information that might still fail to be neutral. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE always applies to views = opinions, but never to facts. All mentions of aspects in WP:DUE exist in sentences about views and therefore the aspects in WP:DUE are aspects of views. An aspect is the way something appears when viewed from a certain direction or perspective. I recommend an administrator should clarify the description in WP:DUE. I could do that myself but don't want to edit Wikipedia's policy when an admin can and should do that instead.

You are correct that WP:BALASP applies to facts as well as views = opinions. WP:BALASP regulates how much space a segment of any content type (fact or opinion) shall consume in relation to other segments in the same article. WP:BALASP applies to "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports. ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.". Therefore WP:BALASP does not apply in regard to the question whether or not to include H.R.20 in the article, because Gabbard's support for H.R.20 is a permanent policy, not an isolated event, not a criticism, and not a news report.

WP:IINFO states, articles should not be "summary-only descriptions of creative works" or "lyrics databases" or "excessive listings of unexplained statistics" or "Exhaustive logs of software updates". Gabbard's support for H.R.20 is not in any of these categories. WP:IINFO therefore does not apply.

You wrote above, "I'm not trying to be difficult", but I have grown doubts about this, since you don't seem to have a full understanding of the applicable Wikipedia policies for this content dispute, yet you keep coming back at me with ever new policies that you hope will support your opinion, but they fail to do that. Additionally you have misquoted the article content, and made a logical fallacy in an attempt to prove your opinion, as I have explained in the last 2 sentences here. You give the impression to be WP:LAWYER. You also wrote, "So I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more." Please put more consideration into your next plan to cut something. Xenagoras (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I've opened a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard regarding these questions. Please comment there. Nblund ^talk 02:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I am sorry for not giving an explanation for my diffs. Here you go: At the begin of the section, I restored the reference to the source Lahaina News because the source states in 2016, "Gabbard's office last week announced..." and there is time gap between the date in this source and the other source (Congress). But I am fine with the current text which omits the announcement and only refers to the event of co-sponsoring the resolution. I removed the Huff Post sourced text because you did not seem to be too happy with it, and I see it as a hit piece against Gabbard that is redundant to another source. Lastly, I restored the quote from End Citizens United because it's the only source in the current version that mentions that Gabbard is member of the No PAC Caucus. I was attempting to create a text version synthesized from both your and my wishes in iterative edit cycles. WP:EDITCONSENSUS That didn't work out perfectly (my bad for not explaining diffs), thus we arrived at WP:BRD. I thought "reverting" means using the "undo" function for a diff. In my understanding, my changes were neither a complete revert/reversion according to WP:RV, nor did they follow the pattern "You remove most of the new paragraph, but leave one or two sentences" of a partial reversion, instead my changes followed the pattern "You re-phrase the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article" of a normal change. I will aim to be more careful in observing the WP:1RR rule and would like to continue with WP:EDITCONSENSUS whenever possible to save time. Xenagoras (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with removing the HuffPo source, but we do need to apply consistent standards with regard to WP:DUE weight. It applies to both negative and positive information. The statement that she stopped taking corporate money is not really any more or less noteworthy than the fact that she received corporate money previously. The same thing goes for her endorsement from the ECU. If we can find additional secondary sourcing for this stuff, then its warranted, but if our only source is an announcement from her website, then it's probably not worthy for inclusion.

My understanding is that the "revert" would include stuff like restoring a section that was previously removed - so the recreating of the section was the first revert. Either way, I don't think its a big deal, but I wanted to give you a heads up since you're a relatively new account. Nblund ^talk 15:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, WP:DUE weight does not require equal weight of positive and negative info on a topic. It also does not require creating any "due weighting" according to some "criteria" between positive and negative info. WP:DUE requires that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." There is no requirement to insert negative information just for the sake of having it. I have no problem with negative information as long as it is fairly expressed. The Huff Post article is not fair, because it contains misleading text used to paint Gabbard as a hypocrite und untrustworthy person, thereby attempting to undermine her support from her constituency base. It is a hit piece which does neither elaborate on Gabbard's motivation for abandoning corporate money nor on the overall problem of corporate money in politics. The statement that Gabbard stopped taking corporate money is more important than the fact that she previously received corporate money, because per 2018 Gabbard was one of only 4 Congressmembers to do that. Her stance is a minority of 0.7% of Congressmembers, her stance is therefore noteworthy. End Citizens United's endorsement for Gabbard is not sourced via Gabbard, but via End Citizens United. Xenagoras (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it required equal parts negative and positive information. I said that due weight applies regardless of whether the information is positive or negative. It also applies even if you personally believe that the article in question is a "hit piece" or whether it is fair to the subject. If a single sentence mention of Gabbard in The Intercept is worth including, then it's hard to see how you could justify excluding an entire article about her in the Huffington Post. Her endorsement from End Citizens United does not appear to be referenced by mainstream secondary sources. Again, we need to look to reliable sources to establish WP:DUE weight. Nblund ^talk 21:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note since this content has been moved to Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard, I've also opened the conversation thread to the talk page of that article. Subsequent comments should probably go there. Nblund ^talk 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

reduce rates of recidivism …

@Nblund, re edit: Per this: "H.R. 5682 … is a bipartisan bill sponsored … that will propel formerly-incarcerated individuals toward success when they return home, while enacting targeted reforms that would improve public safety and reduce recidivism.” and "The Establishment of a Risk-Reduction System: This system, which is already used at the state level to best match inmates to programs fitting their needs, must be based on dynamic factors to best lower someone’s risk of recidivating over time.”

How about:

This law will, among other things, establish a Risk-Reduction System to match inmates to programs best-fitting their needs. It is intended to empower prisoners for successful reentry into society and reduce rates of recidivism.

Humanengr (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to put this on the political positions page? I think that wording is okay, but it might be better to prioritize some other stance rather than this one - her criticisms of Kamala Harris, for instance. The coverage seems pretty limited for this bill, and Gabbard's role here seems limited to a co-sponsorship. Cory Booker is usually the one touting it as a signature achievement. Nblund ^talk 00:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Right on all that. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

'unorthodox'

@Nblund, re this edit: 'unorthodox' is a bit denigrating. Consider that re the 2016 DNC debate issue, she said: “It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” Gabbard said. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”[4]. To me, my original better characterizes that and the other behaviors described in that para. Open to other suggestions. Humanengr (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really agree that "unorthodox" is negative (does "Gabbard adheres to orthodox viewpoints" sound like a positive description?), but "stands against existing power structures" seems aggrandizing. Some people interpreted her stances as "standing up to power", others have characterized her stance on debates as hypocritical, and see her foreign policy views as Islamophobic. We need to avoid sounding like we're taking a side by putting a positive spin on her viewpoints.

Her views on many issues are different from the views of many other members of her party. "Unorthodox" is used by WaPo, The New Yorker, and Politico, among others. "Unconventional" might also work. Nblund ^talk 23:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Per wikidiff: "As adjectives the difference between unconventional and unorthodox is that unconventional is not adhering to convention or accepted standards while unorthodox is unusual, unconventional, or idiosyncratic." For now, I'll go with 'unconventional'. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund From that NewYorker piece: "Gabbard does not consider herself to be especially loyal to any leader or faction." From WaPo: "She broke with most Democratic leaders again by backing Sen. Bernie Sanders". That suggests starting the para instead with: "Kelefa Sanneh of the New Yorker has observed that 'Gabbard does not consider herself to be especially loyal to any leader or faction.' She has broken with party leaders on issues ranging from …" Humanengr (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would work very well, at least not to open to the paragraph: it looks like Sanneh is just characterizing Gabbard's description of herself - and again I really doubt that any candidate would go around describing themselves as "loyal to a party faction". I think "unconventional" is a good neutral description that comes up in a lot of writing about her. We can substantiate that characterization with the things she's done, and - if needed - we can cite her own spin on it ("she's an independent thinker") and a more critical take ("she lacks a constituency") toward the bottom of the par.

That New Yorker piece has a lot of of stuff (e.g. Chris Butler) that we don't discuss in the entry - the reporter quotes Gabbard's characterization herself, but the remainder of the article seems to be raising questions about whether or not she has other loyalties outside the party. I'm not endorsing the characterization, but if we start picking out the good parts, it's hard to justify leaving out the other stuff. Nblund ^talk 15:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass removals / 1RR

Nblund just did a lot of mass removal. It is not possible for me to reinstate any of the material removed without violating 1RR because Nblund has made an intervening edit added a single character to the article. I will simply report the removals I may decide to restore later here unless well-reasoned policy-based reasons are given. Others may wish to look into the many other things which were removed / modified.

1. [5] (religious bigotry section): this is a repeated *policy* position that Gabbard has hit on throughout her career
2. [6] (removes articles by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter & MIT professor Theodore Postol on the chemical attacks in Syria: both articles refer specifically to Gabbard, and represent a response to the clamor about Gabbard having a *policy* of being circumspect and analyzing the evidence)
3. [7] (removes two RS about a bill concerning legislation aimed at eliminating corporate PAC money. The articles mention that Gabbard is one of only four House politicians to make it a *policy* not to accept such monies.)

I disagree with all three removals.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding 1 and 3: "themes" are not policy positions, and a single anecdote is not a theme. The "campaign finance" section did not concern legislation - it concerned a personal pledge related to her campaign. Oddly enough the HuffPo article cited in that section is mainly about how she accepted donations from major defense contractors in her 2016 campaign, and The Intercept citation notes that PACs are a "drop-in-the-bucket" and that Gabbard still has lots of high-dollar backers. It's probably best to just put this on the entry for her campaign, but if we're discussing her campaign finances practices, we should cover it neutrally.

Regarding 2: if its a noteable opinion, we should be able to find a better-quality reference for it. The claim that the attacks are a false flag is just a wild conjecture, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Nblund ^talk 18:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

1) I corrected my mistaken use of the word "theme" before you replied because I thought it might lead to this sort of reply.

2) I am not sure what to say about this, because keeping an open-mind is considered fringe these days and is grounds for being labeled a wrong-thinker. It's almost like we haven't learned from history. It's odd that former UN weapons inspectors and MIT professors are said to be advancing "fringe" theories...

3) I think you'll find that the Intercept article you deleted is about HR 1: [8]. This should be in political positions article, which could be split to a separate page from her BLP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you want, but "policy positions" sections typically deal with legislative or other government issues, not personal philosophies or anecdotes about things she said once. Gabbard's position on HR 1 would certainly be a policy position, but that's not the content I removed, and that article doesn't actually mention her stance on it, so I'm really not sure what your point is. WP:FRINGE is mostly defined by coverage in reliable sources. Can you find coverage of this position in generally accepted reliable sources? Nblund ^talk 19:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

#2 is a violation of WP:FRINGE, so the content should not be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, re #2: The sources cited were 1) Maté interviewing Postol in Grayzone and 2) Ritter publishing an opinion in Truthdig to counter opinions offered by Howard Dean and Neera Tanden. I see there's also the Maui Independent which points not only to those two but to Uri Avnery (not to mention Seymour Hirsch). What's wrong with those? Humanengr (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we cite Gabbard's opinion and then we say she was criticized by Dean and Tanden without detailing their views. Most international bodies believe that Assad was responsible for the Khan Shaykhun attacks. We don't cite the views of mainstream experts, so it seems especially WP:UNDUE to cite the views of a fringe minority. Nblund ^talk 15:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Re Tulsi on ‘use of drones’

See Talk:Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard#"limited_use_of_drones" Humanengr (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire & the Daily Caller on Artsakh

So far, I don't think anybody's tried to post the Mirror or the Mail. I notice that a new section has been created on Azerbaijan / Artsakh / Armenia. An interesting article is here that could provide counterbalance to the current sourcing. Thoughts about sourcing a BLP to these opinion pieces from the Daily Wire and the Daily Caller? Thoughts about doing so without presenting Gabbard's point of view?

Does anyone know Asbarez? It seems to have nearly 400 cites @ en.wp 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 22:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you saying about The Daily Beast, etc?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That most reliable papers don't have "Daily" in their title. Any comment on the main question?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Asbarez is a newspaper ran by the Armenian diaspora in the United States. Would that not make it a partisan source given that the Armenian National Committee of America organised Gabbard's trip to Nagorno-Karabakh in the first place? Besides, it does not seem like any other source confirms what Asbarez claims Gabbard said during her visit. I added that paragraph making sure not to quote any Azerbaijani or Armenian news agencies exactly for reliability concerns over this highly sensitive matter. Parishan (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire and the Daily Caller are not usable per WP:BLPSOURCES, and they should be avoided for any article unless the topic is related to the publications or third-party coverage about something they published. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted and removed. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, in point of fact, it wasn't removed. I have removed it now. What follows is the text that was in the article, sourced only to the Daily Wire and with no mention of the Republic of Artsakh (the article was written by the head of the Salomon Center) (The .az site does not mention Gabbard at all, of course.) To get an idea about the other side of the story, you might want to look at the report prepared for Christian Solidarity International by Baroness Caroline Cox & John Eibner, "Ethnic cleansing in Progress: War in Nagorno Karabakh" (link)

In 2017, during a visit to Armenia, Gabbard and two other members of the House of Representatives made a side trip to Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-majority breakaway region of Azerbaijan controlled by Armenian forces since the declaration of its independence in the early 1990s and a war that has resulted in mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Azeris from the area. Azerbaijan, whose sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized by all UN member states, has introduced a law barring foreigners from entering Nagorno-Karabakh through Armenia, with which it remains at war, considering such acts a violation of the country's visa policy. While in the region, Gabbard met with local legislators, which Azerbaijan authorities saw as "a provocation aimed at undermining efforts of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, including the United States, in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Gabbard was subsequently declared persona non grata in Azerbaijan and blacklisted for any future trips to the country.

References

Does anyone think this should go back in the article? If so, does anyone have decent sources? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"The .az site" is the website of the Embassy of Azerbaijan in the US quoting the state law on the inadmissibility of foreign visits to Nagorno-Karabakh. This source is not cited in relation to Gabbard's visit to the region but as background information to the legal framework prompting Azerbaijan's reaction to her visit.

I must have forgotten to include the Radio Liberty source which states exactly what was summarised in the paragraph, for which I apologise: [9] By the way, I believe Radio Liberty offers a very good and neutral summary of the conflict in the last two paragraphs of the report and bases its information on both sides' story (see list of media outlets at the bottom).

The article by Cox and Eibner says nothing about Gabbard's visit from "the other side". Why exactly are we looking at it? Parishan (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If no one is against it, I will restore the paragraph citing only Radio Liberty. Parishan (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be undue in "political positions" as written above, but I do not wish to discourage you from giving it another try, in which the text does not exclusively and extensively quote the AZ government. I see that you display multiple barnstars for Azerbaijani articles on your userpage, which shows you are likely to be a solid writer. I would ask that you make a special effort to include the Armenian POV on the question: here is a link concerning her basic political position on the matter, which includes US recognition of the Armenian genocide, the "respect of [Azebaijani] territorial integrity", and the "right to self-determination", which would IMO all need to be stated in the section for NPOV.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Once you remove the spin in the Daily Wire article, there is no story. Gabbard went to Nagorno-Karakh as a representative the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the United States House Committee on Armed Services and the 110 member Congressional Armenian Caucus, which includes the speaker.[10] If you want to add anything to Gabbard's foreign policy positions, it is that she supports recognition of the Armenian genocide. TFD (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not about the capacity in which she went there. The point is that a potential US presidential candidate is legally barred from entering a UN member state because of her actions with respect to that state's legislation. Parishan (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite the passage of any policy or guideline that says that? Weight is quite clear on this. It is not the role of Wikipedia articles to present information its editors think should be part of the U.S. electoral process, but to report those issues as they appear in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Here is Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry-issued list of persons whose visit to Nagorno-Karabakh was qualified as illegal by the government of Azerbaijan: [11] (Gabbard is #706 on the list) and an article from a pro-government news website elaborating on it. Here is a notice from the Azerbaijani embassy in Washington D.C.: [12] that describes the policy. Also, I do not understand the "Once you remove the spin in the Daily Wire article, there is no story" logic when there is a perfectly neutral source (Radio Liberty) cited above that states pretty much the same: [13]. Parishan (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

that "perfectly neutral" is just fun, Parishan :) !DYK that RFEL is mentioned in the first paragraph of en.wp's border blaster entry? Still, I don't see a problem mentioning she went to Nagorno-Karakh along with two co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus around Sept. 2017. It's true the original Asbarez article has been republished by RFEL (your link) and by the Armenian caucus (here). They credit Russian Interfax, though, as breaking the news that the Azerbaijan government had put the three caucus members on a travel blacklist as a result. Your link suggests it may have been Rashid Shirinov who should be cited as the original author? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is "fun" about it? Radio Liberty may have been set up as a "border blaster" broadcaster at the time of the Cold War to target the Eastern Bloc countries and to counter their communist propaganda broadcasting, but this has little to no relevance to what we are discussing here. The Eastern Bloc is long gone and with regard to Armenia and Azerbaijan, RL is a third-party source beyond any doubt. It is not Rashid Shirinov who is the original author, it is the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan spokesperson who originally came out with the statement that Gabbard had been blacklisted. I cited Shirinov because it was an English-language source. Parishan (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying that this article should criticize Tulsi Gabbard for her opposition to Armenian genocide denial? She probably also opposes holocaust denial - do you think we should add that to criticisms against her? TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please show me exactly where I said that. I am particularly interested to know where I used the words "criticism" and "genocide". Parishan (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You said, "The point is that a potential US presidential candidate is legally barred from entering a UN member state because of her actions with respect to that state's legislation." But the big dispute between the U.S. Congress and Azerbaijan is their position on the Armenian genocide and treatment of its Armenian minority. You say the circumstances of her visit are unimportant. But take the case of someone denied entry to Nazi Germany after looking into the condition of German Jews on behalf of the U.S. Congress. Would we just say that they were barred from a member state of the League of Nations for disobeying their laws without any explanation? TFD (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You lost me at "the big dispute between the U.S. Congress and Azerbaijan is their position on the Armenian genocide and treatment of its Armenian minority" - outside of a small caucus of interest group lobbyists, there is no "big dispute" on this issue as Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the genocide (which refers to a period before Azerbaijan even existed). The U.S. Congress cannot even engage in such a dispute with Azerbaijan or whomever given the Congress's own non-recognition of the Armenian genocide. I still do not understand why you keep bring that up, but anyway this is all beside the point. Gabbard was not blacklisted for what she said during her visit. She was blacklisted for violating the country's visa policy, which specifically states: "The laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan prohibit visiting the occupied territories without the explicit consent of Azerbaijani authorities." (this is how this was worded in the original passage, by the way). Hundreds of other politicians, mediators and journalists have visited the same region without being blacklisted because they followed the procedures that are in place. I also did not hear a reaction from you as to where I called on "criticising Gabbard". Parishan (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I notice that while Gabbard is still on the LIST OF FOREIGN CITIZENS ILLEGALY VISITED OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN (Updated: 21.02.2019}, she does not appear on the current List of foreigners who are persona non grata in Azerbaijan posted on the Azerbaijani government website and neither do any other Americans.

I would like to know who these hundreds of people who have received permission to enter Nagorno-Karabakh are. As I understand it, to get such a visa, one must sign a declaration supporting Azerbaijan sovereignty over the territory. But official U.S. policy is to seek a negotiated settlement on the basis of self-determination of Armenians. Furthermore, Gabbard's home state of Hawaii as well as many other states either recognize Nagorno-Karabakh or reject Azerbaijani sovereignty. I note too that the the U.S. gave a visa to the president of Nagorno-Karabakh to visit Washington over the objections of Azerbaijan and former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans has called for its recognition. And meanwhile, the U.N. charter recognizes both the territorial integrity of states and the right of self-determination of minorities.

So it's a lot more nuanced than Tulsi Gabbard broke the law of a country we recognize. That's why we would need reliable secondary sources that present them. Out of curiosity, do you have any interest in Armenian topics?

TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

she does not appear on the current List of foreigners who are persona non grata in Azerbaijan posted on the Azerbaijani government website and neither do any other Americans - The list has not been updated but I see over twenty other Americans on it (searchable as "USA").

I would like to know who these hundreds of people who have received permission to enter Nagorno-Karabakh are - No problem. Conflict mediators, OSCE and PACE monitoring missions, post-war resettlement fact finders, HALO Trust staff, authors, analysts and reporters (for example, Thomas de Waal, Simon Reeve, etc.) once they obtain accreditation (see #18), etc.

As I understand it, to get such a visa, one must sign a declaration supporting Azerbaijan sovereignty over the territory - Where do you get your facts?

But official U.S. policy is to seek a negotiated settlement on the basis of self-determination of Armenians - With all due respect: no. The official U.S. policy is recognising Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, as does every other country in the world and as stated on this U.S. Department of State-issued fact sheet. In fact, the U.S. has never brought up self-determination of Armenians without also voicing its support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. And it would not be a permanent OSCE Minsk Group member if it prioritised the former over the latter. So I am afraid, the U.S. position is very clear on this: that there are politicians or former ambassadors who speak or act against it shows only that freedom of speech in this country works but this is not enough to suggest that the situation is "a lot more nuanced". As a matter of fact, the whole "Foreign policy" section of the article is full of references to Gabbard siding with one or the other party in intercommunal and international disputes abroad, but no one removes those and no one seems to insist on adding "the other side of the story" (because these conflicts are never simple and straightforward by definition). Yet here, suddenly one gets asked if he/she has "interests" for such considerations.

Furthermore, Gabbard's home state of Hawaii as well as many other states either recognize Nagorno-Karabakh or reject Azerbaijani sovereignty - Those interest group-lobbied decisions, whether pro- or against Azerbaijan, mean nothing to U.S. foreign policy as it turns out according to Hawai'i Senate Democratic majority leader J. Kalani English.

the U.S. gave a visa to the president of Nagorno-Karabakh to visit Washington over the objections of Azerbaijan - Residents of Nagorno-Karabakh are holders of passports issued by Armenia. How exactly does this prove that the U.S. recognises this as a presidential visit?

former U.S. ambassador to Armenia John Marshall Evans - A former diplomatic worker is entitled to have his own opinion. This has no effect on the policy of the state he once used to represent.

the U.N. charter recognizes both the territorial integrity of states and the right of self-determination of minorities - Yes, and while territorial integrity has a very clear definition (inviolability of borders being one of them), self-determination does not necessarily mean secession, so I do not see how regard for self-determination cancels out U.S.'s recognition of Azerbaijan's right to Nagorno-Karabakh. What is clear is that there is absolutely no provision in the United States's foreign policy or its laws that would license disregarding Azerbaijan's sovereignty and the authority of its visa policy on the grounds of some random politician being at odds with Azerbaijan's position in its conflict with Armenia. Parishan (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is all very interesting but you need a secondary source that argues your points. We don't do investigative journalism, but merely report sources that do. You are right btw, I did not search USA but United States on the List of foreigners who are persona non grata in Azerbaijan However the representatives who visited on behalf of Congress appear to have been airbrushed out. Why do you think that is? TFD (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think they were "airbrushed", it is just that the website has not updated the list for a while. Here is a secondary source summarising everything I had included in the first version of the paragraph on Gabbard's Nagorno-Karabakh visit and the legal implications thereof: [14]. Shall I put the paragraph back into the article? Parishan (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, because it fails weight: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." While you say it is important, because Gabbard is running for president, the experts who work at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. either disaagree with you or are not as informed on current events as you are.

While it's tempting to alert the public to information about someone they would not find out through news sources that most informed people read, it does not belong here. Also, the way your represent the story casts it in a negative light. If reliable sources were too cover the story then one would expect nuance. In particular they would ask Gabbard to respond to the story.

Also, the source used is questionable and it does not even say that Gabbard is banned from Azerbaijan, merely that this information has been report by a Russian news agency.

There's good advice in WEIGHT: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements."

TFD (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That is quite an unsatisfying justification given that the entire section on India under "Foreign policy" is based on what was reported by Indian news agencies, with the exception of two rather insignificant references to Quartz (whose weight is nowhere near comparable to that of the news outlets you listed), but clearly not living up to WP:WEIGHT. Somehow no one opposes including that section into the article. Me "representing the story in a negative light" is, in my opinion, a mere personal impression on your part, which should not hinder assuming good faith. Especially in light of the fact that I have invited you twice to show me where I called on "criticising" Gabbard and both times you ignored my question. Parishan (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe outside of yourself consensus was unanimous that, as originally written, the contribution was inappropriate. I also think it concerning that while you said you deleted the Daily Wire piece you actually did not. (I'm still not sure how you could have made this mistake, as you used the title and the url from the Daily Wire but claimed the source was REFL.) I've asked you to propose a more neutral formulation here on the talk page but you have chosen not to do so. As a result, I'm not sure what your complaint is, since you haven't done any of what was asked of you to move forward... also FWIW: qz.com is cited 2418 times on en.wp, and mfa.gov.az is cited 370 times. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not important how I made the mistake (these things happen when you consult multiple pages at the same time): it is important that I admitted to my mistake, apogolised for it and provided an alternative credible source, which states the same thing that was mentioned in the paragraph (I still do not understand what the big deal was - it was just a matter of editing what was in the reference tag). Before I had time to do anything with the paragraph following your proposal, TFD joined the discussion and took it in a completely different direction, mainly preoccupied with looking for clues in U.S. foreign policy that could mitigate the notability of a potential US presidential candidate being declared persona non grata in another country. This is not about the Daily Wire anymore. I am also not sure why you are comparing Quartz with mfa.gov.az, when I am citing this source that, according to TFD, "fails WP:WEIGHT". Parishan (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

{Feel free to delete the India section if you choose.} You wrote above, "the point is that a potential US presidential candidate is legally barred from entering a UN member state because of her actions with respect to that state's legislation." (12:52, 26 June 2019) It's not assuming bad faith to interpret that as presenting her in a negative light. If you think there is nothing particularly wrong with breaking the laws of another UN member state then it has no relevance. But we're not investigative journalists and I suggest you read and follow content policies. Unless and until it becomes an issue it does not belong here. TFD (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would I delete the India section if you are the one claiming that such sections are not referenced according to WP:WEIGHT? I personally have no problem with it: naturally, if a political move concerns internal politics of a specific country, that is the country whose sources are going to be the most vocal on the matter, and you cannot deny them reliability just because something was not republished in the Washington Post or the New York Times. Besides, you yourself acknowledge that with regard to Azerbaijan, Radio Liberty quotes from Interfax (a Russian source), which is overtly mentioned in WP:Reliable sources as a well-established reliable news outlet. This should be enough to account for WP:WEIGHT.

"If you think there is nothing particularly wrong with breaking the laws of another UN member" - It is rather surprising hearing this from you, who just a few days ago was comparing Azerbaijan to Nazi Germany and trying to present breaking the law of another UN member as a justifiable measure in case some random politician acts on his or her personal disapproval of that law. On my end, I do not think this is about being right or wrong: this is a fact from a politician's biography which is noteworthy, and I personally do not see anything in my wording that attaches any kind of judgement to that. It is also interesting that you should compare my argumentation to investigative journalism when it was me quoting directly from a news agency and you venturing into Google searches to try and look for "nuances" behind the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in order to downplay the impact of Gabbard's specific political position. I am sorry but I really do not understand what exactly you are opposing and why. Parishan (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think it is noteworthy that as a politician or candidate for president or whatever broke the law of another UN member? And what policy are you using for your concept of noteworthiness? TFD (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The president of the United States is a major figure in international politics. My concept of noteworthy in this case is defined by whatever has an impact on U.S.'s bilateral relations with other states, especially if it constitutes a major change from the policy of all previous administrations. That is the reason for having the "Foreign policy" section in this article. Parishan (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: could you please respond when you have a minute? I would appreciate it. Parishan (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant what is the policy or guideline that establishes noteworthiness? AFAIK, Balancing aspects is the only relevant guideline, and it provides a reason not to include. The authors of reliable sources determine what is noteworthy using whatever criteria they choose to use, and we merely follow their lead. TFD (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what makes you think that WP:BALASPS applies in this case and that being declared persona non grata by a sovereign state is "a minor aspect" that is "disproportionate in its significance" to a biographical article? Parishan (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any statement by Gabbard of her policy re Armenia and Azerbaijan. That she made a side trip and talked with local legislators does not seem in dispute — though I'm not sure it merits inclusion without said policy statement. AFAICS, the rest of the text hardly seem relevant to a § on Gabbard's policies. Humanengr (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it would be encyclopedic to include information about the trip, as long as it was presented more neutrally. I asked the original poster to try to extract the pertinent details from their original posting and find more neutral sourcing than the Daily Wire, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Here is some proposed text (which mentions her policy position on recognizing the Armenian genocide) based on reporting in Honolulu Civil Beat:

In 2017, Gabbard went to Nagorno-Karabakh with a Congressional delegation on what her spokeswoman said was a US State Department approved trip funded by the Republic of Armenia. As a result of this trip, Frank Pallone, David Valadao and Gabbard were all banned from entering Azerbaijan, which considered the visit a "provocation". In a statement issued after the trip, Gabbard said it was "unconscionable that the United States government still ha[d] not formally recognized and condemned the Armenian genocide".

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 Humanengr (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I was not referring to Daily Wire; I was referring to Radio Liberty (which is a neutral source) - and even in the first version, where I erroneously inserted the Daily Wire link, the title and the publishing date was that of the Radio Liberty article, which proves that it was an honest error. In my most recent edit, I have the correct link. I must have repeated this many times throughout this discussion and even apologised for the initial confusion, and I really wish you gave it a rest. The issue discussed here is the notability of the event and not the reliability of the information, which has long been established. As for your wording, the first part seems alright, but I do not see how the reference to the non-recognition of the Armenian genocide has anything to do with the trip to Nagorno-Karabakh. The genocide issue has nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh, nor Gabbard's trip, nor with Azerbaijan as a whole, which did not even exist in 1915. It is an issue of Turkey–Armenia relations, not of the Armenia–Azerbaijan war, so that sentence seems completely out of context. Parishan (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

By the time I saw you had added the Azerbaijan story again, it had been deleted, so I went back to the place where you added it to see what had changed and saw the Daily Wire again. You apparently switched refs in the subsequent edit. Regarding the Armenian genocide, the relationship to the trip is that this is part of the statement that Gabbard made about the hullabulloo Azerbaijan made about her going there. Also, people in Nagorno-Karabakh / the Republic of Artsakh are predominantly Armenian and people in Azerbaijan are predominantly Turkic as I understand it. Does Azerbaijan recognize the Armenian genocide? Do people in the breakaway Republic of Artsakh? It appears en.wp has a list of massacres in Azerbaijan, the one in Baku in 1918 seems to have been pretty huge. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The article you yourself quoted clearly states that "the press release did not address the ban by Azerbaijan, and Latimer offered no further comment", and that Gabbard's comment mentioning the genocide was addressed to the United States government, so I fail to see how you manage to stretch those two completely polar angles of the article to fit them into one statement. The rest of your argument is, I am afraid, irrelevant: (1) "Turkic" is a linguistic and loosely cultural notion; it is different from "Turkish" and has absolutely zero connection to the Republic of Turkey and its government now or then; it would be like blaming Australia for the Holocaust because Australians and Germans both speak a Germanic language; (2) mutual Armenian-Azeri massacres following the Russian Revolution (March Days, September Days) were part of the Russian Civil War, and had nothing to do with what happened in Turkey in 1915, and not a single person in Armenia has ever laid the responsibility for the Armenian genocide on Azerbaijan, which, I should repeat, did not even exist in 1915. In all honesty, I see no point in rummaging though the eventful history of the Caucasus in order to find a hook that would allow to downplay the significance of Gabbard's position on the matter, because this is now bordering OR. Parishan (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Has Gabbard made a statement re the Armenian-Azerbaijan war? Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr, for a presidential candidate of a country that is part of a mediating platform for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be violating a sovereign country's immigration policy and illegally entering an unrecognised state to meet with legislators whose authority is not recognised neither by the United States, nor by Armenia, nor by Azerbaijan is a statement regarding the conflict. Otherwise she would not have ended up on the MFA blacklist. Parishan (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s WP:OR. Humanengr (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How is that OR? The controversial nature of her visit is clearly stated by neutral sources. Parishan (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that her visit is a policy statement is OR. That is your inference. Humanengr (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not "claim" anything. A politician violates a country's visa policy, travels to its unrecognised secessionist region and declares: "We must support a diplomatic resolution to this ongoing conflict [...] to allow for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to exercise their freedom and independence" [15] - if this is not making a policy statement, I don't know what is. Parishan (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Those words of hers qualify as a policy statement — I don’t see that you had mentioned that before. Humanengr (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, all —— Parishan has reinserted a corresponding para at Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard#Armenia_and_Azerbaijan. I created a talk § Talk:Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard#Armenia_and_Azerbaijan_§ there to continue. Humanengr (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and SashiRolls: Not sure you saw my note above, but thought you might want to comment on Parishan's reinsertion of the para on the Political positions page. Humanengr (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoting a Candidate' Tweets when they indicate a continued patter of illegal activity.

Stop interfering with edits that accurately describe what a candidate said, in her own words, and which indicate similar wrong doing to what was reported in the paragraph that immediately precedes the new material. There is only one possible explanation for this behavior, which is the political bias of the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The person who committed the vandalism and the disruptive activity is the one who removed a direct quote by the person whom the page is about, and who then claimed that it was some random person posting a tweet of their own. That is absurd. Reinstate the contribution immediately.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The tweet is WP:UNDUE to include. Your opinion that the tweet is illegal is your original research. Is there any secondary sourcing suggesting that she's going to face charges or dishonorable discharge for her tweet? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking primary sources (the Tweets) and quoting them next to anything you feel they are relevant to is synthesis. You cannot do that.

As you are making a contentious claim about a living person, this falls under Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I see that you have been warned on your talk page. In addition to that, I am placing a formal consensus warning on your talk page.

If you re-add the material without establishing a consensus to do you, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't give a shit if it's potentially implicating Trump in a crime - he seems safely above the law regardless. However it's WP:CRUFT and WP:UNDUE inclusion on those grounds. I have a friend who has an annoying habit of clapping back at Trump tweets then screenshotting his responses and sharing them around. I generally just put him on snooze for 30 days when they turn up too often in my feed. They're uninteresting, unfunny and unimportant. Just like this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been further discussion of this on my talk page, where the IP essentially admits the purpose of including the tweet is to suggest wrongdoing on the part of Gabbard that nobody else is suggesting. Of course, the section header here that the IP chose also shows that WP:OR bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what IP said. IP said that he stated a fact, made a direct quote, sourced to the official tweet of the person the page was about, and then YOU inferred that it implied wrongdoing because you felt that what she said was wrong. If you are going to say that I "essentially admitted" something, then quote me exactly. Show me where my contribution was either unsourced, defamatory, or constituted original research.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the entire conversation being referenced by the admin:

"Including yet another example in a series of violations of military policy by a uniformed officer by quoting her own words is not disruptive editing. Stop abusing whatever power you think you have and allowing your bias to conceal important facts about a candidate for office.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what you're doing is disruptive, and you have three editors telling you so. Stop now or you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain how exactly it met the definition of disruptive? That is a lie. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Resinserting something that another editor objected to is disruptive. I further explained the troubles with the content on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not reinserting. The other editor objected on the supposed grounds that what I said suggested that a law had been broken. All reference to the relevant law was removed. The second post was only of her own tweet and a direct quote. Now that you have been proven wrong once, explain how that was disruptive, or else restore the contribution immediately and report the editors who did this.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To what purpose did you reinsert the tweet? When do we ever include something somebody tweeted without any context? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. In the context that it is a policy position of hers, and a controversy, which are both related to her service in the military. Does every political page not include policy positions and controversies without further context? I have to say, the further I go back on your talk page, the more it looks like there is a pattern of bias in favor of liberal political parties, and the more I see liberal editors asking you to intervene on their behalf, including in relation to Tulsi Gabbard and Rashida Tlaib. That needs to stop. That is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Quoting a controversial policy position stated by a presidential candidate is not.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. The paragraph that discussed that she did something mixing the military with politics and was rebuked for it. In other words, you're still suggesting with the inclusion of the tweet that she did something wrong. This is original research, and not approproiate for inclusion. Meanwhile, your right-wing political bias is showing regarding your comments about "liberal editors". We have no "liberal editors", just people who try to uphold Wikipedia's policies including NPOV, and people who don't. Again, please stop including your disruptive material and abide by the policies Wikipedia has set out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a completely false statement. You are inferring that she did something wrong because of your interpretation of what she said. Quoting a person's own words is not research. Neither is quoting the law, but we can set that aside for now, until a third-party legal scholar does claim that she broke the law. You cannot possibly hope to convince anyone who is not heavily biased that I cannot quote what she says about the military while she is serving in the capacity of an officer in the military because quoting her would somehow constitute research. And I was referring to the paragraph above what I posted from over a year ago by a completely different editor as being the context, not anything I wrote. On what grounds do you presume to rebuke me for simply quoting an American politician accurately with a reference. Let's examine the OR policy in greater detail and see if quoting someone meets that definition. I'm copying our discussion thus far and moving it to the talk page for the article.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)" 174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)</block>

I never stated in the contribution that it was my opinion that the tweet was illegal. That was your inference. To compromise, I removed the legal quotation (I will add it again if a legal expert makes the same claim) as a compromise, but it was not original research. I replaced it with only the original quote and included her rank and the fact that she was referring to the President in her tweet. That is not disruptive. That is not undue. That is not defamatory. It is a statement of fact that is highly relevant to both her military career and her biography as a presidential candidate. The only possible explanation for your vandalism of my contribution is that you are biased politically and are deletion content in an effort to bias articles in favor of your point of view.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the contribution that several of your editors and admins insisted on vandalizing:

"On September 16th, 2019, Major Tulsi Gabbard said of her Commander in Chief: " your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit, is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country, not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia. For you to think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful, and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief.""

Either provide an explanation of why the other admins responsible for this page have allowed these violations of wikipedia policy to occur, one that has not yet already been refuted, or else restore the contribution, stop exhibiting repeated bias, and stop vandalizing Wikipedia.174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is implicit synthesis to juxtapose someone's tweet with legislation: it implies that her comments were in violation of the law. You would need a reliable source that reports that conclusion. I doubt you find any because Tulsi Gabbard is a member of the Hawaii state national guard and therefore Article 88 only applies to her when she is on active duty with the U.S. armed forces, for example when she was in Indonesia recently and avoided campaigning, per Article 2 of the UCMJ. This is a good example of why editor synthesis is not allowed, since personal conclusions may be wrong. TFD (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the contribution we are discussing the vandalism of did not include any mention of any law. That item was removed, and yet the contribution was still vandalized. Second, Article 88 applies to all officers of the military. There are certain provisions that pertain only to personnel on active duty, such as the prohibition on campaigning or holding office altogether, but that is not what article 88 refers to. There is no qualifying statement that allows any uniformed U.S. military officer to make contemptuous statements about the President. The only reason the sources do not exist yet is because it has been less than 24 hours. That is a moot point, however, because we are not discussing why I can't post the law that might pertain to the statement she made or not. We are discussing why I cannot post the statement she made itself.

Since you are not giving me a reason, I will assume that I am free to re-contribute this contribution, unless you clearly show why I cannot, and your argument is supported by a real policy, and that it would not constitute vandalism on your part if you removed it (again). Original contribution follows (again):

"On September 16th, 2019, Major Tulsi Gabbard said of her Commander in Chief: " your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit, is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country, not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia. For you to think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful, and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our commander in chief."" 174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you are not "free to reinsert" you haven't even tried to answer how this wP:CRUFT is WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore this page is under WP:1RR and an enforced, 24 hour WP:BRD cycle. So hold your horses there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

On September 16th Donald Trump was not her commander-in-chief, according to U.S. military law. TFD (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

They actually gave reasons. These are that you aren't citing Wikipedia:Reliable sources that comment on Gabbard's tweet, and say that it is important. Politicians say or tweet stupid things all the time, if we quoted every potentially stupid thing that Joe Biden or even Donald Trump ever said or tweeted on their page, it would take six days to read. So in general, we only write about stupid things that politicians say that Reliable sources comment on. Honestly, there are usually enough of those. When reliable sources comment on this tweet Gabbard made, and say that it's important, we'll write about it. Not until then. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if it has had passing mention in reliable sources, it has not been established that this particular comment is WP:DUE mention by this article; does this comment have any WP:LASTING significance? Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, officers in the national guard are not subject to the U.S. military code except when they are training with or on active service with the U.S. military. TFD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

LGBT positions

I'm not seeing consensus for removing this from the lead. Her anti-LGBT positions have been widely reported and are a significant part of her story. Removing it seems like an attempt to polish her image.- MrX 🖋 11:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ETA: Consensus was established for this material here: talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 1#Historical LGBT positions in the lead - MrX 🖋 11:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I don't think that should be in the lead since she has changed her views long time ago so that is WP:RECENT.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And that's not a strong consensus for inclusion. 2-3 like-minded editors agree with eachother is not a strong consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "like-minded editors" SharabSalam? Most of the eight participants in that discussion expressed policy-based reasoning. Let's see if their views about this have changed in the past nine months. Pinging 80.111.40.28, Muboshgu, Snooganssnoogans, Binksternet, Jonathunder, Nblund, and 107.77.204.173. - MrX 🖋 13:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I still hold the same position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason for removing historically significant facts from the lead section. Old political stances don't go away when you shift position; instead, the story is about you having held a particular position A until a certain turning point, then you changed your stance to B. It seems dishonest to try and erase a much-commented-on former position. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that generally comes up in coverage of her campaign - it was a big problem in her rollout. I also think this edit is a more accurate reflection of the controversy over her Syria position: I don't believe even the most hawkish members of the Democratic caucus openly supported forcibly removing Assad, and this version is more consistent with the description given in profiles like this one in the Guardian. Nblund ^talk 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Her opposition to the "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine" and spending money on wars is unique for a Democrat?

In an egregious example of WP:SYNTH, her meager 'political positions' section misleadingly suggests that what makes her different from other Democrats is her criticism of the ""neoliberal/neoconservative war machine", which pushes for US involvement in "wasteful foreign wars". She has said that the money spent on war should be redirected to serve domestic needs." These are not aspects that distinguish her from other Democrats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Her views are unique to the democratic party which, for example, during Obama era armed terrorists in Syria, Iraq and Libya.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) Obama didnt arm terrorists. (2) This guy just reverted all the changes indiscriminately, including restoring the mundane notion that she has spoken out against nursing shortages (WHO ISN'T AGAINST NURSING SHORTAGES???). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that her position is different from other Democrats. (It may be but I haven't investigated and haven't seen any other Democrats come out that strongly on the issue). However, her position is noteworthy by itself even if all other Democrats have the same position. I have placed the matter you refer to in its own paragraph to distinguish it from the previous sentence which gave the impression that other Democrats had a different view.Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your change was fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many problems with Snooganssnoogans edits. They are obviously pushing a POV. Like removing the word "accusation", referring the Syrian President as dictator. I would like to hear a response for that POV editting.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) Assad used chemical weapons. (2) Assad is a dictator. (3) No explanation for any of the other reverting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Assad is a dictator", "Assad used chemical weapons"; Once again you proved that you hold a POV and that you are totally unaware of what you are talking about.

"No explanation for any other revert" also why didn't did you move up that she met with the Syrian President? It is not the most notable thing in her Political views; seems like a smearing issue. Also the Obama administration did in fact arm terrorists in the middle East.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I moved up her meeting with Assad (because it's a clear issue where she differs from mainstream Democrats). I don't understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant why did you move it up. It is not a notable thing in her political position, she and the media don't bring that up all the time. Her notable views is that she is against regime change wars. Her meeting with Assad is the least notable thing about her.

That Assad used chemical weapons is still under investigation so we can't say that Assad did use chemical weapons without saying that these are accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you can suggest another phrasing rather than removing text that differentiates Gabbard's positions from candidates we find more acceptable. Obama isn't running in this election, so there is no need for us to whitewash his legacy. Note that Snopes rated as true "The Obama administration approved the transfer of funding to the Islamic Relief Agency, a Sudan-based organization with ties to Al-Qaeda". While you and I know that it was the correct thing to do, we should say that and not pretend it didn't happen. There may be situations where funding terrorists is the moral thing to do. TFD (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the same thing as "arming terrorists". I don't think the phrase "neoliberal war machine" is remotely helpful, or particularly illuminating for understanding her positions. Does any candidate say they favor the "war machine"? Nblund ^talk 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of "cute nicknames"

This is silly trivia. It's not even the only place with this nickname, and it is only one nickname for this place (see also Bombaconda). If we want to say that she earned her Combat Medical Badge on her first tour, or saw combat, or came under mortar fire then we should say that. We shouldn't imply something or another through a sideways reference to a cute name someone came up with for LSA Anaconda one day. GMG^talk 18:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems more like a campaign trail anecdote than an encyclopedic detail about her life. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

First Hindu, first Samoan, ethnicity

[The first Hindu / first Samoan American edits have gone back-and-forth a few times so I'm creating this §. Ronz reverted my recent attempt and left a msg on my talk page; I'm continuing here for ease of reference.]

Hi Ronz — That ethnicelebs page cites PBS's Finding Your Roots, which is available only via KQED Passport. So it would seem reliable as a factual transcript of that material; maybe include the PBS link as well? Also, re the "As is typical …" sentence, we can include this Pew cite, if you think that's needed. I had left that cite out to reduce clutter.

Re 'first Samoan-American', that characterization doesn't seem to merit inclusion in the lede. She was two years old when she left and the Roots genetic analysis didn't specifically indicate any fraction as 'Samoan'. Re the checkyourfact cite for that sentence, my intent was to dissuade further back-and-forth on this as, in the preceding edit, 'first Hindu' was removed. Humanengr (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the website Ethnicity of Celebs, the show says she is over 25% Samoan.[16] It is significant because her father was raised there and she grew up in Hawaii, whose aboriginal population have a related culture. Also, it is significant that she was born outside the U.S., in common with George Romney, John McCain and Ted Cruz and in conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. So if elected she would be the first president ever elected who was not born in the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Ronz, in the edit identified above on my talk page, noted that ethniccelebs.com was not considered RS. (For further on that, see this.) I referred to it only for transcription of genetic testing info from PBS episode. Re "born outside the U.S.", that is not correct: she was born in "American Samoa" (per that same cite as well as https://www.tulsi2020.com/es/node/184). Your raising that issue here — and describing it in the terms you did — iiuc, violates WP:BLPCOI. (withdrawn — see below) Humanengr (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I know it is not reliable, but it is reporting what PBS said. In fact it says that PBS reported that 25% of her ancestry was south east Asian, which Samoans are. And American Samoa is outside the United States. (Gabbard was born a U.S citizen because one or both of her parents were.) TFD (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't notice there was a dispute. I simply removed the the poor sources and saw that the article already has multiple sources for the basic information in the lede.

If you want to reference PBS, do so directly. Note that three of the the sources the ethnicelebs identify, geni.com and familysearch.org, are also not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are more than 1.03 billion Hindus in the world, and only 500–600,000 Samoans. I'd say based on those numbers alone, it is much more relevant that Gabbard is the first Hindu member of Congress than first Samoan. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are 1.03 billion Hindus in the world and only 0.33 billion Americans. TFD (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, Sorry, you are correct that she was born outside the United States in that she was born in the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. Per Natural-born-citizen_clause#Tulsi_Gabbard, she was a citizen at birth through both of her parents being citizens.Humanengr (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

'Samoan American' (Samoan-American?) is an ambiguous designation. How about ending the lede para with "Elected in 2012, Gabbard became the first Hindu member of Congress. She was also the first member of Congress of Samoan heritage (through her paternal grandparents)." Humanengr (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fine. TFD (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Heritage" is also ambiguous, and doesn't convey that she was born there. It's also a bit long for the lede. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, 'ancestry' instead of 'heritage'?. Without some qualifier showing that the Samoan genetic heritage is small compared to European, it's misleading to call her a 'Samoan-American'. She left before she was 3, so having been born there is interesting but not compelling for the lede. Humanengr (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I prefer ancestry to heritage and would leave out genetics. But her South Pacific ancestry is important to her identity in the same way that black ancestry is to African American politicians. Notice that she says aloha and wears a lei. That would be unusual if she had no South Pacific ancestry or if she did it because there was a family story that generations ago one of her ancestors was Samoan and she took a DNA test to prove it. TFD (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I skimmed a few refs and didn't see any that use such detail. Probably best to follow the references, and address ambiguities in the article body rather than worry about the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, So the lede para would end with: "Elected in 2012, Gabbard became the first Hindu member of Congress." and ancestry info would be in the body, correct? Humanengr (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Leave it as is. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, I changed ethniceleb to PBS per your suggestion; also added a ref to 1st sentence below; so insert after 1st sentence of Early life and education?:

As is typical of many residents of Hawaii, she is of mixed ethnicity. She is of Southeast Asian (25.6%) French and German (24.6%), and Polynesian descent—as well as a mixture of 9 other ethnicities.

Humanengr (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Too much detail. Note too that we inherit genes unevenly from our ancestors, which is why Warren's test showed she was between 1/64 and 1/1024 Native American ancestry. I would say that Gabbard is of mixed European and Samoan ancestry. While Southeast Asian include Samoans and Hawaiians, most people would think of Vietnam and surrounding countries. And culture is more important than genetics. We think of Ralph Fiennes as English for example, rather than Norman French. TFD (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Too much detail, focusing upon genetic testing rather than culture and influences. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Ronz: Agreed that the genetic test material may be overly technical, but I would like to get something more about the breadth of her ancestry in. I believe the second sentence of Early life and education at some point read “Tulsi is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent." (The search is not working properly so I can’t double-check.) In any case, I propose we (re-)introduce this language consistent with her own view of her genetic background on https://gabbard.house.gov/about. Humanengr (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Samoan is a subgroup of Polynesian while Polynesian is a subgroup of South Asian. The genetic findings are entirely consistent with all her South Asian and Polynesian ancestry being Samoan. It's like saying that genetic testing of an Irishman showed genetics consistent with 25% European and 75% Caucasian ancestry. It wouldn't rebut the fact that he had Irish ancestry. TFD (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, plus the reliability of such genetic tests is very poor. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• comment I feel like I should note that race is a social construct, and we assign it based on arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with DNA. Gabbard is identified as Samoan despite the fact that her mom is from Kansas for the same reason that Barack Obama was identified as black despite his mixed heritage. It has nothing to do with genes. Wikipedia doesn't need to delve in to this, we can just defer to what sources say. The Guardian describes her as "the first American Samoan and the first Hindu member of the US Congress", ABCNews does the same. We should follow suit. Nblund ^talk 15:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • See 23andMe "Reference Populations & Regions": East Asian & Native American includes Chinese & Southeast Asian, which includes Filipino & Austronesian, which includes American Samoa.[17] The tests are not as precise as one might wish for various reasons. But Gabbard is not using her DNA text to prove her ancestry, it is proved by her family history and her upbringing. And I agree that race is a social construct and Gabbard identifies and is identified as American Samoan. She has described herself as mixed race, but that is fairly common for American Samoans, just as it is for African Americans. And of course her birth in American Samoa is noteworthy because it is outside the United States, and no president has ever been born outside the U.S. or the original 13 colonies. TFD (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to include Gabbard’s own racial identification from her campaign page is peculiar at best and racist at worst.

The Early life and education § of Kamala Harris's bio page says "She identifies as black and Indian.” I suggest we accord Gabbard’s identification the same respect as Harris’s. Humanengr (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

So what is the self-ID here? I don't believe its racist to afford her the same coverage that we afford everyone else. We defer to reliable secondary sources. Nblund ^talk 18:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Harris’s page asserts her own identification. The text I proposed above: "Tulsi is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent.” follows Gabbard’s own identification on her house.gov page. If this self-identification were not available, secondary sources could be relied on, but refusing to let her self-identity would need more justification. Humanengr (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In general, reliable, independent, third party sources are the preferred sources for Wikipedia. Gabbard's self descriptions can be included, but it isn't correct to say that we're required to prioritize her self-descriptions over the descriptions of high-quality sources. The opposite is really true. Gabbard's ancestry might warrant mention in the body, but the lead should reflect what the sources generally say.Nblund ^talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t for changing the lead. As with Harris’s bio, it should be in the 'Early life and education' section. I suggest including the language that follows her house.gov page: "Tulsi is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent” in the 2nd para there after "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household.” Humanengr (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Polynesians are Asians, it makes no sense to say that Polynesian and Asian is an ancestry mixture. It would be more precise to say she is of mixed Samoan and European anccestry. We generally do not refer to American Samoans, Hawaiians, Eskimos and American Indians as Asians, although they are included in the Chinese and East Asian grouping in DNA tests. Similarly, Caucasian is too broad: TFD (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two ways to approach this, one is to respect her own views — which I think is the way to go on an issue as sensitive as race/ethnicity — partly genetic, partly a social construct, but mainly a right of self-identification. Or one can look at the technical genetic results and classification schemes. Below is what the PBS show presented and the ethniceleb article reported:

• 25.6% Southeast Asian
• 24.6% French and German
• 21.4% British and Irish
• 15% Broadly Northwestern European
• 3.8% Broadly Oceanian
• 2.5% Eastern European
• 2% Iberian
• 2% Broadly European
• 1.1% Broadly East Asian
• 1% Broadly Southern European
• 0.8% Unmatched
• 0.2% Ashkenazi Jewish

Samoan is a subgroup of ‘Broadly Oceanian’ in this scheme. Humanengr (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, your response to my 19:47, 15 October reply above? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems like an excessive level of detail. I don't necessarily have a problem with saying "According to her campaign website, Gabbard is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent", as long as it isn't presented as though it conflicts with "Samoan". Nblund ^talk 22:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx … In thinking about where to place this, I realized it was not appropriate under 'Early life and education'. In addition, there was no current statement that she is a practicing Hindu anywhere in the article. I think both those are facts about her that are of the highest general interest to people checking her out on WP. So I suggest putting them together as the second sentence of the lede: "Gabbard is a practicing Hindu of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent." That also grounds the assertion in the last sentence of the lede that she became the first Hindu member of Congress. Humanengr (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr, Samoan is also a subgroup of Southeast Asian and Broadly East Asian, and even Unmatched. So Gabbard could have received as much as 31.3% {25.6+3.8+1.1+0.8) of her DNA from Samoan ancestors, making her between one quarter and one third Samoan ancestry, consistent with her family tree. TFD (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That is one plausible technical argument. But what about respecting her self-identification? Humanengr (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I was merely commenting on the DNA test. As I wrote above, "race is a social construct and Gabbard identifies and is identified as American Samoan. She has described herself as mixed race, but that is fairly common for American Samoans, just as it is for African Americans." (02:01, 14 October 2019) There is no reason to include the test since it does not provide any new information and is a primary source that requires interpretation. TFD (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the test anymore. The proposed text above is from how she describes herself in the first line of the house.gov site. This complements the 'Samoan-American' identification which is clearly a strong part of her roots as well. Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: I think MOS:ETHNICITY is the relevant guideline here. Her status as the first Hindu and Samoan member of Congress is an important point that reliable sources emphasize, but the specifics of her ancestry are not all that significant. Barack Obama is mentioned as the first African American US POTUS, but his mixed race heritage is not mentioned until the section on his early life. I think this is a good precedent to follow. Nblund ^talk 20:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Tulsi Gabbard: High School.

Do we need an RfC to include where Tulsi Gabbard went to high school? I read Xeno's comments about Nblund's proposals above claiming that they violated WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which starts: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events... I don't think an elected state rep, US rep, presidential candidate would quite count.

The article has inaccurately stated for years that she went to a Christian missionary school for two years during high school. (At least, the source did not say it was a Christian missionary school. That is embarrassing (or should be) for all of us who have worked on the page.)

We don't need to go into all the particulars in a BLP, keep all the primary mud-throwing on the campaign page, sure, but high school attendance is pretty standard info for a BLP. And if it just so happens that you spent 2 years abroad, readers of most biographies like to know why.

WP:GUILT is a decision in an ArbCom case about pretty unrelated matters, if you take the time to read the case. It is clear that it does not shed much light on whether best practices are to say which communities TG grew up in or not.

@Humanengr:, you've claimed a BLP exception quoting Xeno's comments, which preceded my edits. You did this in order to violate 1RR. I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Now, the RSitude of Hawai'i Free Press, that I would see perhaps as a legitimate question, but not all this all-caps-all-the-time drama. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)1

High School Info
Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, both of her parents having been involved with the foundation. Her father was a teacher and headmaster of the SIF-affiliated Ponomauloa School from 1983-1987. Gabbard herself was home-schooled through high school with the exception of two years spent at "informal schools run by followers of Butler" in the Philippines. References

Yeah, the ArbCom case concerned significant quantities of content detailing thinly-sourced allegations of sexual abuse against a pastor. The well-sourced and limited information on Gabbard's undisputed religious background is not analogous. Readers might also be interested having some context for why a person with no Indian ancestry might have been exposed to Vaishnavism as a teen. She's not a victim, nor is she guilty of anything. I'm open to an RfC if that's what it takes, but I really don't think one should be necessary if editors can just offer a little bit of constructive compromise. Nblund ^talk 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, Per SashiRolls's suggestion, I am researching prior treatment of these policies. Humanengr (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument that Gabbard's being sent to boarding school as a minor falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM parallels the use of that policy on Richard Dawkin’s bio page. Dawkins even more than Gabbard does not fall under the “noteworthy only for one or two events” criterion; but that was not an impediment to following the policy. From the Dawkin’s talk page: "Remember this is a biography of a living person. WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies even if Dawkins has written a line or two about an incident in his past that he needn't have disclosed. To expand on such a disclosure here is not appropriate. As far as we know the incident has had little bearing on Dawkins' life and work, and to speculate otherwise would just be unfair considering he was a youth at the time and it was beyond his control.” (here) Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a seven year old discussion from a different page would be considered relevant here. Attending boarding school is not analogous to sexual abuse. Nblund ^talk 01:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Being sent as a child to a boarding school run by a “cult” (in the language of the sources here and in the titles of sources on the SoIF page) is analogous to sexual abuse and is inappropriate for a BLP. As was argued for Dawkins, she was "a youth at the time and it was beyond [her] control”. Humanengr (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The text of our article does not call it a cult, and that's frankly a pretty offensive way to describe her religious background, which she has never characterized that way and which she does not disavow as an adult. Our articles cover instances of juvenile delinquency, witnesses of child sexual abuse, and drug and alcohol addiction. Bill Clinton's turbulent childhood is covered in detail on his BLP. All of the links I'm citing are designated WP:GOOD articles, which means they're generally seen by the community as high quality entries. Nblund ^talk 01:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

None of your examples apply — those are all cases of the individual themselves opening up about those issues. In the Dawkin’s case, it was decided that even though he had brought it up himself, it was not appropriate for his bio page as a characterization of him.

I am not using the ‘cult’ label, but 3 of the 4 cites on the BLP do, including one in the title:

• NYMag — “The classes,” says Kurt, “gradually evolved into a full-fledged cult.”
• Hawaii Free Press article titled Gabbard Political Career Begins in Cult School — "Ranson now runs the website Rama Ranson vs. the Cult"
• New Yorker — "survivors of an abusive cult"

4 of the 4 references on the SoIF page use the ‘cult’ word (2 in the title):

• WBUR — "Chris Butler [linked to the NYMag article], a man widely referred to as a cult leader”
• Stuff article titled 'I survived a Krishna cult’
• Honolulu Civil Beat article titled Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard

These references, together with the text you want to include, amount to both victimizing her now for things in her environment as a child and guilt by association. As Xenagoras quoted from WP:GUILT: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.” Humanengr (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Weight applies. There's very little mention of the school in reliable sources and in fact most biographical articles rarely mention where people went to school for 2 years. One exception is Barack Obama, who attended a Muslim school, which became a campaign issue. All his article says is "From age six to ten, he then attended local Indonesian-language schools: Sekolah Dasar Katolik Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Elementary School) for two years and Sekolah Dasar Negeri Menteng 01 (State Elementary School Menteng 01/Besuki school) for one and a half years, supplemented by English-language Calvert School homeschooling by his mother." TFD (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the New Yorker article I cited above which mentions she spent 2 years in the Philippines in a school established for Butler's followers is a RS. As noted the mention of her attending some sort of Christian school is clearly incorrect. JamesG5 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not say it wasn't. RS and Weight are two separate policies and both are required for inclusion. RS merely means that the source has a reputation for accuracy sufficient to use as a source. Weight determines which reliably sourced information should be included. The reason we do not mention every primary school in most biographies is not that they cannot be reliably sourced, but because the bulk of sources provide little coverage of them. The Joe Biden article for example does not mention any of his elementary schools. As Wikipedia:Too much detail says, "Advocates of adding a lot of details may argue that all of these details are reliably sourced. Even though the details may be reliably sourced, one must not lose sight of the need for balance. In an article about a famous actor, every detail about her wedding ceremony (who attended, the type of ring, etc.) may be excessive detail, as the article is supposed to focus on her achievements as an actor." TFD (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A quick survey of the candidates show that all of them have at least three sentences about their family members, their religious community, and at least the name of their high schools in all cases, cf. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Cory Booker. There is no mention of primary schools in the proposed text about Tulsi Gabbard.

As for the wiki-litigation which tries to portray adding encyclopedic info as some sort of BLP violation, it is baseless: both pages cited have nothing to do with whether or not Gabbard's high school & family religious background should be mentioned. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, re “There is no mention of primary schools in the proposed text about Tulsi Gabbard.”: Why the reference to “primary schools”? And what does “both pages” refer to? Humanengr (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Read the comment above mine. You accused me of violating two wiki-laws in your edit summaries and text above Humanengr, which isn't the best way to win friends. ^^ FWIW, I have also read this blog and do not intend to support a general hijacking of the BLP. I will agree linking to Gralow's republished blogpost without linking to girlygrrrl's (or forum rumblings or a youtube video or two) is a bit provocative, but the latter hasn't been picked up by a more significant outlet. cf. Hawaii Free Press usage on en.wp. Hope you're well. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why didn’t you respond to my post here? It seemed you just went ahead and re-inserted the following day apparently ignoring my post. Hope all is well with you too. Humanengr (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't understand that it was related to my proposed text as you didn't say anything about the proposed text. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As for the 'wiki-laws', did you see my response to Nblund here? Humanengr (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course. But it doesn't make much sense to me all this wiki-litigating about other unrelated pages. It does seem to me that it is mistake to not make any mention of Butler, given all the words that have been typed about it (often in non-RS) that Gogol serves up for anyone^tm who looks. Maybe an RfC is the best idea, no need to rush, I suppose. On the other hand, Butler's section (§) could stand improvement, as could the SIF article. I've removed some poor sourcing, but the 1977 story that Civil Beat scanned looks like it might have some info of interest.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I just re-read the two sources and they seem vague for our purposes. The New Yorker article says that Gabbard attended Butler's school in the Philippines for 2 years but doesn't say when she attended or how they know this. The Hawaii Free Press sources the New Yorker and adds that former male students believe Gabbard attended the girls' school although only two of them knew her and they had no interaction with the girls' school. Most of the article is about student recollections of the school. The message is that Gabbard was brainwashed by Butler when still a child and be activated by him if she reaches the White House. TFD (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We're at the point where an RFC is warranted. It doesn't seem like the real objection is to any particular wording here, right? Would it be fair to frame the RFC as simply asking whether or not any mention of Butler is warranted? I think if we had an answer on that the other stuff would not be controversial. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's too bad that we find ourselves at such an impasse, judged unable to compromise so quickly. ^^ There is no deadline, etc. Still, we could add something like Tulsi Gabbard has significant ties to the Science of Identity community, though after extensive study of forum postings, Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it". [18] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Will respond tomorrow. Humanengr (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that say when she attended the school? TFD (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, No, I haven't found anything other than the two sources that you noted were vague.

@Nblund, Can you clarify what has changed since this was last weighed here and at BLP/N? Do you have a new argument to raise? Humanengr (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we should include it when only two sources have mentioned it and the information is vague. Perhaps Snoogs & co. could get mainstream media to look into it and then we could mention it. TFD (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, Gabbard was quoted in Oct 2015 saying, "When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night." This would seem to prove that she went to high school and was not only ever homeschooled. ^^ [19] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I had the impression that Gabbard would have attended the school during her elementary education. In any case, one doesn't necessarily need to have been a student to make such a comment. Someone might say for example that Trump reminds theme of Hitler, although they never met Hitler. TFD (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough to raise the Hitler point. I'd thought about changing "prove" to "suggest". Oh, well. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ms. Gralow

I see that some new text was added concerning Ms. Gralow, but which began gratuitously naming a lot of people unrelated to Tulsi Gabbard. Better sourcing than a forum post is needed for this last item in "political positions" (it is obviously not a "political position"). It also needs to stick to the subject of Tulsi Gabbard and not wander off babbling about (not-so-randomly chosen) Potomac Square Group clients.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It was text concerning Chris Cooper. Hiring Chris Cooper might be considered something that flows from her general political positions. And why obliterate Bill Browders quote. If people of great renown and repute like Browder comment on her in this way it is worth considering including for aiding readers get a rounded picture of her politics. This article isn't meant to be like an election leaflet from her just saying how great her politics are . Is it? Bulldog Antz (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This content is not remotely acceptable for a BLP. WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources like Twitter and Democratic Underground can't be used for contentious content about a living person. Even if other sourcing exists, we need to hold off on mentioning Butler in any capacity until the ongoing RfC is resolved. Also, when you're dealing with contentious content about living people, don't ask editors to "be patient sources to follow" in your edit summaries. WP:BLP requires us to promptly remove unsourced material. Nblund ^talk 16:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who Butler is, I added the content because I saw Bill Browders twitter comment. I hope Chris Cooper is mentioned somewhere in the article as that is relevant for a BLP, who she works with, hires.

Bill Browder : 'Very interesting. Tulsi Gabbard, the only Democratic presidential candidate who has full Kremlin support and who praised Syria's Assad, has hired Chris Cooper of Potomac Square Group, the same DC fixer who the Russians hired to smear me and Sergei Magnitsky in 2016. Coincidence?'Bulldog Antz (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The same DC fixer whose company worked for Jerry Brown and Howard Dean, according to an article in The Daily Caller.[20] If I put on a tin foil hat, it might all make sense. Gabbard apparently hired Cooper to deal with articles by Christine Gralow. I don't know how credible Gralow is. She tweeted, "I was not fired from Honolulu Mag, I was not paid by a pedophile to write my series, & I do not have a restraining order for stalking the Gabbards."[21] That's nice to hear, but it's not enough to meet SELFPUB. TFD (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The same DC fixer who worked for Rinat Akhmetshin, russia gun for hire washington lobbying magnitsky browder. Bulldog Antz (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not going in the article unless you can supply WP:Reliable source (not a tweet or a blog post) that explicitly discusses Gabbard's links to this person. It probably shouldn't even be on the talk page. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Its out there, bill browder tulsi gabbard russianasset Bulldog Antz (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsmax is rated no consensus for reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. An article in a conservative website doesn't establish weight. I'm sure that Cooper works for lots of horrible people. So do defense lawyers, but we don't prejudge clients by who the other clients were. TFD (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wordplay

From the start of the page: She supports Medicare for All and strengthening the reproductive rights framework of Roe v Wade by codifying it into federal law

- you mean she supports abortion, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:412B:6300:D1BC:8F80:CE62:75E0 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

She supports reproductive rights, as the sentence says. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's wrong to frame Russian support as a Clinton accusation

RS coverage of Russian support for Gabbard's candidacy predates Clinton's comments. If this content is to be covered, it should start with the RS coverage which (1) notes extensive Russian bot and state media support for Gabbard, (2) notes Gabbard's response to it, (3) Clinton's claims, and (4) Gabbard's response. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

No, digging up unrelated news stories about Russian bots from a year ago is improper WP:SYNTH. In the section above, it's pointed out that The Guardian described Clinton hinting that "without providing evidence". On the contrary, The Hill's piece from today notes there is no evidence for the bot networks being tied to the campaign: Twitter has said it did not uncover any significant bot activity around the hashtag and there is no evidence that the campaign was involved with spreading the hashtag. [22] --Pudeo (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about a week-old report by the NYT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post frames this as part and parcel of other accusations against Gabbard. It seems silly to pretend that this is separate from other stories that alleged exactly the same thing. Clinton is one additional person making an accusation that others have made as well. We don't need to believe that accusation is valid in order to accurately describe the debate. Nblund ^talk 14:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The NBC story predates any substantive mention of Clinton. I agree with Snooganssnoogans outline of how this topic should be presented. - MrX 🖋 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be OR. If it is relevant it should be in the articles reporting what Clinton said. The Mel Gibson article quotes him as saying "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." We don't report all the evidence that anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists use to support this view. TFD (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It is. Here's the Guardian: US media analysis has shown that sites tied to Russia have celebrated Gabbard’s campaign launch, defended her controversial 2017 meeting with the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and attacked people who have suggested Gabbard is a pawn for Moscow. There is a significant difference between being supported by Russian online bots and trolls, and “grooming”, however. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

RS coverage of Russian support for Gabbard is the same as batshit insane anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? There is really no limit to the amount and depth of false equivalency that you are capable of bringing to the table. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Intercept: NBC News published a predictably viral story Friday, claiming that “experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.” But the whole story was a sham: The only “expert” cited by NBC in support of its key claim was the firm New Knowledge, which just got caught by the New York Times fabricating Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to manufacture false accusations that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Tobby72 That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald's The Intercept. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Localemediamonitor. Greenwald has a certain bias when it comes to certain subjects, and Russia is near the top of the list.- MrX 🖋 11:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Washington Post: Facebook has suspended the account of Jonathon Morgan, the chief executive of a top social media research firm, after reports that he and others engaged in an operation to spread disinformation during the special election in Alabama last year. ... Morgan’s efforts have stirred controversy because of his role at New Knowledge. Here's the Fox News: The secret project, which had a budget of just $100,000 and was carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was revealed after the New York Times obtained an internal report detailing the efforts. ... The project also involved creating thousands of fake Russian accounts on Twitter that began following Moore. This effort attracted attention from local and national media, falsely suggesting Russia is backing Moore’s candidacy. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was using a worst case example. When people make assertions we don't try to bolster them by adding what we think is supportive evidence. It doesn't matter if they are batshit crazy or what we believe or in this case both. That is a clear violation of synthesis. Anyway, check your in box, because the mainstream is backing away from Clinton's assertions, which they think are divisive and ultimately will harm Democrats. In fact independent Congressman Justin Amash says this shows Clinton is a Trump asset - you could his comment to Clinton's article. TFD (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So are we just going to pretend that other reliable sources didn't also bring up the stuff about Russian bots? The question of whether or not Clinton made a valid argument has no bearing on how we cover the dispute. Nblund ^talk 20:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

One source brought it up, it's been debunked and no other mainstream media covered it. But assuming it actually was worthy of inclusion, it would be a clear violation of synthesis to use it to bolster Clinton's argument. We would need a secondary source that did that. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The heading of this section is itself stating (concluding) that there is "Russian support." There may be chatter, but references are not solid enough to clear the cause or reasoning of the chatter. There is not enough citation to reach this conclusion independently. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That sometimes happens on this page, that a header is a bit oriented. Anyway, to the subject at hand, there hasn't been any prior RS coverage of Putin grooming Gabbard for a third-party run, at least that I can recall. Clinton should get full credit for her comments on "grooming". Back on Groundhog Day, neither Windrem nor Popken used the words "groom" or even "third" in their article. They did mention a party. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I think we are in agreement. There is no reason to synthesize a connection between the "grooming" charge and previous articles discussing Russian chatter. Non sequitor. That was my point. -- Ingyhere (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Clinton herself didnt mention Gabbard's name. Yea, It is absolutely wrong to do WP:SYNTH and original research. most of Democrats are russophobes, it is not the first time they accused their opponents of being Russian assets and it ended being a total hoax last time.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

In the Early Life and Education section, delete this sentence (he was sworn in as a state senator in 2007, when Tulsi Gabbard was an adult): Her father is a member of the Hawaii Senate.

And make this similar change below, due to no evidence that her father or mother's current religions were the same as those they practiced during her childhood (in fact, there is substantial evidence against that).

Change: Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry and an active lector at his Catholic church. Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of German descent and a practicing Hindu.

To: Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry. Her mother, who was born in Decatur, Indiana, is of German descent. 50.242.180.209 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I removed the mention of Carol Gabbard. since none of the provided sources mention where he was born or her ancestry. Based on her surname (Porter) it seems the statement about her ancestry is inaccurate. The original editor may have confused her with Tulsi's father, who has some German ancestry. Gabbard is a variation of Gephart, which is German. TFD (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

PBS Roots shows Carol born in Indiana and of a little more than half documented German ancestry. The Porter line is English-Scottish and other unknown European. So one could revert the text and add of 'primarily' German descent. For parallelism, we could add where Mike Gabbard was born. Humanengr (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Most articles say something like this: "HIllary Clinton's Her mother, Dorothy Howell, was a homemaker of Dutch, English, French Canadian (from Quebec), Scottish and Welsh descent." I don't see the purpose of this unless someone retains ethnic identity as for example the Kennedys and Irishness. So I suggest we just say European or if you think it is really really important where in Europe Gabbard's ancestors lived centuries ago, to include all the countries. TFD (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)