Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Clinton comments

Clinton made her remarks without presenting any evidence. Especially the "grooming" comment. This needs to be made clear, as it is an egregious smear to make that comment about Gabbard without any proof. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

These are only assertions without evidence if your head is in the sand. There has been substantial RS coverage of extensive Russian bot and state media support for Gabbard's candidacy. Your repeated additions of your original research that Clinton said X "without evidence" is a BLP violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Present your evidence of Russia grooming Gabbard, which is what the quote says. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans is incorrect here. The Guardian explicitly states that Clinton did not give any evidence[2]: “I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” the former secretary of state told David Plouffe in his “Campaign HQ” podcast without providing evidence. I hope Snoogans isn't claiming we should treat The Guardian as non-reliable. --Pudeo (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Washington Post: Clinton did not provide any evidence for her claim [3] --Pudeo (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear: neither of these sources were cited in the article when the "without evidence" text was added. But they can certainly be added to the article, unless there is a disagreement among RS. Furthermore, both of these RS are totally wrong, but that's a not a reason for removing the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources that do not refer to Clinton's claims as "evidence-free": AP[4], Reuters[5], DW[6], WaPo[7], NYT[8], Des Moines Register[9]. In the context of this spat, Reuters refers to Gabbard as "a favorite of Russian state media", and says she has received praise from "Russian state media and its online surrogates."[10] In the context of this spat, NBC News noted both its own reporting and that of the NYT have shown that "Russian news sites and social media linked to the Kremlin" have promoted Gabbard's candidacy.[11] In the context of this spat, NYT notes that Gabbard is being pushed by RT and Twitter bot activity[12]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clinton's comments implied an active intelligence operation ("grooming") directly influencing Gabbard. None of these references back that up. Furthermore, the fact that some news organizations missed information and didn't state the alternate isn't proof. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Grooming implies no such thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Grooming implies that Gabbard is responding or interacting to Russian influence. We have no evidence of that, and should be careful anyways when using that term, as it is usually used in reference to internet creeps and children. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is no evidences of Russian influence! It is a HOAX. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I argue Wikipedia to be aware of the mentality of some democrats who are accusing their opponents of being Russian agents.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie I think Snooganssnoogans is correct. Someone can groom someone without that person's knowledge. Both meanings are possible, being voluntarily groomed or being groomed by someone without knowing it. Sort of like "developed". The Russian are developing her as an asset (for example). In fact, Clinton's comment implies this meaning, since she said the Russians have "got their eye on" her, not working with her: ""got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." Localemediamonitor (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

President Barack Obama received praise from Vladimir Putin, Russian state media and its online surrogates,[13], [14], [15], [16], [17] the Russians have "got their eye on" him and worked with him[18] but I don't think Obama was a Russian asset and Putin's puppet, I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The comparison is specious. There is no credible allegation that Obama was groomed or supported by Putin or the Russian gov, especially as a candidate, and Obama proved to be harsh on Russia vis a vis sanctions, etc, whereas there is plenty of evidence of Russian media supporting Gabbard all out of proportion for a minor candidate. Localemediamonitor (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no evidence of Russian media "supporting" Gabbard, just McCarthy-like smears. But there is plenty of evidence of Russian gov and Kremlin-linked banks supporting Hillary and Bill Clinton.[19], [20], [21], [22], [23] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence at all. Even fake news CNN says that Clinton didn't provide any proofs or evidences for her allegation.[24] The US president who democratically won against Clinton in 2016 elections said that "[Clinton is] accusing everyone of being a Russian agent." Also I agree with Tobby. If I was Putin I would support Hillary Clinton.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX please see this section and self revert. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: What is you want me to see? Some WP:OR? All claims must be directly verifiable in reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE?

MrX, Using primary sources is not undue. Undue means that in case there is more than one point of view we give each point of view the same weight. Also using primary sources is allowed in Wikipedia in some cases. This is one of them. We are not using a primary source from Tulsi herself but from the organizations that she worked for. --SharabSalam (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there was one secondary source that I did not see. We should always have at least one secondary source for anything other that a basic fact. As this is an encyclopedia, the contents of article should be noteworthy, not simple a collection of links to private entities and self-authored House bios that heap glowing praise upon the subject.- MrX 🖋 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX, OKay. Please calm down. I am seeing you removing a major stuff from this article without discussing it first.

For the evidence part ,

The Atlantic While it’s not clear if that’s what Clinton meant to say, her phrasing was at best sloppy and at worst making an inflammatory accusation against Gabbard (and Stein) without real evidence.

Vox her phrasing was at best sloppy and at worst making an inflammatory accusation against Gabbard (and Stein) without real evidence.

Also CNN in one of their videos put "Without evidence" in the screen. I watched it once and will try to find it. I am not a native speaker but I dont see how evidence differs from proof.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, thank you. I did not remove a single substantial bit of content. Here ya go: evidence vs. proof. Proof is a much higher standard.- MrX 🖋 19:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, there are reports that after all the criticism from republicans and democrats, someone who works for Clinton said that Clinton when she said "they got their eyes" she meant the republicans not the Russians. I found this in the daily mail.[25]--20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharabSalam (talk • contribs)

Using primary sources alone is almost certainly UNDUE at a minimum. That includes self-published sources

without discussing it first Please review WP:BLP, which requires high-quality sources, strict adherence to all content policies, and consensus for inclusion of disputed content. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail should not be considered or used anywhere in Wikipedia, let alone a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yea. I know dailymail should not be used, I was just saying. Also I don't believe UNDUE is relevant here since this is not a matter of point of views. Primary sources can be used in some cases like a newspaper or organization saying that X Person works for the newspaper or organization. Like for example Gatestone institute is used in many BLP articles. Back to the recent reports there is CNN Youtube video. Today they added this at the end (see 3:28).--SharabSalam (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up a deprecated source like that seems disruptive if you were aware of it's status.

this is not a matter of point of views That's not what POV is about.

Best to make a clear statement about what you want changed, indicating reliable sources. The burden is on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going to add it to the article for Gods sake. The article says that Clinton said that Russians were grooming Tulsi to run as a third party. That turns out to be not true. However, in another place Hillary Clinton said broadly without evidences that Tulsi is a Russian asset. Instead Hillary was talking about the republicans not the Russians.[26] We need more sources for this. Actually in the video that is out of context Hillary Clinton didnt mention Russia or Russians so I think we should change that paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Another source (Buzz feed) confirm that Hillary meant Republicans not Russians. I can't edit that area again because I have already made a revert.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I rewatched Hillary Clinton clip. She clearly said the Russians. It seems that these newspapers are trying to whitewash what Hillary Clinton did.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The opinion piece by Becket Adams who writes for the pro-Clinton Media Matters for America is not a reliable source. Note he says that mainstream media is wrong. We can't just reject what mainstream media say just because some columnist disagrees. The clip of the interview is not btw a reliable source, since we have no idea if it is edited. Even if it is not, it requires analysis to come to a conclusion, which requires a reliable source. It seems to me that Clinton is implying that the Republicans are colluding with the Russians or else she abruptly switched from talking about the Republicans to talking about the Russians. Her spokesperson initially confirmed she was talking about Russians, before it all backfired. Maybe Clinton forgot what year it was and was speaking about Shirley Chisholm, who her fellow McGovern supporters thought would take votes away from him. TFD (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusing Military History

The text as written now reads In July 2004 she volunteered for a 12-month tour in Iraq, serving in a field medical unit as a specialist with the 29th Support Battalion medical company. Specialist is a tank, she was an officer. It would help greatly to identify what she specialized in (specialist in internal medicine or whatever) or remove the words as a specialist. As it reads now, it implies she was enlisted.

The text as written reads "She was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009. There, as a primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was among the first women ever to set foot inside a Kuwait military facility." This isn't true, I was stationed in Kuwait in the 1990's for Operation Southern Watch on a Kuwaiti Air Base, we had SEVERAL females with us, we also had several females with us in 2003 when we kicked off Operation Iraqi Freedom from a Kuwaiti Air Base. This either needs to be removed, or clarified better. As it reads now, it implies we had no females there until 2008/2009.

I removed those lines from the page for now. There was only 1 reference that stated that and I do not believe its a reliable reference. The other 3 references did not support it and I can't find any other sources to support it either. ContentEditman (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

She probably had the rank of specialist because she did not enter officer candidate school until 2007. Also You did not mention which air bases you were at or whether they were under allied or Kuwaiti control at the time. Military btw can mean army rather than naval or air. TFD (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

semi protected edit request: Republicans are grooming Gabbard - NYTimes

The article says that Russia is grooming Gabbard as a 3rd party candidate. The NY Times reports that it's the Republicans grooming Gabbard https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html Another sign of Trump-Russia collusion, but the article should reflect reliable sourcing. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is wrong. Anyone can listen to Clinton’s words themselves. She clearly stated Russians. This is a sad attempt by a so called RS to rewrite the narrative. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear: there are now numerous reliable sources that state that Clinton was referring to Republicans, regardless of what she said. An essay points out how to handle this sort of thing, and the Republican claim must now be included per WP:NPOV and WP:V. It helps to notice that one cite now has a host of corrections at the bottom, and another calls Clinton's claims about Gabbard "unsubstantiated", and a third one has corrections at the top stating that Clinton was referring to Rebublicans. These is not a sad attempt by a so called RS to rewrite the narrative, this is the position of several reliable sources. 173.84.210.56 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation

I removed for examination re ‘contentious’ material per WP:BLP.

Tulsi Gabbard has a number of ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, a religious sect in Hawaii that has been described as a cult. In 2015 Gabbard referred to Chris Butler, the founder of the sect, as her “guru dev" or spiritual master. Tulsi Gabbard's husband, Abraham Williams, has strong family connections to Butler. His mother, Anya Anthony, works with Wai Lana Productions LLC, a company associated with Butler’s wife; Anthony runs Gabbard's political office in Honolulu. Gabbard's father, Mike Gabbard, said in 2004: “Although I’m not a member of the Science of Identity Foundation, I’m eternally thankful to Chris Butler;" both he and Tulsi Gabbard's mother served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation. Tulsi Gabbard has not answered questions about her family ties to the sect.

Will return to discuss. Humanengr (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr. Though I respect the need to discuss this, I think it's more contentious NOT to include this issue and it should not be removed from the page. The New Yorker article shows it to be a legitimate issue. If anything, much more info from the articles could be summarized in this section (the business ties, for example). Removing this is like removing Jeremiah Wright from Barack Obama's page, or removing "The Apprentice" from Trump's page. Perhaps a section on "religious views" with this info? Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

First consideration: characterization as "cult" (both here and on Science of Identity Foundation page) carries subjectively applied, derogatory connotations:

In the English-speaking world the word "cult" often carries derogatory connotations. It has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.

Hi Localemediamonitor — I'll respond to your comments above as I can later today. Humanengr (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Localemediamonitor, further re 'cult', see WP:LABEL. Also, any ties to the 'Science of Identity Foundation' that are not hers specifically are not allowed per WP:BLPBALANCE. Humanengr (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So remove the word "cult" then. Again, it's inconceivable that this issue does not merit inclusion on the page when the New Yorker and other publications have covered it extensively, and when Gabbard herself has referred to the religious/sect leader as her "guru dev" (spiritual master). Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans?Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading through the New Yorker reference, I'd say the disputed content was a POV violation representing a POV not in the reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So Ronz would you vote for reverting the removal while cutting out the word "cult" then? Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No.

Some mention seems due given the New Yorker ref, a complete rewrite would probably be best. I cannot access the Star Advertiser ref, so have no idea on what guidance it gives us. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a review of the the "New Yorker" article by Aseem Shukla [27]. After NPR quoted the New Yorker article towards Gabbard, reviews about that were done by Vamsee Juluri [28] and by The Hill [29]. Historical context: The Nazis prosecuted family members of a person which was found guilty via Sippenhaft, which is what Localemediamonitor's text does. Wikipedia should not re-enact Nazi habits. Localemediamonitor's text uses relatives of Tulsi Gabbard to construct her guilt by association in an attempt to disparage Gabbard. See also: Sippenhaft. I hereby request a topic ban against Localemediamonitor with the scope of everything related to Tulsi Gabbard. Xenagoras (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: that's not how a topic ban works, you would need to open up an WP:ANI thread about that. And your own editing in this topic area would also be scrutinized. Please don't compare other editors to Nazis.

I've previously discussed this issue, and I continue to believe that a very brief (three sentence max) mention of Gabbard's relationship with Butler is warranted in the section on her personal life. The discussion in this New York Times profile seems like a decent model. It's simply a fact about her religious upbringing. I think a start would be to simply say that: Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called The Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing. We might add one sentence that mentions why some people have questioned these ties, and also one sentence that explains her response.Nblund ^talk 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I was considering that your first line "Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called The Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing” might be appropriate for inclusion. But now I see that you had previously opened the topic of Gabbard's relationship to the Science of Identity Foundation topic at the BLP Noticeboard and the consensus after discussion appeared to be against inclusion.Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article cited by Nblund (as well as other major coverage of the matter, see below) dates from after that BLPN discussion, which changes the equation. The sentence proposed above is absolutely fine to include in the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be excluded per Balancing aspects: "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. The fact that it is absent from mainstream news media is reason to exclude. The Reverend Wright story had extensive media coverage, became an issue in the 2008 campaign and Obama made a speech about it. But we don't mention every paranoid conspiracy theory about Obama that was reported in Fox News or right-wing media. Note too the phrasing uses weasel-wording, i.e., "has been described as a cult." And Barack Obama has been described as a Muslim and not really the president during his terms in office. I suggest that you write to the moderators at the next debate and ask them to raise the question. Then Gabbard would provide an answer and fact-checkers could get onto the case. TFD (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's entirely off-base to compare well-documented facts about Gabbard's upbringing and family with Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. A much better comparison would be to the section Barack Obama#Religious views, which does in fact mention each of his parents' religious attachments and quotes the article subject himself about his more contemporaneous religious influences - things you appear to be fighting tooth and nail to exclude from this article in the present case. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"quotes the article subject himself about his more contemporaneous religious influences" This is the important argument to be considered and this procedure is followed in the articles about all 2020 candidates and beyond. Only direct quotes by the article subject about it's current religious views are contained in the 2020 candidates' articles. Xenagoras (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The source situation has changed considerably since that BLP noticeboard discussion in January 2019. For example, the issue has now received extensive coverage in a New York Magazine profile (which seems a very thoroughly researched and balanced piece to me).

The above mentioned New York Times article from August has a newer statement from Gabbard on the matter, which essentially confirms the 2015 New Yorker quote (while pushing back on the "cult" criticism):

She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.

“Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”

Also, it points out the continuing influence on her biography in other ways:

[Gabbard and her current husband] had met years before as part of the tight-knit community around the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler.

I think there is no question that a serious biographical encyclopedia article about Gabbard needs to cover Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation in some form.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@HaeB, Pls see my response to MrX referencing your comment. Humanengr (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This content belongs. Well-sourced and DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Face on Mars controversy. It is human nature to make connections based on one's experiences and belief systems. But seriously, all Gabbard is saying is that Butler is a guru (which I suppose he is) and has taught her. practice meditation. Gabbard by thr way practices Yoga. There's nothing in any other political biography about fitness trainers. It's pretty propagandistic to mention Butler without first mentioning Gabbard's fitness routine and all the people who have helped her. TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing inherently scandalous about it. So then why we would handle it any differently from any other aspect of her bio? We discuss other aspects of her faith, her martial arts practices, and her veganism, but we don't describe an aspect of her faith that has been covered in depth by two major magazines, and mentioned in profiles in The Guardian, the New York Times, and a number of others. It seems kind of propagandistic to mention Butler as though he's a fitness instructor - that's not what a "guru" is, and no reliable source covers him that way. He's an important spiritual influence. Nblund ^talk 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"why we would handle it any differently from any other aspect of her bio?" Because religion is (beside sexuality) the most sensitive aspect of human nature and therefore enjoying the strongest legal protection. Only direct/authorized quotes by the article subject itself about it's current religious views are contained in all 2020 candidates' articles. Gabbard's political opponents make her religion into a scandal: Gabbard's Republican competitor Kaaihue described her as "worshipping the devil".[30] This happened in 2016, not in 1616. Religious bigotry is a huge problem in the US, and you Nblund repeatedly deleting coverage about bigoted smears against Gabbard [31][32][33] is not helpful. Xenagoras (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Bernie_Sanders#Religion,_heritage,_and_values contains a lengthy discussion of his Jewishness. It quotes Sanders, but it also quotes a number of other sources discussing his beliefs and Judaism. I don't believe its true of any major candidate BLP that we only use quotes. We are not responsible for protecting Gabbard from the things that her political opponents write about her.Nblund ^talk 00:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're seeing a face on Mars where I only see rocks. Gabbard said nothing about Butler that connects him to her religious belief system and in fact she was never a member of his group (or sect or cult). TFD (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I read the "early life" and "personal life" sections of all 25 former and current 2020 presidential candidates. All of them follow the rule that only quotes by the article subject on their current religious views are included (with rare deviations I'll elaborate below). It's not difficult to understand why this rule applies (besides WP:BLP): A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives. Holding this against the child (here: Tulsi Gabbard) violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM and is one of the reasons I deleted it.[34] Therefore the topic of religion before adulthood is totally off limits, and Tulsi Gabbard has called this type of "questions" about her religion during childhood "very religious bigoted and offensive".[35][36] You know that since you have deleted this information two times already.[37][38] What you do is deleting text where Gabbard defends herself or gets defended against bigoted attacks and you prevent the removal of such bigoted attacks there:[39] We are responsible for protecting Gabbard and any other living person against WP:BLP violations like religious bigoted personal attacks. Read WP:BLP then WP:LIBEL.

Sanders' "religion" section gives way too much WP:UNDUE weight to his religious views. The length of that section is ludicrous. It is also the only candidate where not 100% of the content is quoted by Sanders himself. Did you know that "Brad Marshall, chief financial officer of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), considered raising the question of whether Sanders is an atheist in the hope of costing him votes in the primary contest against Hillary Clinton"? [40] Maybe that is one reason why the section on Sanders' religion is so absurdly long, giving religion way too much WP:UNDUE weight. Xenagoras (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: She described him as "essentially a Vaishnava Hindu pastor", and a "guru dev" who gave her a gift of a "wonderful spiritual practice" . Multiple reliable sources describe him as an important influence on her religious upbringing. One of your concerns in the previous discussion was that mainstream broadsheet newspapers hadn't covered this. But we have five high quality broadsheets now: Miami Herald, Telegraph, New York Times, The Guardian,Star Advertiser.

@Xenagoras: that isn't a rule, and you've not made any edits outside of this topic area, so I'm not sure that you have a very good sense of how policies are generally applied around these issues. If we include criticism of Gabbard, then it is warranted to include Gabbard's response. But you're trying to include an accusation that NPR participated in a "Hinduphobic smear campaign" while simultaneously insisting that we can't discuss what NPR actually said. It's just not a defensible position. Nblund ^talk 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Only 1% of my article edits are about the Science of Identity Foundation in relation to Tulsi Gabbard.

The rule is WP:AVOIDVICTIM: A child has no control over the spiritual/religious teaching it receives or the behaviour of it's teacher and therefore a person must never be disparaged/accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher, see also 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.". Localemediamonitor first inserted the text [41], "Tulsi Gabbard has a number of ties to the Science of Identity Foundation", which violated WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. He continued, SoIF were "a religious sect in Hawaii that has been described as a cult" which violates WP:BLPSTYLE and by implying Tulsi Gabbard were a member of a sect/cult it violated WP:LIBEL. Furthermore he attempted to "prove" Gabbard's "number of ties to the cult" (her WP:GUILT) via claims that rely on guilt by association with other people which he also claimed to have "ties to the cult". In Localemediamonitor's second attempt[42] he inserted, "the controversial socially conservative guru" which violates WP:BLPSTYLE, and via "Gabbard was brought up in part on the teachings of the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler and has said that Butler's work is an influence on her" Localemediamonitor implied Gabbard were also "controversial socially conservative" which violated WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION because Gabbard has repeatedly stated that her world views have drastically changed from childhood to adulthood. It also violated WP:BLPBALANCE,WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM.

I know very well how to read, understand and interpret policies and their spirit, and you should not question my capabilities to follow policies.

I never insisted that "we can't discuss what NPR actually said". The opposite is true, because my original text version [43] that you deleted [44] (by falsely claiming that WP:N applies to content in the article) contained: "NPR suggested in an interview with Gabbard that her religion Vaishnava Hinduism equates to a "cult" and she would "worship images of a cult leader whose preachings are anti-science". In this interview NPR also confronted Gabbard with various other types of accusations that got published since her campaign start." Xenagoras (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. If you want to have a discussion about edits I made on other pages, please open up a discussion on the relevant talk page. If you want to accuse other editors of libel (you shouldn't, but if you insist) then take it to WP:ANI Nblund ^talk 21:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So I made a new version of the addition, much shorter, drawing only on points from the NYT and New Yorker. Localemediamonitor (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss potential versions here, rather than edit-warring to include them. Thanks.

I agree with removal of this latest version. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because of violation of WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM (see also my answer above to Nblund). Xenagoras (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think some coverage is warranted, but @Localemediamonitor: we need to hammer out a wording and gain consensus here before adding to the page. Nblund ^talk 17:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I read the Telegraph article which says, "The cult is seen as having influenced her conservative stance on social issues early in her career, such as her opposition to gay rights....She has since reversed her position and is now a member of the House of Representatives LGBT Equality Caucus." Notice the difference in tone from their phrasing and yours. In their version it was an influence she very early on rejected, while in your version Butler has a Rasputin like influence on her. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. TFD (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not really worth my time to keep changing the wording just to have it removed again and again. If the serious people here can't figure out a way to simply edit the passage satisfactorily to get this extremely relevant and well-sourced info onto the page in some form (as many agree, such as HaeB, Snooganssnoogans and even Nblund), especially in the context of all the other politicians' pages that have similar info (as cited above ad nauseum), then that's the way it is. It makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid though, and like it's hiding something.Localemediamonitor (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"It makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid though, and like it's hiding something." You are hiding critique and advice about your WP:BLP violations. [45] Xenagoras (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm wondering if you've confused my edit for someone else's. The wording I proposed above only said he influenced her upbringing. I don't believe I have proposed anything resembling a "Rasputin-like influence", and The Telegraph really goes a step further than I would by calling Butler's group a "cult" and suggesting that it shaped her early political positions. I'm totally open to hearing an alternate wording. None of the sources I've cited are tabloids. Nblund ^talk 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

References

NY Times article of possible interest:
“As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.”

• Lerer, Lisa (12 October 2019). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times.

—40.142.140.74 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Could I get a rough sense of where editors stand regarding how to word this stuff?

1. No mention of Butler (status quo)
2. Mention Butler as an important religious influence in her early life in the "personal life" section (like the wording I proposed here)
3. Mention Butler and the link to her early opposition to gay marriage (following The Telegraph and TFD's framing above)
4. Mention Butler with one sentence on the controversy (accusations of "cult") and one sentence on Gabbard's response (eg.: the questions are rooted in religious bigotry). Similar to the framing from Vox, or this paragraph from yesterday's New York Times article.

For my part, I think option 4 would be ideal — we might as well just be forthright about the discussion — but I think option 2 and 3 would be fine as well. I'm open to alternatives, but at a minimum I'd like to get a sense of how many editors outright oppose any mention of Butler at this point. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely 2 and 3. Given the problems with using "cult", I'd like to see specific wording for 4, but in the context of religious bigotry and political attacks, something seems to deserve mention. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This could probably be a paragraph with the topic sentence: Tulsi Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, both through her immediate family and her husband's. Also, this article by Nick Grube should probably be included: [46], this one from India Post probably shouldn't be: [47] (misspelled headline, etc.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP should be applied with “a high degree of sensitivity”. We should avoid guilt by association (as noted by Xenagoras and TFD above) through vague allegations of “strong ties” at second-degree. There is documented interest of some to smear her with innuendo of cult association. Therefore, statements for a WP BLP need clear evidential support of her individual current (or at least recent) beliefs and activities. Humanengr (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... (ISKCON guru system#Siddhaswarupa). I agree sensitivity and caution are needed, however there does appear to be a lot of information coming out about the SoI. Some is likely opposition research, we should certainly only add things that pass WP:V. It does appear that she grew up "under the influence" of Butler and her parents. Can anyone find the *name* of the high school she attended? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely was not a Christian missionary school, it was the Baguio Boarding School that Butler established so children of his followers could be taught somewhere with no oversight after clashes with authorities in other countries. This is noted in this New Yorker article and in a Hawaii Free Press expose series on Butler as well as other sources. Despite what some dedicated editors are trying to insist on it's clear that she has strong connections to Butler and hiding them in this article doesn't maintain neutrality, it conceals fact. JamesG5 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, re "there does appear to be a lot of information coming out about the SoI. Some is likely opposition research, we should certainly only add things that pass WP:V.": Agree re the news and likely opposition research. The question is what, under policies, should or should not be in WP about a living individual as opposed to in an article about the Foundation per se. Humanengr (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: she says Butler's work "still guides her", so I think we have that indication of recent personal beliefs. I agree that we should handle this delicately, but Wikipedia describes disputes. In my view, the best way to avoid innuendo is by briefly stating the facts and the arguments without taking a side. Gabbard's campaign adviser has compared her relationship with Butler to Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. If we take that comparison as valid, then we could follow the same model followed in the final paragraph of Barack_Obama#Religious_views: state the relationship, mention the criticism, and state the response. It avoids innuendo, but also still notifies readers of the existence of a controversy. Nblund ^talk 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, re "still guides her": I can't find such an assertion from her in the article. What she did say was "… he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." That arguably could be included in her bio page but I note TFD's comment here. Humanengr (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That is the characterization offered by the New York Times, which is generally considered a reliable source. I'm open to rewording, but she compares him to a pastor or Imam, and elsewhere refers to him as her "guru dev" (New Yorker), or "diksha guru" (this interview). I don't think it is appropriate to characterize yoga and meditation as part of a "fitness" regiment for Hinduism.Nblund ^talk 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What does “Butler’s work still guides her” refer to — political opinions, business arrangements, meditation practices, or other? The reporter’s inference leaves that open and invites speculation of possibly sinister control inappropriate for a BLP. Relying on secondary source inference from an article where there is a direct quote available seems inappropriate, especially when subject to wide interpretation. Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It obviously refers to her spiritual life. So does calling him a "guru". Secondary sources are preferable, but I don't have any problem with also including Gabbard's characterization of her relationship to Butler. What I do have a problem with is simply leaving out noteworthy information simply because some editors think there is something "sinister" about any affiliation with a new religious movement. Nblund ^talk 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 1 because of policy. Chris Butler was Gabbard's religion teacher during her childhood. Some people (especially Gabbard's political opponents) claim that Chris Butler is "bad" (labeled "controversial") because he has "bad behavior" (e.g. labeled "guru" or "master") or teaches "bad religion" (e.g. labeled "cult"). They draw this painting of the "bad Chris Butler" to use it to copy his "badness" onto Gabbard via guilt by association. A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives or the behavior of it's teacher, therefore a person must never be disparaged or accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher. Wikipedia policy prohibits this via WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization." This is why only quotes by the article subject about their religious views during adulthood are admissible. WP:GUILT defines: "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." A child cannot prevent the conduct of it's teacher or the teaching it receives, therefore everything related to Gabbard's religious teaching or her teacher during her childhood is off limits.

The notorious [48] NPR interview [49] [50] has Gabbard explaining the media situation and her religious views: "What I would love to do is for our conversation to be focused on me, not my parents. ... Ask me about what I have said and done." ... "Vaishnava Hinduism, the practice that I follow, is a monotheistic branch of Hinduism that is centered around love. Love for god and love for others, and how we can be best pleasing to god through the practice of Karma yoga which means taking action to serve others, to protect our planet, and to develop my own personal loving relationship with god." There are several other interviews where Gabbard explains her religious views in much more detail like [51] and [52] There are also speeches from Gabbard at Hinduism conferences where she explains her religion even more detailed and a lot of videos from town halls where Gabbard explains the pillars of her philosophy. Somehow nobody seems to be interested in writing Gabbard's actual current religious or philosophical views into her article, but only her alleged "ties" with the "controversial cult leader" seem of interest to some people.

Regarding the Options 2, 3 and 4 there are additional problems. The article Science of Identity Foundation cannot be used as link in Gabbard's article because it contains several factual errors and outdated information, the sources are contradicting each other, and it severely violates WP:BLP in many ways. The article Science of Identity Foundation was created minutes before it's content was used to insert defamatory text into Gabbard's article. It is an attack page that should be deleted per WP:G10.

Gabbard's opposition to gay marriage until 2004 (when she was 23) is already described twice in both the lead and "political positions" section. (It should not be in the lead because it's an outdated stance.) Adding the name of Butler or his "cult" would add no information about Gabbard's outdated or current political views, but only add guilt by association with anything "bad" some people connect with Butler or his "cult".

The controversy about Gabbard's religion is not a one time event since Gabbard has been the target of religious bigoted attacks many times over the years, and she has taken a stance on religious issues on her own behalf and on behalf of others several times. Religious discrimination#United_States would be a starting point for interested people. Xenagoras (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 4. JamesG5 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I think the Grube article could be included as an additional source just for the Butler stuff. (Where can I sign up for that job?) I agree that the IndiaPost article is unhelpful.

@Ronz: here's what I had in mind for option 4:

1.Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called the Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing.

2. Her affiliation with the foundation has been scrutinized due to what some have described as anti-gay views and authoritarian leadership the group's leader.

3.Gabbard has described Butler as a 'essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor' and characterized the interest in her relationship with him as anti-Hindu bigotry.

Sentence 1 could be replaced with SashiRoll's suggestion above, but "ties" might be seen as a bit suggestive. Sources like the New York Times simply avoided the use of the term "cult" altogether, so I think "authoritarian leadership" is a less loaded way of describing it. Open to suggestions here. Nblund ^talk 19:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how much I should be indenting here. After further (re)reading, my impression is that the main point of the Grube article is campaign-specific. It could be added first to the campaign entry and then probably also to the subsection on the campaign, here? Still I would encourage using less accusatory terms than Grube does, at times, in his article. (He's never been a fan, I don't think) I think we need to keep in mind that by the time she was born, her family was already into this group, and so her responsibility for the community into which she was born does remain somewhat limited. I wonder what her endgame is... that story of the reclusive Washingtonian reminds me of Kerouac & Gary Snyder. Cf. Desolation Peak (Washington) ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am still seeing this as innuendo, opposition research trying to show a connection without explaining what it is. One editor compared the issue to the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years, he married him and his wife and baptized their children, and Obama took the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright's sermons. Obama's connection with Wright became a major 2008 campaign controversy. Here's how the Barack Obama article covers the story: "Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Jeremiah Wright in October 1987 and became a member of Trinity in 1992. During Obama's first presidential campaign in May 2008, he resigned from Trinity after some of Wright's statements were criticized." But Gabbard's connection with Butler is much weaker and has not really attracted controversy in the campaign. It's more like the Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy, which is not mentioned in Obama's article.

Maybe it will be brought up at tonight's debate and dominate the news cycle for the next month. In that case we can add it to the Gabbard campaign article and add a brief mention in this article that Gabbard knows Butler, consistent with how we treated the Wright controversy.

TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Then can you propose a version that avoids innuendo? The comparison to Reverend Wright was made by Gabbard's campaign staffer during her interview with the New York Times. Nothing in this article has "dominated the news cycle" for a month. She's not going to get that level of news coverage. Nblund ^talk 17:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see enough coverage yet for inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You previously suggested we needed broadsheet and cable news coverage. We have both.

What else are you looking for, exactly? Because it kind of seems like you've set a moving target that requires one of the least-covered primary candidates to become a top news story. If that's the standard then this whole article should be a stub. Nblund ^talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not Option 1. Gabbard was affiliated with Chris Butler up to at least 2015, when she explicitly called him her "guru". She chose to be connected with him for a majority of her adult life. There is no valid reason to omit this information from her article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that Gabbard was "affiliated" with Butler? Thanks. (p.s. Cambridge defines "affiliated" as: "to be officially connected with or controlled by another, usually larger, company or organization" OR "to become part of or form a close relationship with a group or organization"). I don't see any evidence of such a thing in the video you adduced as evidence (that video is discussed below extensively). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi born as Tulasi

@Samp4ngeles, In an early reference on Mike Gabbard running for office, she appears as Tulasi; other sources seem to use the names interchangeably in the same piece — not sure if that’s a matter of transliteration. She clearly is known by Tulsi in her recent public life. Changed lede to back to your edit. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You need a source that it was her name at birth before the article can say that. It could for example have been a nickname used at the time. Even if sources are found, it's lacks weight for inclusion in the lead or info-box, especially when it is not mentioned in the body. TFD (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine either way if you want to revert it or leave it and wait for Samp4ngeles to produce the mentioned source? Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I will revert per WP:BLP. There should not be any unsourced material. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re Tulasi vs Tulsi: The earlier references I found had Tulasi, while she has recently gone by Tulsi. But this may be a distinction without a difference, coming down to the Tamil vs Sanskrit: “In Sanskrit, we have two categorized Tulsi such as Rama Tulsi and Krsna Tulsi. In Malayalam it is called Trittavu. In Marathi as Tulshi, Tulasi in Tamil, Thulsi in Telugu and finally Holy Basil in English.“ https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-basil-and-tulsi Humanengr (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr @TFD The very first mention of Tulsi in a newspaper was on July 18, 2002, in an article in the Honolulu-Star Bulletin about her father, which said, "Gabbard, 54, was flanked by his wife, Carol, a member of the state Board of Education, and daughter, Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo, who will be running for state House District 42." On July 24, 2002, the Star-Bulletin published a list of candidates for public office, listing Tulsi as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo running for State House District 42. This would have reflected the name in her filing papers. On September 8, 2002, the Star-Bulletin again published a list of candidates showing her as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo. On September 13, 2002, a different newspaper, The Honolulu Advertiser, profiled her as Tulasi Gabbard Tamayo. On October 27, 2002, after the primary, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin again published her name as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo. Other articles beginning on September 8, 2002, and subsequently, began referring to her as Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo. In her 2006 divorce decree, however, she was listed as Tulsi G. Tamayo divorce decree. Then on April 30, 2011, a public notice appeared in in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, saying, "In the Matter of the Petition of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO For Change of Name . . . the Name of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO shall be changed to TULASI GABBARD. The same name notice appeared again on May 3, 2011. A 2019 profile of Gabbard's childhood in New York Magazine indicates that her three older siblings, Bhakti, Jai, and Narayan, had other names at birth -- but that Tulsi and her younger sister, Vrindavan, were born into the Science of Identity Foundation. I will change it in the lead to Tulasi "Tulsi" Gabbard, in line with other articles (e.g., Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke and John Ellis "Jeb" Bush) as well as other options presented in WP:NAMES. Up to you as whether to use it in as her birth name in the info-box.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

You need a secondary source first so that we can accept the information as true and secondly to establish weight. There are secondary sources that say what Bush and O'Rourke's legal names are, it's been discussed in secondary sources and hence we mention it. But Tulsi's legal first name is Tulsi. There has been lots of discussion at RSN about how we cannot use primary legal sources. TFD (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, The legal documents you cite do not say what you claim: the later notice is not the same as the earlier one. This is the second time you have misrepresented the record, apparently as part of a deliberate smear campaign to stir up bigotry (as also indicated by your ridiculous 'born into' claim). Your efforts show again why conscientious editors need to be scrupulously careful to follow the policies and not allow tabloid misrepresentations and sensationalism to slip into this BLP.Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, Revert your repeated insertion, per above. Humanengr (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019

@Humanengr I would suggest you read WP:PA before making the sort of comments you just made. The legal documents support exactly what I explained above -- as factually as possible. This is in no way an attempt to smear Gabbard. On the contrary, it is out of a desire to portray this information factually, in accordance with WP:BLP. Excluding this information from the article leaves a major gap. The "born into" language is merely to distinguish between Hindi naming conventions of Mike and Carol Gabbard's children before and after they began following Kris Butler. The New York Magazine article [53] makes this clear. It would be similar to describing someone as being born into Catholicism or Judaism if their parents had changed their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, You proposed a citation for Tulsi Gabbard’s BLP whose title began with "Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself …”. This positioning not only smeared Tulsi Gabbard by failing to make clear it was Carol Gabbard who was the subject of that article, but it failed to state that Carol Gabbard was herself cleared. The introduction of this article introduced contentious material against two living people, and it should be stricken from this Talk page.

Next you attempted to amplify on an unreliable defamatory source by misrepresenting the legal record of the May 3 article.

Then you added some material slurring both Gabbard and a religious organization – to be treated with sensitivity as a small group per WP policies – inserting your own judgment, though I assume you are not a scholar of either Hinduism or US case law on what constitutes a ‘cult’. For this you cite caravanmagazine.in, another ‘human interest’ publication improper as a source for a BLP which has been called out for hinduphobia.

Your wanting to insert more on Gabbard’s first husband also seems to be an inappropriately targeted effort: he is a low-profile individual, who has been covered only because of his connection with a single event. (See WP:BLPNAME.)

If you are genuinely trying to do competent and neutral editing work, it would help if you did not carry out actions like the above. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As a first step, look more closely at the May 3 publication and revert your edits. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr Uh, you're reading a lot into based on what appear to be your own biases. Don't try to smear me. I have simply inserted her actual name in based on RS and what has been published in newspapers and is in the public record. You have produced no evidence to the contrary.Samp4ngeles (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: which one of these (WP:SECONDARY) sources say that her legal name is "Tulasi"? Also, please don't reinstate this material until you have the consensus of the editors in this discussion, otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX All of these secondary sources:

And all of this is corroborated by primary sources (divorced and name change) referenced in other secondary sources.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Samp4ngeles: Here is what the first of those sources says:

"Gabbard, 54, was flanked by his wife, Carol, a member of the state Board of Education, and daughter Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo, who will be running for state House District 42, which includes Ewa Beach. Gabbard said his family has lived in Ewa Beach for just less than a year and had lived in a downtown condominium for the previous decade."
— http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/07/18/news/index13.html

A passing mention of her name is not valid for a claim that Tulasi is her legal name. I assume your other sources are similar.- MrX 🖋 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrXIt's not a passing reference in that it matches the spelling of the other three references from 2002, which are more focused on her ("Tulasi Gabbard Tamayo is a self-employed martial arts instructor" on the September 13, 2002, reference, plus her name on various lists of candidates in the other 2002 references (presumably taken from her candidate filing). Significantly, these sources also match her divorce record and name change records. user:Samp4ngelesuser talk:Samp4ngeles 🖋 02:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, and no you cannot use WP:OR. Your arguments betray a lack of basic understanding of Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. Your efforts would be much better spent learning them rather than in trying to add this bizarre name variation to this article. I strongly suggest that you move on to something else.- MrX 🖋 02:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

When this is taken to a noticeboard, Samp4ngeles' extensive editing at Mike Gabbard's BLP should also be mentioned. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls which was all excellent editing, by the way.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Samp4ngeles has been reported to Admins for edit warring. [54] Policy- or guideline violating editing or conduct can also be reported at other venues, e.g. the BLP noticeboard.[55] Xenagoras (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, unless you can provide a single reliable secondary source that her legal name at birth was Tulasi, it is a violation of WP:BLP to add it. If you don't have one, then we should close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four DeucesProviding a source that references her legal name *at birth* is not a requirement for WP:BLP. I have provided multiple secondary sources, including:

And all of this is corroborated by primary sources (divorced and name change) referenced in other secondary sources.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI just background information for editors: “… that the name of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO shall be changed to TULSI GABBARD upon a single publication in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, a newspaper of the general circulation in the State of Hawaii, published at Honolulu, Hawaii” Star-Advertiser May 3, 2011 (accessed through newspapers.com) Humanengr (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Humanengr That is an inaccurate quote from the citation. The legal notice you cite changed her name from TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO to TULASI GABBARD (emphasis added).Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Samp4ngeles, Humanengr did not inaccurately quote the newspaper you used. Search results for Humanengr's quote "that The Name Of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO Shall Be Changed To TULSI GABBARD": 1 match [56] Search results for your quote "that The Name Of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO Shall Be Changed To TULASI GABBARD": 0 matches [57] Please do not accuse Humanengr of mistakes that you commmit. And btw, claiming that the name of a living person in her biography is wrong is an exceptional claim for which you are required to present exceptionally good sources. Also, TFD is right to remark, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."" Xenagoras (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Avoid misuse of primary sources" applies: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." For all we know Tulasi could be a typo or perhaps she changed her name to Tulasi, perhaps by accident, rather than having the name on her birth certificate or whatever they call it in Hawaii. And as we know from the birther controversy, those documents are not readily available. TFD (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. I presented the content so other editors would understand the basis of my saying that Samp4ngeles was misrepresenting his (unusable) primary source. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces @Humanengr We're no longer talking about proving that it was her name at birth (it's irrelevant to having it in the lead). The primary question here is whether Tulasi is her legal name, which it is. The WP:SECONDARY sources are sufficient to establish that Tulasi was her official name in the early 2000s. WP:PSTS states that primary sources can be relied on "to a lesser extent." The 2011 name change notice published in the Honolulu-Star-Advertiser indicate that Tulasi remained her legal name in 2011. If you want to go deeper than that, her 2006 divorce record (notable due to reference in multiple secondary sources) also lists her legal name as Tulasi. Conversely, there are no RS that indicate that "Tulsi" is either her birth name or legal name and this therefore violates WP:V. The 2002 secondary sources alone are sufficient to establish her legal name, though.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There are so many obvious errors in your argument it is difficult to know where to start. BLP policy says your source cannot be used and any violations of BLP policy can result in users being blocked from editing. And note that PSTS says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used...." TFD (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Unless someone presents a source that says "Tulsi Gabbard's legal name is Tulasi Gabbard", this discussion is at it's logical end. Samp4ngeles please don't waste editors' time by ignoring their policy-based arguments, and reposting the same rejected sources. See also WP:HORSEMEAT.- MrX 🖋 01:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed: What is to be done re an editor who seems to blatantly disregard BLP policies, inc. adherence to NPOV? See recent edits at Science of Identity Foundation. Note also that the SIF references have been edited to include a contentious tabloid piece focused on Tulsi Gabbard. Humanengr (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of that page, the Byline Times has been used six times on en.wp. The author also writes for Middle East Eye, but didn't publish his story there. I don't want to get involved in drama so I didn't open a RS/N or BLP/N discussion about it. Otherwise, their sources are quite often paywalled. This contribution (check out the article title) is also worth study.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's simple. "Tulasi" is Sanskrit and "Tulsi" is Hindi. The name is spelled the same in Devanagari in either case: तुलसी. It's a regular case of modern Indo-Aryan languages deleting Sanskrit's inherent short vowel a in unstressed open syllables. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

What's simple is what is written in the public records and in early newspaper records in Hawaii: Tulasi. No transliteration needed. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.180.209 (talk)

I see. The reason for the discrepancy may be that in the minds of Sanskrit-using Hindu devotees, the name is filed in the category of the scriptural Devanagari Sanskrit form of the name, तुलसी, which has either of two alternate readings, depending on use of vernacular language (Hindi) or scriptural (Sanskrit), and that whichever is chosen at a given time is less important than the primary mental category in Devanagari. Of course, the discrepancy formerly thought unimportant is now highlighted by the cold glare of objective fact finding. Perhaps it's an emic/etic divide, with the variable reading (Tulasi or Tulsi) encompassed by the emic worldview, and the imperative to nail down a single English spelling by the etic. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Hillary Clinton's comments

What is the relevance of adding Hillary Clinton's comments to Tulsi's page? There might be a source to verify the comments Hillary made, but there definitely isn't a source to verify the validity of them. Politicians say things about other politicians all the time, but I've rarely noticed those comments on their wiki page. Below is the start of three paragraph

On October 18, 2019, Hillary Clinton was reported to have said that Russia was "grooming" a female Democrat to run as a third-party candidate who would help President Trump win reelection via a spoiler effect. WhowinsIwins (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant, per weight, since it received wide coverage. Since virtually no one believes Clinton's comments, there is no need to provide verification for them. TFD (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Presentation of Hillary's comments

We have currently:

"About a week after the initial reports, mainstream media corrected their reporting to say it was not Russians but Republicans who Clinton thought were doing the grooming."

Citing only USA Today. But the above statement isn't accurate. The story is more nuanced. Not all MSM claimed to have gotten it wrong. The encyclopedia should treat the story similar to CNN, which simply gives an overview of events, rather than becoming the voice of Clinton's spokesperson, as WP is doing.

• Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

"Asked earlier if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard in her comment, Merrill told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits."

"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality," Merrill said. "If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

On Friday evening, after Clinton's comments drew considerable criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, Merrill backed away from the former secretary of state's allegation, tweeting, "She doesn't say the Russians are grooming anyone. It was a question about Republicans."

It is more accurate to say that the spokesperson changed his tune, not that all media admits they got it wrong. CNN, for instance, hasn't changed their article except to add Merrill's updated position. They still have "groomed by Russians". Politifact doesn't take sides, but offers the full context and suggests readers interpret for themselves.

• In Context: Hillary Clinton on Tulsi Gabbard, the Trump campaign and Russia.

WP should be doing something similar to CNN and Politifact, and not using a single source (USA Today) to mischaracterize the situation, and essentially air a politician's PR statement in Wikipedia's voice. petrarchan47คุก 04:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

When the media changed Russians to Republicans, editors made the change here, but I added the edit you mention because it is very important to state how the comments were originally understood. Since there is still dispute over what Clinton meant, we should change "corrected" to "changed." Do you have any sources that say CNN still asserts that Clinton meant Russians? Clinton seemed to use the terms Russians and Republicans interchangeably maybe believing that they were the same thing. TFD (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

CNN still has their title as 'groomed by Russians', and simply states that the PR rep changed their position after Clinton received all the pushback. Nowhere in the article do they say their original reporting was wrong. It is true that some corporate media claimed they got it wrong, saying that indeed the PR rep's current position is the correct one, and we can add that. But it is incorrect to state that all MSM did this. The fact that MSM mirrored Clinton PR is notable and interesting, however, where the truth lies does not seem to be something we can determine. Hillary was a lawyer and her language was designed to create ambiguity, it would appear. petrarchan47คุก 01:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces I took a stab at it, see what you think. petrarchan47คุก 07:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) The Four Deuces petrarchan47คุก 07:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

NYT[58], NBC News[59], ABC News[60], USA Today[61]: She referred to Republicans, not Russians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think for we have to go with what reliable sources have reported. While it may be that Clinton was referring to Russians, we would have to wait for reliable sources to express doubt. The fact that one outlet has not changed its original story is not convincing - we would need the outlet to state that it stuck by its original reporting. It could be that they were too lazy to make a correction. My reading is that Clinton was talking about Republicans but then thought she was talking about the Russians. It may be that she thinks they are the same thing, a sort of international conspiracy to prevent her from becoming president. TFD (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It is categorically false to claim that "mainstream media corrected their reporting". This indicates all MSM made the change to reflect the new talking point from Merrill. Here are 4 sources that did not: CNN, DB, Maui News, CBS. So I've changed the article to say "some" MSM changed their reporting. This is both neutral and accurate IMO. petrarchan47คุก 03:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

sourcing to Heathen07@Shadowproof

An article written by Heathen07 for Shadowproof was added here (Sept 2019). I have removed it as unnecessary to support the claim that she won the Democratic primary in 2002. It spends a lot of time digging up dirt on SIF (there was a big push for this type of thing on en.wp around September 2019 as I recall...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

REFSPAM and an unreliable source. I don't know why it wasn't removed immediately. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Syrian Chemical weapons use

Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War is explicit that such use by the Assad regime has been confirmed by both the UN and the OPCW .

"On 7 August 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015) to establish a joint investigation mechanism (JIM) to identify the perpetrators responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The resolution was drafted by the United States, and adopted by all 15 members of the Security Council.[127][128] The JIM issued its first report on 12 February 2016.[129] The second was released on 10 June 2016,[130] while the third report was issued on 30 August 2016.[2] The third report blamed the Syrian government for two gas attacks in 2015, and accused ISIS of using mustard gas.[131] In October 2016 the leaked fourth report of task force determined that the Syria had conducted at least three gas attacks in 2015.[131] In January 2017, they declared that they had composed a list of those responsible for using chemical weapons in the war. The list, which has not been made public, is divided into three sections. The first, is titled "Inner-Circle President" and has six people, including Assad, his brother, the defense minister and the head of military intelligence.

Here come the Suns (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Gabbard article should say "Assad's use of chemical weapons", not "Assad has been accused of using chemical weapons". At the very least, if the article is going to attribute that Assad has used chemical weapons, it ought to say "According to the UN and international chemical weapons inspectors, Assad used chemical weapons". "Accusations" gives the impression that some random nobodies or political rivals have claimed he used chemical weapons. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Accusations or has it been proven

That Assad used chemical weapons? Here come the Suns told me to see the Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, which does not say that it has been proven that president Assad used Chemical weapons, it says the he is suspect which is exactly the opposite what he is claiming . NOTE: he also showed some WP:HOUNDING behaviour when he went and reverted another edit he found in my contributions.(see Religion in Morocco) Which makes me feel that he has a personal issue against me.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

read the above quote form the article, specifically this line: "[UN-OPCW] declared that they had composed a list of those responsible for using chemical weapons in the war. The list, which has not been made public, is divided into three sections. The first, is titled "Inner-Circle President" and has six people, including Assad" . Here come the Suns (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, The source that is used there (not very known indian newspaper[62]) is making extraordinary claims which requires extraordinary sources not "source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." Also having evidences doesnt mean that they proved who are responsible for the attack. This is a violation of BLP --SharabSalam (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, The source that is used there (not very known indian newspaper[63]) is making extraordinary claims which requires extraordinary sources not "source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." Also having evidences doesnt mean that they proved who are responsible for the attack. This is a violation of BLP --SharabSalam (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a Reuters story, which could be sourced to a dozen other newspapers. See [64] Here come the Suns (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, the source is someone who's not identified and the claims he is making are very serious. We need a real list from a UN official inspector not someone "who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." as the source you provided said.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Also I have removed it based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL because the source is saying "according to the source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." and the claims are very serious therefore it requires solid sources--SharabSalam (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And I have restored it, as it is sourced material that has consensus. Take your concerns to that article's talk page.Here come the Suns (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Also at that time Gabbard was not aware of these reports so at that time they were accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has continued to express skepticism that Assad used chemical weapons into 2019. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you creating a separate talk page section about thia when there is literally a section about this just above?[65] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? As long as the TP header is neutral, it's no biggy...

Regarding the substantive question, I've added a new quote that clears up what her position at the time was. I don't think her BLP is the place to have this fight about what was "alleged" and what wasn't in a war zone far from Gabbard's workplace. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely, probably, according to UN investigators, has been accused of, maybe, according to Trump administration officials. There are shades of nuance and there is an ethical obligation to get it right. I don't think the wording of the OPCW is that they have proved that Assad used chemical weapons. In any case, their report has come under question in mainstream sources, for example by Robert Fisk in The Independent in "The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack" TFD (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, The source there says that according to unnamed source, the UN has a list of those involved in the attack, the list includes Assad and his brother as well as three other top Syrian officials. This claim is from an unnamed source that is directly saying that these people are responsible for the attack. The paragraph in Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War was in violation of BLP. Per WP:CRYSTAL: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Also, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We can state what unnamed sources say if they are reported because it is part of the story. The article about the Watergate scandal for example would have to mention Deep Throat. What we cannot do is express what the unnamed source said as fact. While it may be frustrating to some editors, it can take a long time to establish facts, if they are established at all. TFD (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A bit confusing and not neutral enough (crooked chronology and avoidance of controversies)

Wanted to share my impressions of this article hoping it would help editors with a more in-depth knowledge of the subject.

Too often, this article reads like a mixture of positive data and commentaries to counter condemnation somewhere else, but that is of no help for Wikipedia or the subject. A fairer piece would have a more cohesive narrative linking information in a chronological order. For an example of the problem, in the early career section the article says that in 2002 Ms. Gabbard was a self-supporting martial arts instructor, but there is nothing else on that point. Farther down she appears heavily involved in politics simultaneously. How was she doing both? Was that a part-time gig? What is the relevance to her broader career?

Moreover, little effort is placed here to explain her critics and the positions she is defending. In fact, any reader coming to the subject for the first time may wonder why Clinton referred to her in uncommonly harsh terms. It seems to me that there is not enough relevant content.

Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Caballero1967 This is a good suggestion and I added details on her early career to help explain things. Addition of material on her ties to the Science of Identity Foundation would also help the article greatly, but certain editors seem to be attempting to block the addition of the consensus text above. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles I am glad you have a receptive ear and did something about it. As Gabbard attracts more attention, this article will be read more carefully, and if disjointed and unbalanced, people will ignore it and jump to the next source while confirming their doubts about WP. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing

about connections with RSS/Hindu Nationalism? ∯WBG^converse 09:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a few months ago.[66]. It looks like it was scrubbed clean.

Controversies
Days before it began, Gabbard reiterated she was withdrawing from the 2018 World Hindu Congress, expressing concern over a "significant number of Indian partisan politicians [...] playing an important role" at the event. She had earlier written to an organizer of the event to voice concern that it was "becoming a platform for Indian partisan politics." In January 2019 The Intercept published an article claiming Gabbard had links with Hindu nationalist organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, and the Hindu American Foundation. An earlier version of The Intercept's article searched Gabbard's donor list for "names ... of Hindu origin" to "show Gabbard's broad base of support in the Hindu-American community". In an op-ed, Gabbard criticized this as religious bigotry, saying that Christians would not be subject to such scrutiny based on their names. She also condemned religious intolerance in politics, media, and society in general. The Intercept removed the sentence with an apology, saying that it was not intended "to question the motives of those political donors" and apologizing "for any such implication". Gabbard also rebutted claims she is a "Hindu nationalist", calling it "religious bigotry", and writing "My meetings with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India's democratically elected leader, have been highlighted as 'proof' of this and portrayed as somehow being out of the ordinary or somehow suspect, even though President Obama, Secretary Clinton, President Trump and many of my colleagues in Congress have met with and worked with him."

Sources

- MrX 🖋 13:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The connections to Hindu nationalists should be covered in the article. There are old talk pages where I bring RS to the table that highlight the connections, as well as indicate DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, there's this long-form piece and a lot more articles, obviously it's DUE. I don't agree with the above version, FWIW. ∯WBG^converse 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that what happened is that 1) I moved the "controversies" section to the India section of political positions of Tulsi Gabbard, which was then 2) split onto its own page. Soumaya Shankar's Intercept article has gone from being the single most-cited source on Gabbard's BLP to being completely absent from the entry! Somewhere in between these two POV poles would be a happy compromise. I agree this should not be "scrubbed", though I don't think the word "scrub" is an AGF portrayal of what happened. Having friendly relations with Indian leaders is not "unclean". But yes, Kashmir...

Anyway, one mention that probably could be made fairly easily without too much dissension: the presence of Ram Madhav at her wedding, bearing gifts from Mr. Modi (from the Caravan article above).

Mention could also be made of Clinton & Kerry at Mukesh Ambani's daughter's wedding at her en.wp entry. Oh wait, someone would have to create Isha Ambani (as more than a redirect to her father's entry). Isn't having a $100m wedding notable in and of itself?

There is related recent discussion on this talk page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV wording in lede

"Her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and expressions of skepticism about his use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War attracted controversy" is clearly pov and biased, thanks to the unequivocal wording "his use of chemical weapons". It needs to be changed to "claims of his use of ..." or "allegations of his use of ..." or something similar. Identical pov wording exists in the body of the text, but its existence in the lede is of course far more serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.117.11 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. From the source: "She opposes military interventions abroad with a rare credibility of intent, even going so far, in arguing against foreign interventions, as to repeatedly cast doubt on the wealth of evidence that the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people."[67].- MrX 🖋 02:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, the source doesnt broadly say that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack(Most people in the ME know that it was staged attack, me one of them). Read what you said "cast doubt on the wealth of evidence" it should be changed to skepticism about the evidences that Bashar used chemical weapons, instead of this pathetic wording which suggest that it has been confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War has been confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, by Bashar Al-Assad? Any proof?--SharabSalam (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, yep. The United Nations says so. See the article I linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu could you show us a reliable source that says that? Dont tell me that you were fooled by this this addition, and which I have challenged and see what an admin said in response [68], I am still waiting in the talk page and the editor has disappeared since then. Again show us a reliable source and dont source wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, we have multiple articles covering this such Douma chemical attack. The sources are linked in the reference sections of those articles. No one is obligated to spoon feed them to you. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, again bring one source, Wikipedia is not a reliable source as I showed you that the addition was based on an anonymous source and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. There is no source that Assad used chemical weapons. Even the source that you cited above says "evidences" and doesnt suggest that it has been confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, those are Wikipedia articles with reliable sources in them. But here, for posterity, is a source.[69] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the source that you are citing is attributing(not even in its voice) to a study by a freaking think tank Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi). Your definition of international consensus is broken. You also said earlier that the UN has confirmed it. Again show a source that say that.-SharabSalam (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I'm not very familiar with the subject matter here, but a quick Google search turned up this. – bradv🍁 03:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, see earlier discussion about this. This is a 2016 source that is attributed to anonymous sources. As previously said extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources not "According to unnamed source that refused to give his identity".--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that looks like a pretty solid source to me. Whose word would you be willing to accept on the matter, if not the UN's? – bradv🍁 03:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, [70][71]. Now accept reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Could you please show us where it says that it has been confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons?--SharabSalam (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you mean beyond the headline "Both ISIL and Syrian Government responsible for use of chemical weapons, UN Security Council told"? I've done more than I have to. It seems to me like you're going to use any excuse you can find to not listen to common sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I don't need to. - MrX 🖋 03:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the UN actually assigned blame in the chemical attacks and apparently the final report left out dissenting opinions about the Douma attack. In any case, accusations against Gabbard were made before the report was released. TFD (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, Agree Muboshgu is just throwing sources randomly without even having any clue what they are saying. The report doesnt confirm that the government has carried nor that it accuses Bashar al-Assad. Instead, it is showing just evidences which is nothing.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Another thing see what the paragraph in the article says:Her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and expressions of skepticism about his use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War

The source says She opposes military interventions abroad with a rare credibility of intent, even going so far, in arguing against foreign interventions, as to repeatedly cast doubt on the wealth of evidence ... Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons

The source doesnt say that she doubt that Assad used chemical weapons, it says that she doubt the evidences. Two different things.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. - MrX 🖋 04:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Per OED: scepticism | skepticism, n. (2) "… doubt or incredulity as to the truth of some assertion or supposed fact". One expresses skepticism about the truth of an assertion. She was doubtful about the truth of assertions / allegations / evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, not that Assad's use of chemical weapons [did something unstated / was done for some unstated purpose / … ??]. @MrX, If it is a distinction without a difference to you but it is to others, then I suggest we change it for clarity. Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference. Gabbard said Assad should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence. Since the ICJ has rules of evidence, it's crucial that any case brought would meet the standards to commit to trial under the judicial systems of most advanced countries such as the U.S. or UK. When a prosecutor declines to prosecute due to lack of evidence it does not mean that they believe a suspect is innocent or that they are an apologist or that they support what the suspect did. A responsible prosecutor will however prosecute when there is a reasonable chance of conviction, which is what Gabbard advocates. TFD (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

College education

Sources disagree as to whether Tulsi Gabbard has a bachelor's degree in business administration or international business. Tulsi's own House website says international business. The Hawaii Pacific University website says business administration. ABC News says international business. Politifact says business administration. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the degree offered by Hawaii Pacific University is a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (abbreviated as BSBA), but there are nine possible concentrations including international business. I have changed the article to be unambiguous.

As an HPU alumnus myself, I know that the BSBA abbreviation is used frequently at the school. One could potentially read the degree as either a BS in Business Administration or a BSBA in International Business. In the latter reading, BSBA is treated as a single entity equivalent to a Bachelor of Business Administration. --JHP (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is quite common to say that someone has a bachelor's degree in [area of major concentration]. I agree that when it is capitalized, the exact degree should be cited, but this is not necessary when it is not. At Oxford for example, all first degrees are BA, while all first doctorates are DPhil, regardless of discipline. In other schools they would receive a BSc or DSc. But if someone studied physics, it would be informative that they had a bachelor's or doctoral degree in physics. TFD (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Paper-only sourcing

Samp4ngeles, apparently you have access to the Honolulu Advertiser, as I've seen you add dozens (or at least tens) of references to this paper without providing links for the reader (on various pages). It would be helpful if you could clip the articles so readers have something to verify. As is there is precisely zero turning up for "SARS Tulsi Gabbard" for example, or for "AeroVironment Gabbard". Neither of Jennifer Hiller's articles seem to be available on the web, and you don't provide an author name for the Toronto SARS article. Much of this seems undue and smells like asides being blown up into front page news from p. A5 & A9. I did find the Independent article by the same name as the first. No mention of Gabbard...

...advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS, was one of several legislators who won significant nonpriority projects for school construction, and was one of nine legislators who proposed legislation for a special purpose bond that would have encouraged AeroVironment to build drones in Hawaii.

I don't see the relevance of the information. The CDC recommended "isolation" of all persons who had symptoms of SARS.[72] (Note - isolation not quarantine is the correct term when the subjects show symptoms.) The World Health Organization said: "Contacts of persons under investigation for SARS should be traced and quarantined until SARS has been ruled out as the cause of the illness."[73] In fact travellers who had symptoms of SARS were isolated in Hawaii.[74] This is typical tendentious editing where information is added without any explanation in order to advance a narrative, in this case that Gabbard is paranoid or xenophobic. TFD (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the mention of SARS and the editor reverted with the note "notable, provides information related to a different topic, and does not "lack weight". I take it they are unfamiliar with the policies of WP:NOTABLE and WP:WEIGHT: Notable is about article creation. And weight says, "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." TFD (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Pinging @Samp4ngeles: with this request. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Paper-only sourcing is fine, although it is preferable to have it easily verifiable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is fine, but it needs to meet weight, which apparently Samp4ngeles does not understand. Could you please explain why it is significant that Gabbard thought people with SARS symptoms should be isolated when no sane person disagreed? We don't add to the Hillary Clinton article that she believes that water is wet, the sea is blue or grass is green. TFD (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD, for adding the articles above showing conclusively that the first of the three is a non-issue. Still waiting for links to the other two articles, which may be likewise spun as negatively as possible. User:Samp4ngeles, you should probably *self-revert* and provide links to the two articles to help us see they are contributed in good faith and not with the intention of only adding negatively formulated claims. Looking at your contributions, I notice that for about 6-7 weeks now, this account has been overwhelmingly focused (nearly 100% of your numerous contribs) on the Gabbard family and the SIF. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The Honolulu Advertiser's archives back to 2001 are online: https://www.staradvertiser.com/back-issues/. - MrX 🖋 13:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the article does not mention Gabbard or Hawaii and they have not replied, I will post to the editors talk page. I have raised the issue at BLPN. TFD (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you MrX. I haven't read the first article yet as I haven't found either the first or the second (at all) in the archived version. (TFD, did you read it at newspapers.com?) I did find the third article referenced in the archives, and it bears little resemblance to the summary in WP voice (and not Jennifer Hiller, but Nelson Daranciang is given author credit in the archive). 02.14.09. In my opinion all three of these pseudo-issues should be binned for being pin-WP:WEIGHTed. Maybe the 4ngeles asleep on the pin will wake up and self-revert? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Select publication year then choose the April 29 on the 2003 calendar. "SARS travel warning to Toronto lifted" is the first story.[75] You can alter the date on the web address too. I found the school story too. Each year the Department of Education prepares a priority list, which the legislature reviews and adds too, then the governor approves. Gabbard got 4 pr 5 million for projects that were not on the list. Non-priority however implies that they were unnecessary. TFD (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the BLP notice related to this topic. I agree that there is no reason to mention that Gabbard supported a CDC recommendation for isolation. Adding it to the article without context does imply that this was somehow an epidemiologically questionable action and might have been motivated by something less than reasonable caution. I support removal based on lack of WEIGHT. It has no weight as a non-controversial action and "negative" weight as it could imply something negative about the BLP subject that isn't supported by a review in context. Springee (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well whatever else, the info should stay out until we have a source which mentions Gabbard. A paper source would be okay if it provides sufficient info to be able to find the source. (This is not to say I support adding it back with a source.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor again re-inserted the text saying, "Sorry, TFD, but if you read the citation that it clearly wasn't the CDC's position -- and if you go to your own source on the talk page (the CDC link), you'll see that it said, "In the United States , where there was limited transmission of SARS-CoV during the 2003 SARS outbreak, neither individual nor population-based quarantine of contacts was recommended." See [76]"[77]

Gabbard however did not recommend quarantine of contacts who did not have symptoms, but isolation of people with symptoms of SARS, which is what the CDC recommended.

TFD (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the content as UNDUE. Absent additional sources talking about this as something notable there is no reason it needs to be in this article. Springee (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If we want to get technical on the language, really what Gabbard and her father were advocating was "mandatory isolation." So, the best language to use here would be "advocated mandating isolation of travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS." This is notable and [[WP:DUE] for someone running for office that oversees the CDC, particularly as the notion of involuntary isolation (or what the was referred to in the source as quarantine) went beyond the recommendations of the CDC and Hawaii Department of Health and was a controversial stance at the time. When referring to this idea, the source said, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has the power to quarantine people against their will but has been relying on voluntary isolation of suspected cases. 'I don't think we have any evidence that anything beyond voluntary isolation is needed at this time,' Rosen [the Deputy Health Director for Hawaii] said." As I previously pointed out, this is one of only a handful of issues for which Gabbard was mentioned in the press during this term in office.Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE says, "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." It does not allow us to add material based on our personal interpretation of its significance.

Since the story does not meet WP:DUE, there is no reason to debate the facts. Gabbard never said the CDC should impose mandatory isolation. Whether she was right or wrong and whether it is relevant to her fitness for the presidency are issues that editors cannot determine.

Also, the article does not say that Gabbard recommended mandatory isolation of persons with SARS symptoms. And the one patient with SARS symptoms had been isolated. So it's not clear how Gabbard wanted to go farther than what the state was doing.

TFD (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment vote

Notable that Gabbard broke with her party and voted "present" for both impeachment articles against Donald Trump. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, her fence-sitting deserves a brief mention. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you can comment on article content without providing your personal commentary? If I want to know what your opinions are I'll follow you on twitter. TFD (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise of your question, but thanks for following me on Twitter. - MrX 🖋 20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Fence sitting means, "supporting both sides in a disagreement because you cannot make a decision or do not want to annoy or offend either side." (Cambridge Dictionary)[78] Whether or not that was her motivation is a matter of opinion. In case you don't remember, the issue of voting present was brought up in the Obama talk pages. See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 52#State legislator: 1997–2004 - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits for the last time the issue was raised. TFD (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, in this case, we have Gabbard's statement to help explain why she did what she did. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. She said she "could not in good conscience vote either yes or no."[79] "Fence-sitting" is defined as "a state of indecision or neutrality with respect to conflicting positions".[80] - MrX 🖋 23:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dakota Access Pipeline -- section restored

I restored the section header on the Dakota Access Pipeline. It had a separate header since the section on political views was created by Samp4ngeles almost a month ago and has stuck. Yesterday it was deleted by Jamesy0627144 with a comment that they were "already sort of combined", "but the formatting was messed up". The edit where they were "sort of combined" was this edit by SashiRolls. I'm not convinced SashiRolls was trying to combine them, but, instead, to simply rearrange them. I prefer to see them with separate section header lines, since the Dakota Access Pipeline was its own substantial event having to do just as much with Native American land rights of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. See Standing_Rock_Indian_Reservation#Dakota_Access_Pipeline--David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. Before I made the edit I looked at the two references as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article, to make sure the subject matter pertained mostly to environmental issues. It did appear that the subject matter mostly pertained to environmental issues, so I went ahead with it. I do realize that is not the totality of the issue, but further supporting the edit is Tulsi's quote in the HuffPo article:

In a statement to the Oceti Sakowin Camp Gabbard said, “I’m participating in the Dakota Access Pipeline protest because of the threat this project poses to water resources in four states serving millions of people.”

Addressing the universal issue of water quality, Gabbard said, “Whether it’s the threat to essential water sources in this region, the lead contamination in Flint, Michigan, or the threat posed to a major Hawaii aquifer by the Red Hill fuel leak, each example underscores the vital importance of protecting our water resources.”

So I think it's pretty reasonable to put the Dakota Pipeline material under Environment, in the same way that it's reasonable to put the Green New Deal under Environment, even though that pertains to other issues like the jobs and the economy. It also seems kind of strange to have one short sentence as a standalone section... so if there is a way to fit the sentence in somewhere else I think it is worth doing.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, while alphabetizing I lost a linebreak during a cut & paste. I thought the subsequent combination was logical. It's true that a lot of detail has gone missing since the political positions part was spun out. The DAPL info is in two short paragraphs in environment over there. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I will restore. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Pol Pos §

This edit, which split the Political positions §, did so for the stated purpose of expanding on one issue (LGBT).

That expansion was UNDUE and the split has had the clearly foreseeable unhelpful consequence of selective expansion on particular issues, putting us well on the way toward a partial re-creation in generally biased form of the Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page.

This is a disservice to our readers.

Either we have a short section as existed prior to that edit or move — or better, transclude — the current Political positions page back into this section.

Regarding the original concern re length of the BLP pol pos §, I note that the Sander's BLP pol pos section has 4354 words whereas Tulsi’s pol pos page has 3001 words.

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"In her teens and early twenties"

Per the Kacynzki cite: Gabbard ‘worked' for ATMV when she was 17; she is quoted in a press release on the ATMV site defending her mother shortly after she turned 19, but that does not necessarily indicate she was 'working' for ATMV; at a later age, she cited her work at age 17.

(The Christensen cite does not reference Tulsi. I will ask Samp4ngeles to remove this cite as they inserted it.)

The Dunford cite does says that she was “speaking on behalf of” the ATMV while a legislator in 2004 but it is not -certain- (though it is arguable) that “on behalf of” means that she was ‘working' for ATMV at the same time she was a legislator.

As WP:BLP urges cautions re claims re living persons, I edited conservatively by changing to "At age 17, …".

I am leaving this text in for now although I agree with Xenagoras that "this violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM because at age 17 she was a minor that lived dependent and under the authority of her parents and therefore she could not act independently from her father.” Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Abercrombie

[placeholder]

@David Tornheim, thank you for invite to discuss. Am researching further; will return. Humanengr (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr:, @Michael E Nolan: I decided to rewrite the paragraph and include the former mayor's criticism but with fewer words. I added balancing text found in one of the articles that indicate her absences are not at all unusual for a member of Congress running for president--a question that immediately came mind when I saw the criticism: "Is that typical when running for higher office or not?" I removed the claim that it was a "serious challenge", which I did not find in the articles. I changed to past tense, to avoid the need to rewrite in the future. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: this is a hatchet job against Gabbard by the Kai Kahele congressional campaign. Neil Abercrombie is co-chair of Kai Kahele's congressional campaign to take Gabbard's seat.[81] Abercrombie failed to declare his partisanship relative to Gabbard and Kahele in that press conference about Gabbard. 11 minutes 45 seconds into the press conference, after several questions from various reporters, one reporter asked Abercrombie if he is not worried that others might see his attack on Gabbard as a ploy to help Kahele's campaign.[82] Abercrombie endorsed Kahele already in February 2019.[83] (Kahele would have it easier to win this seat if the election is earlier because there would be less competitors.) Gabbard's share of 40% missed votes between January 29 and December 25 is way below the share of missed votes of several other candidates that are still running for the 2020 nomination or dropped out recently (Booker 66%, Sanders 65%, Harris 63%, Warren 55%, Klobuchar 40%). Booker, Sanders and Warren missed 100% of their votes for at least one month.[84] The fact that Gabbard is the only candidate being attacked for missing votes shall tell you everything you need to know about this issue. I recommend removing this "critique" by Abercrombie and Kahele altogether. Xenagoras (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and publish Gabbard's reply. All campaigns involve accusations about the poor job the incumbent is doing and all office-holders who aspired to higher posts are criticized for missing votes. It is unusual to suggest that a office-holder should resign before their term ends, and that deserves to be in the article.Michael E Nolan (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Various outlets published articles about missed votes by the 2020 candidates. The consensus is that nobody cares about these votes because they do not change the outcome of votings and it is expected that the candidates have little time left beside campaigning. The hill, Politico, Boston Herald Xenagoras (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Your argument is well taken that this is an "hatchet job" probably originating from Kahele's campaign--I wouldn't be surprised if their campaign did focus groups that found that was the most effective criticism. I was not aware of the connection of Abercrombie to Kahele, which makes Abercrombie's voice less significant. If that is the case, I could see simplifying the criticism to make it clearer that both voices are from the same campaign, or just eliminate Abercrombie and say "Kahele's campaign".

I don't see any need to publish Gabbard's reply and make a bigger deal about this criticism that does indeed seem unevenly applied just to her. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Apropos connections: Think-tank President Neera Tanden [85], member of Hillary Clinton's "inner circle" of advisors during the 2016 campaign [86], has been raising donations for Kai Kahele and wants him to defeat Gabbard in a primary challenge [87] [88][89] although the DCCC warned it will cut off business with firms that support primary challengers to incumbents.[90] Tanden also publishes all types of smears against Gabbard that Hillary Clinton has published. Xenagoras (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras, apropos characterization, and great catch on the video. Gabbard’s Press Secretary tweeted a similar statistical compilation here where the graph is from this, commenting "But any honest journalist who does their due diligence would likely include these facts."Humanengr (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank's Humanengr. The statistic you cited is from August 2019 and the 2020 candidates have increased their campaign efforts significantly since then, resulting in increased share of missed votes. Here is the current data: [91] Xenagoras (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

RS

National Review

Regarding the removal by Humanengr edit summary says, "removed cite as non-RS; WP:UNDUE", I disagree that National Review is "non-RS". National Review--although even more conservative than most mainstream American news--has been around a long time, and I have never heard that it had a serious problem with factual reporting. See what is written about it in WP:RSP. However, because the line already had two sources justifying the sentence, I think it was WP:UNDUE to add another, especially from a news reporting entity that would clearly be anit-Gabbard. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your full para provides a better rationale. Would it make sense for me to revert my edit so you can ensconce your rationale in an edit summary? Humanengr (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No need, unless other editors have something to say. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#National_Review

I don't understand why the ref was added. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It was added here along with some CRUFT and a weak rationale. Humanengr (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sierra Blog

I reverted the addition of a Sierra Club blog entry as WP:RS. It might be possible to include it as WP:RS; however, I would like to see a defense of why it is WP:RS. Of the two edits, I think the National Review is probably more reliable than the Sierra Club blog entry. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just saw this — re Sierra Club, see section immediately above. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation (2nd active thread)

Bumping the most evolved version from the Science of Identity discussion above:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife.

References

All information related to Gabbard's ties to Science of Identity has been scrubbed from this article and is overdue. The vast majority of responses to the RfC above advocate inclusion. I am not particularly partial to the specific wording above, but the article needs some mention.Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've been quite focused on this 70-80s stuff from before Gabbard was born, as well as in including as many local stories as possible on Mike Gabbard's BLP. So much energy towards negative spin is impressive. Several people have vetoed "longstanding ties" as POV insinuation, "grew up in the SIF community" was suggested as I recall. The paragraph, as is, is dripping with insinuation (repetition of "guru", "spiritual master" instead of just "teacher", repetition of "ties", "current" husband as opposed to just her husband (which is sufficient given the state of US law to identify a single individual)), so I would suggest trying to rewrite "for the opponent". Also, again, nothing was "scrubbed", no agreement has been reached on neutral wording, because it seems that there is a desire to suggest TG is being "influenced" by her "ties" to a controversial "spiritual master". I wonder if we shouldn't also have an equally long section on surfing? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I imagine there are problems with this too:

Both of Gabbard's parents were involved with socially-conservative guru Chris Butler, so she grew up in a community centered around the Science of Identity Foundation. Her husband, the videographer Abraham Williams, grew up in the same environment. His mother, who runs Gabbard's Hawaii office, and has also worked for Butler's wife.

The main advantage is that it doesn't turn "guru" into a fetish. (we could even say "with social conservative Chris Butler"). I've grayed the bit about his mother, not sure it can be sourced outside of Civil Beat or Huff's reprint of the same. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There are indeed several problems with this version, too. For starters: This BLP is about Tulsi Gabbard, it is not about her father, not about her mother, not about her husband, not about the mother of her husband or any other person than Tulsi Gabbard. I explained this and several other problems there [92]. Related policies: WP:COATRACK, WP:GUILT, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, see also Sippenhaft. Xenagoras (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This is important not for any sort of negative spin but, as so many editors have explained above, for a variety of reasons including the fact that the information exists in RS. It relates to Gabbard specifically, through her lifetime. Here is an even more neutral version, boiled down to three sentence, based on the one just above:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) and its founder, Chris Butler. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”) and describes him as "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor." Gabbard's parents and both of her husbands are also associated with SIF.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

As long as proposals use words and phrases that suggest more than they convey, I don't know how we can proceed. Vague and suggestive wording needs to be replaced with something much more concrete. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Unclear what you mean by this. The text above conveys everything factually and concisely, and we can easily proceed with it. If you have a specific issue with wording, then be clear about your concern.Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

See the concerns of 11:00, 9 December 2019 for specifics. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Lots of nonsense allegations and insinuations in 11:00, 9 December 2019. It's nonsense, for example, to suggest taking out Gabbard's own words. If you have specific concerns beyond the stream of consciousness in 11:00, 9 December 2019, suggest edit. Otherwise, this version reflects the majority of views in the previous discussion. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Long standing ties" is weasel-wording, something to expect on Fox News Channel. I know by name many of the merchants where I shop so I suppose that could be weasel-worded as long-standing ties although I don't have their home telephone numbers and we have never been to each others homes. And readers cannot be expected to know what gurudev means. Is it like referring to a politician as the honorable so-and-so. Then we can say that someone claimed Trump was honorable because they used that address in a letter to him. And btw, why haven't you replied to my questions about SARS? Bear in mind that the purpose of articles is to convey information, not to provide innuendo against politicians with whom we happen to disagree. And it doesn't matter if it's Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard or whoever. TFD (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz @The Four Deuces This revision should address your remaining concerns:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long been associated with the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) and its founder, Chris Butler. Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her, and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master. Gabbard's parents, husband, and ex-husband are also associated with the SIF.

Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about her association with the SIF.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Providing quotes in your comments or the references would help. --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Some of these are referenced in the initial topic, but these are some important passages (there are of course more):

“[Tulsi Gabbard] was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her. ‘Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,’ Ms. Gabbard said. ‘And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.’

“According to some who knew [Tulsi Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams], the couple's links go back way before 2012 to their childhoods, when their families became intertwined through an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation, that has roots in New Zealand . . . . You won't find any mention of the Science of Identity Foundation on Tulsi's campaign website or Instagram feed. But according to her aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard, she was born into the group, and has remained loyal ever since . . . . Gabbard's aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard, remembers learning some 40 years ago that her brother Mike - Tulsi's father - had joined the Science of Identity.”

“As a child, Gabbard, who turns 38 next month, was part of a religious community centered around the teachings of the spiritual leader Chris Butler, a Hindu philosopher with links to the Hare Krishna movement who as early as 1970 was treated in the local Hawaiian press as a hippie guru and whose Science of Identity Foundation remains active worldwide. Gabbard has downplayed the association, telling the New Yorker magazine in 2017 that “I’ve had many different spiritual teachers, and continue to.” But her ties to the Butler community, from her family to her donor network, run deep, and since her election to Congress she has referred to Butler has her “guru dev”, or spiritual guide.“

“This summer, when I asked her about the teacher who led her to Hinduism, Gabbard grew evasive. ‘I’ve had many different spiritual teachers, and continue to,’ she said.

‘There’s not one that’s more important than the others?’

‘No,’ she said. But there is, in fact, a teacher who has played a central role in her life—a teacher whom Gabbard referred to, in a 2015 video, as her ‘guru dev,’ which means, roughly, ‘spiritual master.’ His name is Chris Butler . . . . As the Hare Krishna movement fractured, Butler created his own group, now known as the Science of Identity Foundation, and amassed a tight-knit, low-profile network of followers, hundreds or perhaps thousands of them, stretching west from Hawaii into Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia. ”

“Abraham [Williams] has known Tulsi since childhood, when they both appeared at gatherings presided over by Chris Butler . . . . At 21, Tulsi was Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, having married a man involved with Butler’s group, and like many people at that age, she had yet to outgrow the views with which she was raised . . . . [A]s late as 2015, in a video still up on YouTube, Tulsi publicly acknowledged her guru-dev to be Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Chris Butler . . . . No one I spoke to with personal experience of the group, including Tulsi’s aunt, thought it possible that Tulsi Gabbard had somehow left Chris Butler’s sphere of influence, that her thirst for world peace and her persistent concerns about Islam were positions held independent of his counsel.“

“Mitchell Kahle, president of the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of Church and State, said he filed a complaint Thursday for [Carol] Gabbard’s failure to disclose positions she and her husband, Mike, hold with various interest groups. ‘Not only didn’t she disclose (affiliation), but she checked ‘none’ – acknowledging she read it,’ Kahle said. He said that Carol Gabbard’s position as secretary and treasure of the nonprofit Science Identity Foundation, and Mike Gabbard’s role as the president of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values are potential conflicts of interest and disqualify her from voting on board policy regarding gays and lesbians.” Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you.

I'm going to repeat myself, "As long as proposals use words and phrases that suggest more than they convey, I don't know how we can proceed. Vague and suggestive wording needs to be replaced with something much more concrete."

Using the word "associated", while better, still has this problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Perhaps "affiliated with?" In lieu of that, how about eliminating the verb altogether:

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler. Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her, and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

Many similar articles used the "was raised" language. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Why should we report a 2001 ethics complaint and ignore the outcome? TFD (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems off topic of this discussion.

Yes, "was raised" seems a good introduction. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To answer @The Four Deuces, this latest version doesn't use the 1981 citation, but I couldn't find an article in response to the ethics complaint. In any case, I agree with @Ronz that it's off topic (particularly given that it's no longer referenced here or relevant to the current language).

Yes, @Ronz, many politicians' or individuals' articles use "was raised," particularly when there was as conversion to another religion. Gabbard said she converted to Hinduism as a teenager, so this is perhaps a good way to phrase it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, TFD asked "Why should we report a 2001 ethics complaint and ignore the outcome?” and you responded "this latest version doesn't use the 1981 citation …". The question was about 2001. Why are you referring to 1981? But what is more troublesome is that you insisted on including on 12/20 an article that reflects negatively on a living person in violation of WP:BLP after I informed you on 10/29 that "Carol Gabbard was cleared of any wrongdoing”. Next, your response to TFD continued "but I couldn't find an article in response to the ethics complaint.” That was after MrX indicated on Dec 11 how to search Hawaii newspapers archives. And, further, your 'latest version' above still, in fact, includes cite #1, the 2001 Asato cite TFD was referring to. NB This just covers cite #1. Humanengr (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr I'm happy to take this citation out because it's not essential, but don't roll back a whole set of edits because you don't link this source. I'm undoing your last edit and taking this source out, and if you have issues with any edits in particular, you can make more specific edits.Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles You inserted material when there was no consensus as to form. You did so without responding to my response to your confusing response above. @All, it seems that there are now two active threads re form — this one and the one Newslinger left open under the RFC. How shall we proceed? Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr There seems to be consensus after extensive back-and-forth, and the wording in this edit reflects that. What about it would you change? Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I pointed you to my comment above. Also, pls start a new § to discuss your current proposal. Humanengr (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The addltlon of thls[93] text seems flne to me. What exactly ls the problem? Seems llke standard blo stuff. ls anythlng lnaccurate? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, Will address tomorrow after Samp4ngeles reposts in a new § here. Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans This is standard bio stuff and it is well-sourced and consistent with what you see in articles for other politicians, but @Humanengr has gone to great lengths to keep it out. There is no need for a new (third §). This has been discussed ad infinitum for nearly *three months* now. The most recent version is amenable to seemingly everyone except @Humanengr, who has not previously raised any issues with it.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles:, The 2001 Asato citation violates WP:BLP on several counts not least of which is the fact that raises the salacious innuendo of an ethics violation by Carol Gabbard, when Carol Gabbard was, in fact, cleared. Either you remove it or I am reporting you for this tendentious behavior. The form of the Science of Identity material has not been finalized. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Healthy Hawaii Coalition co-founding cites

@MrX, I see you indicated the Sierra Club article was not RS as it was published on typepad.com. It was written by Courtney Hight, Sierra Club Deputy Political Director, and "Paid for by Sierra Club Independent Action, www.sierraclub.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” Sierra Club Independent Action publishes a voter guide. That would seem to indicate some editorial oversight and fact-checking. Thoughts? In any case, there is also The Atlantic.

The former says "At age 19, [Tulsi] Gabbard co-founded"; the latter, "At age 19, Gabbard and her father cofounded". AFAICS, the earliest primary source that lists Tulsi Gabbard shows "Mike Gabbard, Founder/President; Tulsi Gabbard, Co-Founder / Vice President". Humanengr (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can just use The Atlantic as a source. It's not an extraordinary claim. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thx. The Sierra Club article contains the tidbit "She personally led the volunteer cleanup effort at city beaches after flooding at a local landfill released dangerous medical waste." While that might be too much to include in the article, it probably makes sense to retain the cite for access to that. Humanengr (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Descent — amending

@Nblund, w/ apologies for re-raising … re your cmt: "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'" in Early Life and Education. I realize now I mistakenly removed the attribution in my response. So, a q to you and TFD — are we ok including Nblund's version in Early life after "Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry" in ¶2? (The source is her congressional website, so I'll adjust for that.)" Humanengr (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You need a better source than a campaign website. That is a biased non-RS. It has no place in this article.Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If you read the above carefully, you would see it is the congressional website, which is RS. Cite specific policy language to exclude. Humanengr (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr In this case, it doesn't make sense to rely on one source for this, particularly her own site. If, however, you were to order based on percent ethnicity based on the PBS results, it would be "European (or Caucasian) and Asian (or Polynesian) descent." Note that the PBS results estimated her ancestry at 69% European origin. It is a stretch to say that her ancestry is Asian, given that Asians settled Samoa about 2,000 years ago. Using the language you've suggested above also ignores her father's Kentucky ancestry, which is documented in some RS. It would be perhaps most accurate and relevant to say that she has "primarily European American ancestry and is approximately 30% Samoan." This statement is supported by RS. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 3#First Hindu, first Samoan, ethnicity. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr Thank you -- I had already read through that. The current wording in the article is misleading and too dependent on Gabbard's own publicly-crafted persona. The wording on Gabbard's website that says, "A practicing Hindu, she is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent" and proximity of Hindu and Asian suggests primary Asian or perhaps even Indian ethnicity and minimizes her Caucasian ancestry -- as well as implying that her Hindu faith stems from her ancestry, which it does not. It would be more accurate to say:

Gabbard is of mixed ethnicity, including primarily European American as well as Polynesian ancestry. Samp4ngeles (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Clinton's Russian agent comments

The paragraph on Hillary Clinton's Russian agent comments is too detailed and lengthy. I think it should be trimmed to about half the size, with more of a summary structure rather than the she-said-she-said. My edits to this paragraph earlier today have been reverted. This detail does not seem to have any enduring value. - MrX 🖋 02:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)