Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

pro-Russia campaign contributions and pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign

I strenuously object to this reversion and this reversion, which deletes relevant sources, introduces WP:OR, and gives prominence to two single sources over multiple other available sources. Content about the extensively reported pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaigns is completely missing and the reader is directed to conclude that Gabbard has been smeared based on the opinions of Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. The word "allegations" is tossed around, but the campaign contributions are a matter of public record and the pro-Gabbard Riussian propaganda is stated as a fact by sources. [1][2][3] It's also a 1RR violation for which I have requested self-reversion, but was rebuffed.[4]. - MrX 🖋 11:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign

For information, the paragraph added above by MrX has been discussed on the TG 2020 campaign entry. We decided to remove the NBC news story from this page in February but MrX has reinstated it against consensus. (Though I did not participate in that discussion, I agreed with the conclusion.) In addition to that NBC news story, MrX is complaining about the removal of a story from the Independent which recycled the NBC news story the same day (before it was made clear that the NY Times had discredited the group NBC News was using for the story), and adding nonsense about David Duke supporting Gabbard, which I believe has been discredited as well. The other opinion piece Mr X doesn't mention (in Vanity Fair) mentions the word "Russian" many times in the first paragraph but none of the occurrences refer to Gabbard. Only one occurrence refers to RT coverage of TG, which is not pertinent to her BLP. Finally, it is unclear what is "original research" in the addition of the Matt Taibbi / Glenn Greenwald reporting.

Further information: given that his reinstatement of material that had been removed by consensus is also a revert, Mr X was at 9RR on 19 May 2019, a fact he does not mention. Similarly, the discussion on the 2020 campaign entry suggests that contributors feel that that material should not be included over there either, but somehow MrX has not mentioned that discussion. If anyone wants to take Mr.X to WP:AE for his 9RR day, it would be justified, though it would likely be a waste of time and energy because for some reason Mr X seems to be above the law. I do not feel that we need to weaponize DS, but obviously Mr X does feel that way based on his comments above. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls please list nine discrete reverts that I made in a 24 hour period, or kindly retract your personal attack. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) of course.

Woops. Mr X was only at 8 RR on 19 May 2019 nope 9 red edits, but seems to have been at 3RR yesterday, because he only reinstated the NBC news story yesterday. All of this depends of course how you count reverts. Mr X seems to be saying that any change whatsoever to text he has ever added to the entry is a revert. MrX you are welcome to count the red items on the history page for 19 May 2019 I linked to above.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to cover the RS reporting on Russian support for her campaign, and any conflicts that exist between RS and notable opinion about the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know why SashiRolls removed it and the finance information with an edit summary "removed opinion piece following TP consensus, and stale campaign contribution data from her political positions". SashiRolls, where is the talk page consensus that we shouldn't include the pro-Russia information? - MrX 🖋 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, on the 2020 campaign entry listed above it was barely considered worthy of brief mention (by some contributors, not by others), so I assumed a higher standard would hold here. Fact is, though, I did get a bit confused between this and the last time you guys were adding smear about Russia (the NBC News article, which has also been roundly rejected on her BLP). You are giving the appearance of doing everything you can to make Gabbard's biography look bad (ignoring positive reports, & adding & amplifying every minor detail you can find that you think someone might consider negative, e.g. this one which I notice looking at your history you didn't add anywhere else). I personally "hope" it is because you dislike her candidacy, rather than because you want to play psychological games with people on the internet: but neither is a good excuse for the POV editing.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're stepping over the line again. I have scoured sources for anything about Gabbard that is not currently in the article, that does not originate directly from her campaign (like the Marie Claire source you added to the abortion section). I recently added her support for marijuana legalization, debate qualifying, campaign funding stats, and polling stats. It's not my fault that some of the material is unflattering to the subject. I've also made edits to improve citations, to link other article, to improve grammar and style, and to adjust material to more faithfully follow what independent sources have written. I pride myself on being able to collaborate with a wide range of editors who have a wide range of viewpoints, but I can't work with combative editors who spend more time berating other editors than discussing content.

I request that, from this point forward, you refrain from commenting on my motivations. If you think I'm violating policies, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, or at a noticeboard. Please keep it off article talk pages. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the #1 author of the campaign entry, and yet in all your "scouring" of sources you haven't yet found the phrase "opposes regime change" which she mentions in every interview I've ever heard, nor have you found her suggesting that the money saved from all that military action could be used for domestic issues, which she likewise mentions in every single interview. Odd, that. Here, let me help: [5], [6]. Tucker Carlson, "I predict, with certainty, that you will be attacked for what you just said." Please don't play Mr. Innocent. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The article, as it existed when I first edited it in January, already contained extensive material about her views on regime change: in the lead, in the '2017–18' section, in the 'Syria' section, and in the 'Counterterrorism' section. That's four places! Maybe you're hearing the phrase "opposes regime change" in interviews because your watching too much Tucker Carlson. I prefer using reliable sources that cover subjects objectively.- MrX 🖋 20:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't realized you'd deleted so many mentions of her main campaign point on the 2020 campaign entry. Surprised you're proud to admit that since she's used that language on ABC, on MSNBC, on Colbert, on PBS, on FoxNews, on CNN, on the campaign trail, (& of course on Joe Rogan)... and been cited using that language extensively in RS, and yet, Mr X knows better than those who had originally written the entry. As it happens, my only edits to the entry were with regard to the Daily Mail Mirror Beast smear you want to spin everywhere. I added none of the mentions you are so proud to have deleted. By the way, you should not have deleted her comments about her opposition to regime change in Venezuela from this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the following content:

According to NBC News, Gabbard's primary campaign has received support from Russian interests. Experts found that websites connected to the Shortly after her campaign launched, NBC News reported that it had received unusual coverage from Russian media,government had posted 20 or more stories on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, beyond the level of support given to any other Democratic candidate.

Replacing this with "unusual coverage from Russian media" misrepresents the source, which writes:

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.
— [7]

- MrX 🖋 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You could post the information without the tabloid phrasing. What exactly for example is a "Russian interest?" This is typical of polemical writing where there is an implicit accusation that there was quid pro quo, which is not encyclopedic writing. It's a bit like listing all the similarities between Ted Cruz and the Zodiac killer, without actually saying that Cruz is the killer. Could you assure us that inclusion does not violate policy: "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." You can do that by showing that other mainstream media picked up on the story. Maybe we can wait until Snoogasnoogans next shift and get his opinion. TFD (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am attempting to adhere to the source while not plagiarizing it. What I wrote is substantially similar to the lede of the source article,[8] with some facts from the fourth paragraph:

Gabbard's campaign received supportive news coverage in the same Russian propaganda sources that influenced the 2016 presidential election A minimum of 20 stories ran on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, exceeding that given to any other Democratic candidate.

How would you word it differently? By the way, it was picked up other news media, including several that we liberally use in this article: The Independent, Business Insider, Honolulu Civil Beat, and of course, Rolling Stone and The Intercept also took notice.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The topic sentence of the paragraph should be related to the smear campaign. Otherwise, the smear has been rejected from her BLP previously as I pointed out in my edit summary. You can ping the people who participated in the previous discussion if you wish to discuss the matter again, but the only person who ended that discussion maintaining the position that this should be included was the sockpuppet "Dan the Plumber" who has been indefinitely blocked. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What smear campaign? Are you talking about Matt Taibbi's opinion that the NBC article is a "transparent hit piece"? He doesn't explain what motivation two NBC journalists (Robert Windrem and Ben Popken) would have for "hitting" Gabbard). Or are you referring to Glen Greenwald's opinion that the story was "a sham". Why would we trust Rolling Stone and the Intercept more than NBC and The Independent? We should simply include both points of view without choosing sides. In any case, you can explain why 1RR doesn't apply to you at WP:AE.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The one everyone knows is taking place. With regard to your edit warring and AE threats, see further: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion." I see absolutely nobody joining Dan the Plumber in dissenting from the TP consensus reached back in February. (As you can see, I did not participate in that discussion, so you would need to add my vote to it.) Of course, everyone knows that the inner cabal doesn't have to follow the rules and can bully folks around to their heart's desire. Are y'all donors? special ops? just lucky? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, You could phrase it, "After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran 20 stories favorable to her. These sources are considered to have influenced the 2016 presidential election."

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• The story is significant and can not be ignored after such wide coverage. So, I would agree with MrX. Also, this is not a smear campaign, but one of the first rounds of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, so you probably need such separate page for content like that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what policy based reason you consider it to be significant or how a story ignored by ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune has received "such wide coverage." TFD (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

I am sorry, but you are making a very strange non-policy based argument here. Something not being published in sources X,Y,Z can never be a argument for anything. Only something being published in RS X,Y,Z is the reason for inclusion per WP:NPOV. It tells: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How exactly this should be phrased on the page is another matter. Should it be a separate subsection? This is something debatable. I think this should be a separate subsection (maybe with a different title), given that the subject of the "interference" is separate and important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

An opinion published in only one major source is not significant. If you read further in weight: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" (my emphasis).One source does not a body make. TFD (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You probably forget this is not a single source, but at least six (see here), and there are more like this ref. "Major" is not a requirement. RS is. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And you probably forgot that I addressed that objection above:

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

While I very much enjoy in engaging in dialogue with you, it would be more interesting if you acknowledged my replies, rather than stating your opinion over and over again.

TFD (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Which WP policy tells it matters how many news networks US or any other country has? The policy is here, and 6-7 RS is enough to document an allegation as this policy requires. I am not saying how exactly this should be worded. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As you are well aware, one source among all the major media does not count as the body of reliable sources. Out of curiosity, do you believe that Susan Sarandon sent $500 to the Gabbard campaign because the Kremlin told her to? TFD (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: The source makes the point that the Russian sources were the same ones that were involved with the 2016 election and that the CIA considers two of them part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine." That's lost in your version. As My very best wishes points out, this is likely part of Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in U.S. elections. You ask why other major U.S. news sources haven't picked this up. Probably for the same reason that they are not covering Gabbard much at this point—because she's polling at around 1%. As such, we have to rely on less prominent sources. Thats why this article is filled with sources like West Hawaii Today (2), Hawaii News Now (5), Honolulu Civil Beat (4), Maui Now (2), Honolulu Star-Bulletin (2), KHON (5), and VoteTulsi.com (2). - MrX 🖋 11:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you believe "this is likely part of Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in U.S. elections," then your ecit should state that explicitly, rather than imply it. "After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran 20 stories favorable to her as part of an effort to interfere in the 2020 election". The problem with the source is that it makes that implication without actually stating it, which presumably why no major media picked up on it. TFD (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the comments in this section, I have edited a much shorter version of this content to address WP:WEIGHT issues, using The Four Deuces proposed wording.

After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election. Matt Taibbi, in the Rolling Stone, called the report a "smear campaign"

Hopefully this satisfies everyone as a reasonable compromise.- MrX 🖋 12:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Nowhere in either article does it say that these sources successfully influenced the election, so the second sentence fails verification. I have removed it, because it is not responsible to be saying things the articles themselves doesn't say. If people want the article to say the 3 blue-linked sites influenced the 2016 election they need to find sources actually saying that.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems to meet neutrality. At some point however we are going to have to decide how much coverage attack articles need in mainstream media before inclusion. As I mentioned, we seem to have a higher standard in Kamala Harris and I imagine in other articles. TFD (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have noted this as well and it is quite disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And now AOC (see WP:RSN#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change). TFD (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is it's not even Gabbard's fault. There's no reason to assume that she wants Russia's help with anything. Nonetheless, it's a noteworthy factor in the campaign coverage.- MrX 🖋 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But isn't the "smear campaign" the reporting by NBC and The Daily Beast?  According the The Intercept and Rolling Stone the reporting on Russia's support isn't accurate.  Shouldn't the main subject of the text at this point be about the stories themselves?  Something like: NBC and The Daily Beast reported that the same Russian sources who influenced the 2016 Presidential Election have been running stories favoring her.  The Intercept and Rolling Stone condemned the reporting for relying on a "disgraced" source, and Gabbard called it "fake news." Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think that's roughly what we have now, but the Daily Beast story is about campaign donations. I've been convinced, primarily by TFD, that we should leave the Daily Beast material out of this article. I think it's too esoteric and doesn't meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. It also muddies the other issue. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The article now refers to a "report" but leaves out what report it's referring to.  Gabbard's response to a question about the Daily Beast story is what received the most coverage, isn't it? (sorry I don't have time to look into this myself now).  Both stories are about Russia-linked support.  We don't have to get into specifics, and we only have to differentiate when we say which people criticized which stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If we provide sourced rebuttals (as we should), we should also source the claims that have been denied. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What about:

NBC News reported that the same Russian sources who influenced the 2016 Presidential Election were promoting her candidacy, and an article in The Daily Beast reported that Gabbard had received campaign contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia. Gabbard dismissed The Daily Beast story as "fake news", and journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald described allegations of Russia-linked support as deceptive and part of a smear campaign.

Neither story used the exact phrase "smear campaign". It doesn't read very well, but I think this wording makes sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The passage becomes confusing by conflating two separate accusations in two separate sources. It's not even clear that the Russian sources refers to news agencies as opposed to spies. One of the problems is the lack of attention paid to the stories in mainstream media means that we cannot provide a fair representation of the claims, which is one reason why weight dictates against including them. TFD (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we could separate the two stories, and we could simply replace "sources" with "news agencies". After a quick search I found that Business Insider reported on the NBC story and The Intercept's reaction to it.[9] ABC News reported on The Daily Beast story.[10] I think I understand your point that we can't provide a fair representation of the claims, but I think we should find a way to describe the attention around these stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If we separate the two stories, then there is no reason to change MrX's wording of the NBC accusation. TFD (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be an idea to have a separate article listing the various articles that have been run against Gabbard, beginning with "Tulsi Gabbard is not your Friend" in Jacobin and including the Daily Beast and NBC articles. Then we could provide more detail on the accusations, the other media that picked up the stories and articles written in rebuttal. TFD (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have articles like that about other candidates?  We can just expand on this in her 2020 campaign article.  I don't understand what you're saying about Mr.X's wording.  Do you mean this version? This is incomparable.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a plethora of sources (literally hundreds) stating that there is a smear campaign going on, but most of these sources are in places like fair.org, and progressive sites that will be argued not to be "reliable".🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't to my knowledge, but then none of them have attracted the same slew of attack articles. There are however numerous "Criticism of" articles. (I was referring to MrX's version at 12:10, 28 May 2019.) SashiRolls, you only need reliable sources that there is a smear campaign if you want to make a factual statement that there is a smear campaign. TFD (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This version doesn't even mention NBC and uses Wikivoice.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The just add to the first sentence "according to a report in NBC news." TFD (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What about:

According to NBC News, the same Russian news sources who interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election were promoting her candidacy. Gabbard repeated journalist Glenn Greenwald's opinion that the story was a deceptive smear.[11] An article in The Daily Beast reported that Gabbard had received campaign contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia. Gabbard dismissed The Daily Beast story as "fake news", and journalist Matt Taibbi called it and the NBC News story "hit pieces".

 Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And I would cite the National Review story which quotes the RNC's reaction.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For some reason this was removed: "These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election." with a stated reason: "remove claim which is not in either source cited. "sought to influence" / "efforts to influence" is not the same as "influenced". However, the source actually says the following:

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016."
— [12]

This directly contradicts the reason stated for removing this important material.- MrX 🖋 12:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You should be all set if you use the word "interfered" instead of "influenced".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sashi was correct to remove that sentence. When one attempts to reduce thousands of words into a couple of sentences in a BLP, and a political one at that, we must be very careful to not include anything that is easily misunderstood as is the case here. And especially true when Mike Taibbi then says the entire NBC report is a smear in the first place. If our readers want to fully understand this information they will need to read the sources. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: How could that sentence be misunderstood? It's a straightforward sentence stands on it's own. Now, the entire paragraph reads as if there was actually a smear campaign, but for unclear reasons. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I am doing my best to catch up here so sorry if I'm wrong here... On the other hand, unlike the rest of you who have been wrestling with this for some time now and understand fully what's involved, I'm more like one of our readers, in other words just trying to understand the whole story with very little previous knowledge. I'll copy what our article had:

After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election. Matt Taibbi, in the Rolling Stone, called the report a "smear campaign".

Certainly, as has (I think) been suggested it should state that the report was done by NBC, but even still why would WP throw in the fact re Russia's support for Trump? While it may well or most likely was her stance on Syria, IMO we can't just make the Trump election statement without some sort of explanation. And then one gets into one of those WP instances where the devil's in the details, and unable to go into the details it is best to let the reader read the sources. I think...though I certainly am open to changing my mind on this.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think should be in the article?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Very good question Kolya. Actually I'm still trying to gather my thoughts/opinions and am not yet sure. Like the rest of you (I would assume) I am also working on other difficult articles and need to be able to spend the time to catch up on this one. Right now this one is not at the top of my priority list. At any rate, I will tag along as best as I can. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the definition of innuendo is: "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature."[13] It presents a problem when reporting it in an encyclopedia, because there the writing should be direct and explicit. The only way we can do that is either through original research or use of secondary sources. Trump for example never claimed Obama was not born in the U.S. but asked why he had not provided a copy of his birth certificate. However, we had reliable secondary sources that interpreted what he was doing. TFD (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm not seeing a policy based reason for omitting a this basic fact that he source itself made a point to highlight. The fact that RT, Sputnik, and other Russian media were part of the election interference by Russia is a widely-reported and widely-accepted fact. I don't think we should put ourselves in the position of assuming that readers are not able to understand something so basic, or click though to the sources. By the way, Russia's support for Trump was never in this article.- MrX 🖋 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you explain what you are referring to as something so basic that readers are supposed to understand? TFD (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot follow this conversation.... Is my suggestion on 16:19, 29 May 2019, acceptable? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is to me, but I think other editors would push back on covering the Daily Beast article at all.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: That Russian media websites were used to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The subject has been covered extensively in English language sources on the seven continents. Any readers wanting to take a deep dive can click through to the main article.- MrX 🖋 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

But that is already clear in the various versions presented. What relevance does it have to the stories about Gabbard? TFD (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it was taken out. The relevance is established in the source. I hope we're talking about the same thing, because I'm a bit confused by your comment.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD, the NBC story is precisely about how the "Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election" was promoting Gabbard. Are you ok with my 16:19, 29 May 2019 suggested version? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And NBC is the same network that ran Seinfeld, although you don't include that. What is the connection? TFD (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to sound bad faith. What is your question? What is the connection between what and what? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the connection between they "tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election" and they promoted Gabbard when she announced her candidacy? TFD (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward? The NBC story is saying that the "propaganda machine" that tried to influence the 2016 election is now trying to influence the 2020 election by promoting Gabbard. We can make that more clear in my suggestion by replacing "interfered" with "tried to influence". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But it's not straightforward. What is the relevance to them being a propaganda machine to their reporting on Gabbard? TFD (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of the NBC story? It seems straightforward to me, so I need to understand your understanding of the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In my interpretation, the NBC writers are implying that the Russians are running positive stories about Gabbard as part of an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. Do you agree or do you think there is another reason why they mention Russian interference in the 2016 election? TFD (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

How is that different from what I said at 01:51? I don't understand what our disagreement is. Can you rewrite my suggestion using your interpretation of the NBC story so I can see the difference? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't re-write your text because I don't know what it means. Can you please explain the relevance of Russian owned media being a propaganda machine to their reporting on Gabbard? If it has no relevance, then it does not belong in the article. I believe that you think it is relevant because you believe that the Russians are running positive stories about Gabbard as part of an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. Am I right or wrong? TFD (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the meaning of my text is intended to have the same meaning as the NBC News article story which it summarizes. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to highlight between my text and the NBC story. I don't personally believe anything about what the Russians are or are not doing; I am describing a news story that was reported on by RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, it sounds like you disagree with how NBC covered the story. It's perfectly natural that they would mention the 2016 events, given the scope of the article. To answer your earlier questions about relevance and connections, the article says "Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.". The connection is that Russia is promoting one candidate, while given other candidates perfunctory coverage. That also happened in 2016. That's the connection and the relevance. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Several experts..." - so I take it that you do not agree with Taibbi's contention that the so-called "experts" were hardly experts at all, to say the least? Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a direct quote showing what the article says, not an opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not go out of your way to treat other editors as though they are not capable of editing this article due to stupidity. Guess what, I know that it's a direct quote because MrX said it was a direct quote. Easy as eating pie. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I neither agree or disagree with any of the sources about the experts, and I'm not equipped to determine who's right. When there are two major viewpoints, the best we can do is represent both in the article, without adding our own conclusions. I think we have done that. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is conceivable (or even likely) that Russian propaganda may prefer certain candidates or simply intends to stir the pot, the noteworthisness in encyclopedic biographies seems somewhat questionable to me and as well as insinuated framing of it "inappropriate" influencing in general. One might ask the following question. Do we mention in the biography of other politicians their treatment in Russian funded English speaking media? Would we consider largely negative or positive description of US politicians in other international English speaking news channels (BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera English, press tv, Chinese and Indian news outlets, ...) as an attempt to influence US election? Noteworthy of mentioning in the concerned biographies? Or to pick an rather polemic example: Would we consider the (justifiable) largely negative reporting on Donald Trump by the BBC or Al Jazeera English as an attempt by the UK and Qatar to influence the US elections (say Fox but hardly anybody else would carry such a story concerning "iappropriate" British and Qatari influence on US elections due to their press coverage)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We aren't writing about Russian propaganda preferring a candidate; we're writing about a news story about Russian propaganda preferring a candidate which was widely reported on. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I could from following the discussion so far (without doing any extensive research on my own) the "widely reported" of yours is being disputed above as well as the noteworthiness of the whole thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh, yes we would mention such coverage if another low-polling candidate were receiving disproportionate coverage in Russian media that was reported by a major news organization after they consulted with experts. For example, if Cory Booker or Any Klobuchar were suddenly the subject of flattering coverage in RT and Sputnik, and the Washington Post wrote and an article about it, there's a pretty good possibility that it would be included in their bio. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

So we would mention it only in the case of low polling candidates and Russian funded media? That logic escapes me. Also above was suggested that the Washington Post did not carry that story. So was that mistake or has changed in the meantime?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It was disputed that Russia's alleged support of Gabbard was widely reported; I don't believe it's in dispute that the NBC story was widely reported on. In addition to the sources already discussed,The Chicago Tribune[14] discussed it. The aren't many stories devoted solely to Gabbard around this time, but this story was covered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, that was my point. The polling is largely a phenomenon of name recognition at this point. There is relatively little coverage about Gabbard compared with Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, etc., so any major stories about Gabbard will tend to stand out from the coverage in the local Hawaii press.- MrX 🖋 14:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the Chicago Tribune did not discuss it, it was mentioned in a column published in the Chicago Tribune. (Read News organizations if you do not understand the difference between news and opinion.) "Widely reported" does not mean ignored by news reporting in ABC, CBC, CNN, Fox, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. It doesn't mean whatever appears in your daily news aggregator. TFD (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, it was "discussed in" The Chicago Tribune.  This is one of the only articles about her in The Chicago Tribune around that time.  We may have a different definition of "widely covered", but the point is that this is how she has been covered in RS.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided a link and asked you read it. Here is the relevant text: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content....Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." By the way there is a difference between "discussed by" and "discussed in." Columns published by newspapers do not necessarily represent the views of the newspaper. Rachel Marsden, who wrote the column published in the Chicago Tribune is not the Chicago Tribune. It does not establish weight, the most you can say is that someone whose opinions you have absolutely no interest in mentioned the NBC article. TFD (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, that's why I acknowledged that I should have said "discussed in". I don't know what you're talking about. We're not discussing establishing the weight of an opinion, we're discussing whether to include the coverage of the NBC article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the NBC article or anything else is included in the article is determined by its weight, which is one of the major content policies. TFD (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop explaining basic policies to me. Like I said, we're not discussing establishing the weight of an opinion; we're discussing whether to give [weight] to the NBC article, if that makes it clearer. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for establishing the weight of an opinion and the weight of a story are exactly the same and are included in the subsection of Due and undue weight called Balancing aspects. In case you cannot follow the link, it 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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

TFD (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fact check: smear campaign

Can someone point out where in the Rolling Stone article [15] Matt Taibbi calls the NBC story a "smear campaign"? I see that he calls it a "hit piece". Then he talks about Howard Dean, and refers to the Dean scream coverage as "these smear jobs". I think we need to rectify this. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Exhibit A:

• She’s Exhibit A of a disturbing new media phenomenon that paints people with the wrong opinions as not merely “controversial,” but vehicles of foreign influence. source

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm only looking for the part of the article that says NBC's report was a "smear campaign". - MrX 🖋 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you have a point: based on the above, and strictly speaking, we would need to use "paint" campaign with a redirect to smear campaign. Perhaps we could add a link to the Liberty Paint factory chapter in Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Maybe Quantic's "Bomb in a Trumpet Factory" could be on the soundtrack. Flight of the Cosmic Hippo, too. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. No reason to leave a misquote in the article while we're waiting to form a consensus on the rest of the paragraph. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That solves the problem.- MrX 🖋 14:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, this was resolved until SashiRolls restored the false information in violation of WP:V. I even included the source passage in my edit summary, but that was ignored for some reason.

A transparent hit piece came out as Gabbard was announcing her run. NBC reported “the Russian propaganda machine” is “now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.

- MrX 🖋 12:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the person you reverted (i.e. not me) referred you to the discussion of Taibbi referring to today's "smear jobs". Reminder: "paint as" terrible and write "transparent hit pieces" about are synonyms for "smear"... cf.  [16]🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote "smear job" is now removed, which corrects the clear policy violation.  I do think that the direct quote "hit piece" is better than us characterizing his controversial remarks, even though smear is a perfectly appropriate characterization.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, MrX has complained about my removal of their false "not in source" tag, so in order to be a rule-follower I have had to reinstate something false. Feel free to correct it. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The text reads "Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept and Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone identified the report as being smear." Not only is that really poor writing, it misrepresents the source. "identified" carries the implication of authority, and while Greenwald did accuse NBC of smearing Gabbard, Taibbi avoided calling the report a smear. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only is that really poor writing, it's misrepresents the source. Cf. Tarage's 2nd law for the grammatical mistake. For the "substance", I hope that my telling you "you are wrong" will not be construed as any sort of personal attack, because you are wrong about what you have said: both articles say without any ambiguity that the NBC article is smear. You can find a lot more sources saying the same thing. 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then a direct quote should be used for now.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a direct quote from one of the sources should satisfy everyone. I would also be willing to explore something along the lines of "Taibbi and Greenwald were critical of the NBC report". However, "identified as [a] smear" is not acceptable in my view.- MrX 🖋 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added direct quotes per your suggestion. Insofar as both call the article smear, but we do not yet have unanimous consensus to use the English word for what is described, it seemed wisest to quote both opinions, so any nuances between their positions could be evaluated.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like these edits at all. There's way too much from Taibbi and Greenwald (or at least those specific quotes are poor choices). Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to capture the gist, not the detailed opinions of Taibbi and Greenwald. The two main viewpoints about this should be roughly equally balanced (which I have stated before, and no one has disagreed, AFAICT). - MrX 🖋 00:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I probably already asked you this, but doesn't my 16:19, 29 May 2019 suggestion...pretty much address all the points in our discussion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

For the most part I believe that this edit is appropriate. If you're going to mention such controversial matter based on one opinion of a couple of NBC journalists it needs to be addressed by better-known commentators such as Greenwald and Taibbi if they object to it. On wikipedia we sometimes need to bend over backwards to avoid bias in our articles, as is the case here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Are you saying that we should give Taibbi and Greenwald's opinions higher weight because (according to you) they are better-known? If so, that doesn't fly with our policies. I don't think we are in a position as editors to judge who's reporting is right and who's is wrong. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.- MrX 🖋 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed Taibbi's comments, hopefully that will satisfy your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Partially, and thank you. I see a bit more opportunity to trim or adjust. I'm bothered by a quote with an ellipsis in the middle of it.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's what we've got--what would you change?

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New Knowledge] [...] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm’s CEO just got caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."

Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized NBC's use of cybersecurity firm New Knowledge as a source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.[17]

Greenwald's comment about "fabricating Russian troll accounts" is over the top, so we should note his criticism, but lean on the NYT for the actual description of what New Knowledge did.- MrX 🖋 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the NYT. Sashi made the BOLD edit--Sashi, what do you think? IMO the bold edit is confusing and needs work but I'm not sure "participated in an experiment" is critical enough, though again I can't read the NYT information so am not sure... Gandydancer (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls is currently blocked. You should be able to read the NYT article here.- MrX 🖋 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for calling an edit dishonest, which is apparently not allowed even if what you call "dishonest" really was demonstrably so. Oh well, not the first time I've been blocked for pointing out an inconvenient truth. ^^ With regard to your question, Gandydancer, the NYT cites the New Knowledge report verbatim as follows in the link above:  We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 11:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote can also be found in the The Intercept story.  And SashiRolls, let's not come back from a block immediately being dishonest.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sad to say MrX, but it is not working for me. I went back and forth several times and got just snips of the article. (On a personal note, I am retired and on a limited income and for my work here I have picked WaPo to pay for. I've brought this pay-for-view problem up on Jimbo's talk page several times where it has been brushed off... Perhaps not enough editors that work on the basic nuts and bolts of our endeavor. Use only RS say our WP guidelines, but if you are blocked from reaching them, oh well...) Anyway, frustrated I googled the CEO and found this [18] Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's weird. I have no problem accessing NYT articles, maybe because I don't accept cookies and I have uBlock origin and Privacy Badger plugins. Sometimes, you can access such content by disabling javascript in your browser or changing your user agent to Googlebot, or both. I am also able to access some newspapers online by logging into my public library account. Wikipedia does have several programs for providing editors with access to paywalled content. If you need more info, stop by my talk page.- MrX 🖋 18:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK I will stop by your page when time permits. Anyway, I did do a lot of reading on her and it is my impression that Russia would indeed support her as compared to the others that are running. Even still I have reservations about using NBC journalists as a source. On the other hand, I know you to be a cautious and fair editor and I'm comfortable with using your wording if it is agreeable to others here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, and I can also post excerpts from the NYT article here if you like. Kolya Butternut and anyone else: what do think of the proposed text in green as replacement for the Greenwald quote?- MrX 🖋 14:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question, but my concern is how this compares to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Allegations of Russian support. I feel like what we write here should be the same but less detailed, but the proposed edits are different information. Maybe would should work on that article section first? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve this wording issue. If you still think that we need to add the Daily Beast material here, or remove it from the campaign article, that's worth discussing (or just be bold). But it shouldn't impede improving the wording about Greenwald's criticism of the NBC article, which is what I'm trying to accomplish now. As you can see from the article history, both articles had the same content when I added the material, and it has since morphed due to back and forth editing. So what should we do?- MrX 🖋 02:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just read the other entry for the first time and I'm surprised that you find it acceptable. I'm very surprised in fact. Gandydancer (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX, your proposed text is much better than the Greenwald quote, but I wouldn't include anything about New Knowledge here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized NBC's use of a cybersecurity firm as a source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.[19]

- MrX 🖋 16:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, why get into the details at all?  We could just say Greenwald condemned the piece which relied on a source which he stated was "discredited".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

But why mention the NBC article at all, when it was ignored by other mainstream media? The purpose of articles is not to provide stuff we think is important but professionals do not, except in articles about fringe topics. TFD (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed this. It's not that mainstream media are ignoring this particular story about her; it's that there just aren't that many stories devoted to her in the mainstream media. What other stories devoted to her that have been left out of this article do you think should be given weight? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite what policy supports your argument? If there are insufficient sources to write a fair article, the solution is to submit to articles for deletion. I note by the way that google news returns 76,200 hits for "tulsi gabbard"'[20] I think there are sufficient sources to write a neutral article. She is not exactly obscure. Anyway, if you want to ignore the policy of neutrality for this article, then you cannot use the same policy to keep out stuff you don't agree with. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like your comment is not responsive to mine. Let me put it another way: there is no policy that states something should only be given weight if it is reported in mainstream media. There are not many stories about her which meet your criteria of being covered by every single major news source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy says articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Something that is only mentioned in one major news network and ignored in major print media does not satisfy this criterion. Policy does not list every possible situation, because one assumes that editors will use reasonable judgment in interpreting them. Stormfront for example is a reliable source for the opinions of its writers. That does not mean that every opinion expressed there should be copied into every article about every subject on which they opine. Is there a policy that says an opinion expressed in only one source lacks weight? No. But one assumes that editors will use judgment in applying policy. TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That's obviously an incorrect interpretation of policy. The policy is about the body of reliable sources, it has nothing to do with "major news networks and major print media". When you say "an opinion expressed in only one source" it sounds like you're only including "major" sources as reliable sources. What is an example of a story about her campaign (other than her announcement itself) that met your criteria of being covered in all or most major media? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess we have a difference of interpretation as to what "the body of" means. To me it means a subtantial munber if not most of the major sources. To you, it means one major source and a one or two minor ones out of numerous minor sources. Or what do you think it means? TFD (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of [RS] on the subject". Media which do not report on the subject are not included in "the body of" RS. So, that leaves my question, what is an example of a story about her campaign (other than her announcement itselft) that met your criteria of being covered in all or most sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is actually about Tulis Gabbard, there is a separate article about her campaign where we can discuss your novel interpretation of weight. I note that CBS News has run 35 stories that mention Gabbard since she declared her candidacy[21] most if not all of which present news that probably is also reported in every other mainstream source. TFD (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you're focused on my lack of precision where I'm conflating a topic within an article with the "subject" of an article, but there is nothing "novel" about the interpretation that "the body of [RS] on the subject" refers to... RS on the subject.

None of those CBS stories after her campaign announcement are devoted to her besides the ones about her campaign announcement. The stories that "mention" her certainly may contain the most notable information, but other notable information will be found in less prominent RS. It does make sense to have this conversation at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss that in the article about her campaign. In this article, if you believe that her campaign has received almost no coverage in mainstream media, then the solution is to cut back on it. As policy says, articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body." If sources provide very little coverage of her campaign in relation to articles about her overall, then so should this article. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss what information is included about her 2020 campaign in Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but how much information about her campaign is in this article is a separate discussion we can have here. Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Her campaign has received plenty of coverage in "mainstream" reliable sources, but yes, we can discuss her campaign's relative coverage to the other topics in this article after we decide what information is included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be going backwards in this discussion. I believe we have already established that his material should be covered in this article. We were discussing specific wording. From what I can tell, no one has made the argument that that Greenwald's broken quote is better than the paraphrased version that I proposed several days ago, so I have made the change. - MrX 🖋 11:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, most of us have. The paraphrased version is better, I'm just questioning why we should get into the weeds here about why people believe the source is discredited. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"None of those CBS stories after her campaign announcement are devoted to her besides the ones about her campaign announcement....Her campaign has received plenty of coverage in "mainstream" reliable sources...." So her campaign has received no coverage beyond her announcement yet has received plenty of coverage at the same time. It's difficult to argue with you when you use different sets of facts depending on what point you choose to argue. TFD (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That would only be confusing if you completely ignored all context. What you describe as "major" "mainstream" media sources, e.g. CBS, is different from what I describe as mainstream media sources, i.e. reliable sources, which I have repeatedly discussed and even highlighted in bold above. The semantics argument is a distraction, and so is continuing this conversation here. It sounded like we agreed to discuss the content at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but you have not replied there. This is feeling like bad faith POV pushing. You have a legitimate argument over how much weight to give these topics, but you are instead arguing over my use of the word "mainstream" which you claim to have made it "difficult" to argue with me. Let's go to the other talk page and discuss this in good faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but did not check the campaign talk page yet. But let's keep each discussion separate. You are saying that Gabbard's campaign has received very little coverage in mainstream sources, which is understandable considering that we are early in the race and her polling numbers are low. To me, policy dictates that we provide little coverage to her campaign in this article, in accordance with its weight in the body of reliable sources about Tulsi Gabbard. Do you agree with that? Sorry, are you saying that CBS News is not a mainstream source? TFD (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If the misunderstanding is around the word "mainstream", I suggest we not use that word. I prefer to use words which are used in policy, i.e., "reliable sources." This conversation surrounds her campaign so we should move it to her campaign article. There we can discuss what to include, here we can discuss how much of that information to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Military decorations table

This is super inconsequential, but if anyone is good with table hoodoo voodoo, they could go in and clean up the "2nd Row Awards" row. My table-fu wasn't good enough to figure that one out. Jdc5294 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

David Duke

Non-endorsement from a non-noteable person "I must make it clear that I did not endorse Tulsi Gabbard for President yesterday, but I do endorse her efforts to stop these insane Neocon Zionist wars for Israel in the Mideast and that even threatens us with a catastrophic war with Russia, a nation which has simply dared to oppose Israel and Zionist objectives in the Mideast and globally." https://davidduke.com/dr-david-duke-no-i-did-not-endorse-tulsi-gabbard-for-president/ Scottmontana (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

PLEASE CHANGE THIS TEXT: "In 2006, Gabbard began serving as a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka in Washington, D.C.,[111] and in March 2007 she graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy."

TO THIS TEXT: "In 2006, Gabbard began serving as a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka in Washington, D.C.,[111] and in March 2007 she graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy where she was the first woman to finish as the Distinguished Honor Graduate in the Alabama Military Academy's 50-year history. This award, signifying distinguished leadership and academic ability, is given to one top candidate per state in each OCS class and is presented by the authority of the Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau. The accelerated program is the most physically and mentally demanding program."

BECAUSE: The new text provides more facts.

FinchandEagle (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done - MrX 🖋 14:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Moderate Democrat?

She's the only politician in leadership to have supported Bernie in 2016. Some progressives/liberal view her as a moderate, while others view her as a liberal. Putting that she's a moderate in the opening paragraph seems to be misleading when this is often subject of debate. GeekInParadise (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"while others view her as a liberal" like who? Who are those others?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Education

Something is wrong here. How could she have been a nurse in the Marines with a degree in business administration? Skysong263 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

She is not a nurse or in the Marines and the article does not say she is or was. TFD (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Please add the following info in the “Syria” section: Tulsi Gabbard met Assad in Syria, without informing top Democrats 2601:14D:8602:3336:F844:3B71:8D60:B0C5 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Smear: She is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations

There is a cite attatched leading to this memberlist: https://www.cfr.org/membership/roster She is not on there!

She is a member of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs which is her job and not a think tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:E180:1017:F700:FD80:7132:49F9:D02F (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the reference.Burrobert (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

She discussed it on Niko House's show, which you can find on youtube. She was appointed to a five year term, which has expired. Contrary to Alex Jones et al., the CFR invites prominent people in foreign relations who represent different views. That's why it reads like a who's who of foreign relations and conspiracy theorists can connect the dots and assume it is part of a massive plot for world domination. But thanks for noticing it and removing the outdated information. TFD (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I watched all of them, and she did not say that. You are probably confusing this with the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs 2A00:E180:1017:F700:59B9:FDDB:E48:D39B (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. It was New Progressive Voice, Tulsi Gabbard Answers To Her CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) Association/Concerns, posted May 6, 2019. She explains her membership in the CFR to Niko House at 2:50 minutes. She was invited to join because she was on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. TFD (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• It is poorly sourced, it was removed but an IP readded it again. I have removed it. Per BLP policy which says that poorly sourced information about living persons should be removed.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anothet anonymous user added that information again.. This time they brought Flickr as a source.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Foreign policy

What is the standard MOS for this? I'm not sure we need a new separate header for every time Gabbard shills for one of the Kremlin's little Shia puppets (whether in Syria, Iran or Yemen) and attacks Saudi Arabia in an ill-educated manner. This can be addressed in one generic section laying out her general worldview, rather than a header for each country. Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a conspiracy theory I haven't heard. Do you have any sources that Gabbard is pro-Shia? Most of the attacks on her have claimed that she is anti-Muslim period. I know she opposes the invasion of Shia nations, but she does not support the invasion of non-Shia nations either. TFD (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions that she supports a kids-glove approach to Iran's nuclear program while at the same time attacking completely legal US arms deals with Saudi Arabia and generally makes hysterical over the top anti-Saudi comments. In regards to Syria she openly shills for the minority Alawite/Shia Assad regime which is backed up by the invading armies of the Kremlin and various Shia/Iranian death-squads who target the Syrian Sunni majority in a sectarian manner. In Yemen she is opposed to the US aiding Saudi Arabia, which is a polite way of saying she shills for the Iranian-backed Shia Houthi terrorists and Iran's geopolitical interests. All of Gabbard's foreign policy positions fall into line with those of the Kremlin and Tehran, against the Sunni states which are allied to the West. This is her general approach and can be covered in a joined up set of paragraphs rather individual headers for each state. Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty elaborate theory which we could only add if you found it had credence in any reliable sources. The reality is that most Democrats at least oppose the termination of the agreement with Iran and Saudi aggression in Yemen. Just because someone does not think the U.S. should fund al-Qaeda and ISIS does not mean they back Iran and Syria. In fact even the U.S. government considers them to be terrorist groups. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard represents the mainstream re Yemen. The House and Senate last month voted to oppose US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen--Trump vetoed it. see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/trump-veto-yemen.html Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Foreign policy section is way too extensive for this biography and we do not need a separate section for ever country that she has expressed an opinion about.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I checked the citation for the claim that Gabbard opposed the Iraq war in 2003, and the article does not make that claim. At all, in any way. Other sources say she joined the military specifically to fight in the Iraq war! It seems like this claim should be either removed or clarified with a better citation.MacroMyco (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to improve upon / change this. You are right that there was a problem with the first sentence in particular. Now the sentences are too long and there is still no mention of Venezuela (anywhere) or of Iran in this section. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Section on Reproductive rights and abortion

I'm new to this page and can see that there is a lot of controversy, so I would appreciate your all help in figuring out the lay of the land here. I see a couple of references to previous discussions of the abortion issue on the current talk page but nothing extant.

One thing that struck me right off hand is the wording of that particular section:

• "Gabbard supports reproductive rights,[223] including federal funding for abortion.[224] She opposed abortion earlier in her career, but changed her mind.[225][140][137] She voted against a proposal banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy.[140]"

The third sentence seems like a detail far too granular without context; I'm sure she has cast dozens of votes on various abortion-related issues in Congress. Why are we highlighting this one vote? What does that add? I don't see any nuance in her current position along the lines of "she supports abortion rights up to this line, but not a, b or c." So I'm not sure we need that detail.

The sequence of the first two sentences is odd, and non-encyclopedic. (She believes XX. She was against XX earlier, but changed her mind.") A more typical (and, I believe, proper) sequence would be something like this: "Gabbard was opposed to abortion when she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives in 2002. She changed her position when she returned to politics after her military service and now consistently votes for reproductive rights."

Finally, is there a source for the statement that "she changed her mind"? I looked for that just now, and found to the contrary that she told Ozy Magazine in 2016 that she had not changed her mind about abortion, but rather has a different view of the role of government:

• "It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government 'imposing its will' on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)"

https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/tulsi-gabbard-a-young-star-headed-for-the-cabinet/62604

That seems like an important nuance. Thank you! Msalt (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I mostly support your synthetic edit suggestion. How about:

Gabbard was opposed to abortion when she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives in 2002. Since returning from her tours of duty in the Middle East she has consistently voted for reproductive rights. In 2015, she said that her personal views on abortion had not changed, but that as a representative she would be doing a public disservice to vote based only on her personal private ethics.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the third sentence, but the rest should remain, with perhaps some wordsmithing. The proposed wording from Msalt carries a somewhat promotional tone ("now consistently votes for reproductive rights") and the proposed wording from SashiRolls seems very promotional. The PBS source supports her changing her mind. Ozy magazine does not seem like a good source for a BLP.- MrX 🖋 13:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Giving a sympathetic reading to the reasons someone gives for voting on res publica in a different way than their personally-held views would suggest that they would vote just does not seem inherently promotional to me. You're welcome to say it is, though.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, I didn't consider my proposed wording promotional at all; rather I was attempting to distinguish between what she votes for and what she believes personally, based on her own statements. Whether that promotes her candidacy or not depends on subjective perceptions of qualities such as "personal growth" vs. "sticking to your guns." In any case, I'm not attached to any particular words, such as "consistently" which seems to be the rub here.

The PBS source doesn't not say that she changed her beliefs about abortion, though admittedly it's a bit ambiguous and requires careful reading. What it says is "She has said that her time in Iraq sparked soul-searching and led to changes in her beliefs." [without saying which beliefs]. The word "said" is hotlinked to an MSN story (no longer available, but based on this AP story with the identical title - we should also update that). The AP story makes it clear that the changes are, consistent with the Ozy interview, about the role of government rather than how she feels about abortion itself. The AP story says:

"She also metamorphosed from being anti-abortion to in favor of abortion rights. She explained that serving in the Middle East showed her these positions she once held were rooted in the mistaken idea that it’s the government’s role to “define and enforce our personal morality.” “The next year was full of challenges and soul-searching as my long-held views were challenged by my newfound recognition of the absolute importance of keeping church and state separate,” she wrote in a 2011 blog post." The ozy.com article is a direct interview with Gabbard; why would that not be reliable?

Given all of that, how about this wording (adding the AP ref)?:

"Gabbard has stated that she is personally opposed to abortion. She voted against abortion rights when elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives in 2002, but since returning from her tours of duty in the Middle East she has voted for reproductive rights. In 2015, she said that her personal views on abortion had not changed, but that during her time in the military she saw the dangers of a theocratic government 'imposing its will' and doesn't think that she should "force her own beliefs on others."

Thanks! Msalt (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that for articles about politicians their current beliefs and positions are more important than past ones and should be mentioned first, particularly when their former positions were held before they achieved major office. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren were all Republicans while Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump were Democrats. While that is interesting background, it's not what they are most known for. I agree with removing her vote against the week ban, since some context would be required in order to show its signficance. TFD (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the precise issue is, what IS her current belief and position? I did my best to balance these concerns and most clearly and fairly represent her remarkably nuanced position in my second proposed wording just above. Msalt (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Her current position is that she is pro-choice. TFD (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH problems

One editor added a bunch of WP:SYNTH to the article where sources that either made no mention of Gabbard or which were sourced to Gabbard's own website were used to string together text. The editor SashiRolls unsurprisingly restored it again in full.

(1) The sentence:

• "Gabbard also criticized the arrest of Indian consular officer Devyani Khobragade on charges of visa fraud and perjury."

was changed to:

• "Gabbard also criticized the strip-search and treatment of Indian consular officer Devyani Khobragade who was arrested on charges of visa fraud and perjury."

The second sentence is not reflective of the cited RS, which says: "She was vocal in criticising the arrest of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade and said in a statement last December that she was "disappointed" when she found out about Ms Khobragade's initial treatment by law enforcement officials and added that while foreign diplomats must uphold US law they are also entitled to dignified treatment."[22]

(2) The sentence "In 2012, Modi was cleared of all charges by the Indian Supreme Court." was thrown in at the end of a paragraph, but none of the cited sources refers to Gabbard in any way whatsoever.

The WP:SYNTH text should be removed immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done If you look at the word "immediately", you will see where you went wrong. Please note that the article does speak about the manner of the consular official's arrest. I've removed the articles not mentioning Gabbard and restored the grammatical correction you'd deleted in your haste.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for wasting everyone's time. You opposed "july" instead of "July" inside a cite reference, so you of course had to revert a huge edit, and force things to the talk page for absolutely nothing. Always a pleasure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the diffs show you to be confused. In fact you are thinking about another interaction where I (not you) overlooked an intervening capitalisation in a date field of a reference by a guy named Keith. I thanked Philip Cross when he noticed what I'd missed (in point of fact), though it was indeed pretty minor. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Tulsi Gabbard's views on foreign policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A, B, and C should all be included. More sourcing is recommended for A and B should be slightly reworded to sound less argumentative, but there is substantial backing for all three sections. Red Slash 02:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC). I note that the close of this RfC was somehow reverted. How someone has the gall to revert an edit to a talk page I cannot understand. The discussion is closed. Red Slash 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the following text be added to the Political Positions section (note that the following subsections already exist): RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A. India sub-section

• Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.

B. Syrian Civil War sub-section

• Gabbard has described US involvement in the Syrian Civil War as "our counterproductive regime-change war", and said that it is this "regime-change war that is causing people to flee their country". In January 2017, Gabbard met Syrian regime officials in Damascus, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Writing in 2019, the New York Times noted she is the only American official to have met Assad since his use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The Russian government's propaganda network RT praised Gabbard, saying she dared "to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative." In February 2019, she said that Assad was "not an enemy of the United States." She has defended Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, saying that criticisms of Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War were "mind-boggling" and that Russia was bombing terrorists; according to Vox, "Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."

C. Syrian Civil War sub-section

• Gabbard has expressed skepticism of the Assad regime's confirmed use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. In February 2019, Gabbard said there was "no disputing the fact that [Assad] has used chemical weapons and other weapons against his people."

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

I think that is a biased way of presenting things. A. As a member of the Congressional foreign affairs committee and vice-chairman of the DNC, Gabbard helped end the travel ban against Modi, after it had been lifted by the EU and the UK. Modi subsequently was invited to the White House by Barack Obama, who later visited Modi in India. When Modi was in the U.S., Bill and Hillary Clinton visited him and Modi was invited again to the U.S. by Donald Trump.

B. This implies opposition to the U.S. war in Syria as somehow tied to Russian interests without explicitly saying so. This type of writing may be good polemics but does not belong in an encyclopedia.

C. Following the Douma chemical attack of April 7, 2018, Gabbard said the U.S. should not respond until Assad's responsibility had been established. Gabbard says Syria has used chemical weapons and Assad should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence for trial.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support A, B and C. This is all reliably sourced, and the language mirrors that of the cited sources. These are all issues that have been covered extensively by RS, thus satisfying WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Snooganssnoogans, why didn't you follow "Before starting the process?" "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." This is a relatively complex RfC question, and it would have made sense to discuss it before hand. TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have gone above and beyond to deal with SashiRolls, who has effectively held up any and all changes to this article (see the last two months of excruciating and pointless talk page discussions). It is entirely appropriate to ask for community input at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I note you reversed a statement, "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" with the comment, "this is an empty statement. who opposes a strong relationship?"[23] Yet in A you spin Gabbard's support of that relationship as somehow sinister. TFD (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
        • That statement is sourced to an answer that Gabbard herself gave in an interview. It's not a RS description of her views on India-US relations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Support A and C, they both seem uncontroversially true and are reliably sourced. B I would reword before adding to the article; all the facts appear to be correct but it's worded more like an argument than a Wikipedia article. I suppose I should note that while reading it, the point at which I started going "wait, this doesn't seem right" is the reference to RT; that felt almost conspiratorial to me even if it is true. LokiTheLiar (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Even when things are uncontroversially true, we still need sources that support them. The sources for A for example do not say that Gabbard has expressed support for any Hindu nationalists. I get the impression that these are opinions of her expressed in some op-eds, rather than facts expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I frankly am not sure what you're talking about, since both sources for A say that very clearly. Here's a quote from the Guardian source: "She has also previously expressed “skepticism” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India." And from the Intercept source: "Her progressive domestic politics are at odds with her support for authoritarians abroad, including Modi, Sisi, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad." LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
                • I was speaking about A. Your quote ways that she "aligned hereself" with nationalist figures, not that she expressed support for them. The word express means to " directly, firmly, and explicitly state" something,[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/express} which is not contained in any of your sources. TFD (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Ah, so your objection is that the sources aren't explicit enough. Well, I think they are and that complaining about the difference between "supporting" and "expressing support" is splitting hairs, but if you want an even clearer source, here's one with a direct quote. LokiTheLiar (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • So you don't think there is a difference between saying something and not saying something. Sounds like the thought police. Anyway a commentary is not a reliable source, per News organizations. Kind of surprised to find you reading Jacobin, which bills itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (Have you added any of their opinions to articles about other presidential candidates or are you just making an exception for this one article?) In every article, editors should go to the best sources and reflect what they say, not determine what should be in the article and mine for sources. TFD (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • I think both "supporting" and "expressing support" are saying something. And the reason I brought up the Jacobin article is entirely because it has the direct quote of support for Modi you seem to want. If you like, we can instead use the source Jacobin links for that quote. As I've previously said, the phrasing of the previous two sources is perfectly adequate to support the phrase "expressed support" in my view, and I don't think we need the direct quote, but if you insist on it, well, there's your source. LokiTheLiar (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • The term express means to say or write something. If someone does not say or write something they have not expressed anything. The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government. TFD (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Outdent added, as it is becoming too difficult to read for mobile users.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose A, B, & C (since this may have been missed)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the three are NPOV. The third comes closest, but the present tense in the second word of C being directly contradicted by the subsequent sentence is a problem. Also, don't we already have that info in the article? SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Support A and C and conditional B, per LokiTheLiar.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• A and C - Both are brief, factual, and relevant. B is simply too detailed and too quote-laden, and would tend to tip the due weight scales in the wrong direction.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• YES to B and C - The paragraphs about Syria are well sourced and relevant to an article about a politician running for president. A might also be appropriate if properly sourced, but the two citations included so far are week. They state the conclusion that she supports Modi or Hindu nationalists without much detail. I am against including the Indian subsection without better sources. I expect there are some out there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please compare to what is already in the article. There is no need to modify the existing text.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• All three are acceptable, and all three could be improved. A is terse and could benefit from some expansion and context. B is long and rambling; C presents two contradictory facts without any way for readers to reconcile them. I'm not clear on the process here. Is it appropriate to suggest improved wording for any of these? Msalt (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A The above addition appears to be based opinion.
  • Neither article is neutral POV and Tulsi has never stated support for Hindu Nationalists, these articles don't prove she did. In an interview on the “The Young Turks” 3/29/19

(Timestamp 10:17)Cenk Uygur asked: So are you concerned about Hindu nationalism being radicalized as it was in 2008? Tulsi Gabbard responded: "I’m concerned about anyone who is, in the name of religion, whatever religion that may be, inflicting harm and death and pain upon others in the name of God or in the name of religion." --21:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Scottmontana (talk)

• Oppose Part of B NNPOV
  • The Russian government's propaganda network RT praised Gabbard, saying she dared "to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative."
    • The opinion of a "foreign propaganda network" is not NPOV
  • Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."
    • The opinion of VOX is not NPOV --Scottmontana (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor Scottmontana is a single-purpose account who has exclusively edited two pages about Gabbard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted) Snooganssnoogans is a known political operative whose sole purpose is to defeat Tulsi --Scottmontana (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose C
  • Unless wording is changed, Tulsi only expressed skepticism of one attack "You know the important thing here is not what I, you, or what anyone else thinks. In these instances you have to rely on evidence. Just yesterday prior to President Trump launching this illegal military strike against Syria...the United Nation’s security councils were working through language to launch an independent international investigation into that chemical weapons attack so that they could determine exactly who was behind it, what happened, what kinds of chemical weapons were there because there is a lot of different opinions about what exactly occurred. Once you do that and you gather evidence then you can determine the course of action that needs to occur from there.”

“I’m just looking for the evidence. Maybe President Assad was behind it. If he was, this is a horrific war crime and he should be prosecuted before the international criminal court for that. I would be the first to say that very clearly. Again we’ve got to look at the evidence to see exactly what occurred, who is behind it...” --Scottmontana (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rejected close by non-admin @Red Slash:: "A, B, and C should all be included. More sourcing is recommended for A and B should be slightly reworded to sound less argumentative, but there is substantial backing for all three sections."

Rejected because it does not discuss the fact that 3 respondents rejected all 3 propositions, and no respondent except proposer accepted all 3 as written. No indication that the person read the page to see what was already there or read the discussion. We'll wait for an admin close.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

By my count (ignoring the single-purpose account), there are: 5 pro and 1 anti #A, 4 (1 of which is conditional) pro and 3 (1 of which is conditional) anti #B, and 6 pro and 1 anti #C. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why we don't let you count. I see Scott Montana, TFD and myself opposing all 3 because they are not NPOV and only you supporting all three. Most gave no reasons, whereas those opposed gave good detailed reason why the wording was not NPOV. All of the info is also already contained in the article. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

hatted discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TFD only explicitly says he opposes #B. Not that it's surprising coming from you, but you're seriously not counting any of the votes unless they specifically take a position on all three of the separate things this RfC asks for? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC) ScottMontana is a SPA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Personal back-and-forth not helpful on article talk pages ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. We need an admin close, Snoog. MrX tells you B goes too far, Daryl Kerrigan tells you A does, 3 of us have given you reasons why C is a problem. The most recent commenter saying all were OK said all could also stand rewording, and I would add that more respectful integration with the existing text might be in order. As I saw it you slapped new thesis statements and renvois into the paragraphs you wanted to zing in: (§). That is polemical rewriting not collaborative writing. I noticed the other day that you still have written 31.4% of Jill Stein's BLP. Are you trying to single-handedly write an encyclopedia? Stop that, get help, it's good for your soul, promise. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Awilley, is "Are you trying to single-handedly write an encyclopedia? Stop that, get help, it's good for your soul, promise" considered an acceptable way to address Wikipedia editors for making contributions to the encyclopedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Probably not. Hatting. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Woops, you seem to have missed "Not that it's surprising coming from you,..." Also are you seriously saying that saying "collaborative editing is good for your soul" is contrary to Wikipedia principles or that "respectful integration" of text and comment on placement of thesis statements and final lines of paragraphs is not related to collaborative editing? Your involvement on this page has been noted, Awilley. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This close makes no reference to consensus or the lack of consensus, nor does it summarize anyone's positions. The closer has recently had their page mover rights removed due to a pattern of actions identified by @Zzuuzz: who is welcome to comment on whether the close properly summarizes the different views expressed and whether it fits in with the general pattern they identified of sub-par non-admin admin activity.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll add a comment, since my name was invoked with a request to comment. I'll not comment on any general patterns here, and not re-close it myself, but I will comment that this close doesn't look particularly comprehensive. The re-close is actually rather astonishing - there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Having said that, I tend to think that most RfCs about the inclusion of particular sentences, in an article with various views and ever-changing content, do not stand the test of time well. They only work for extremely particular things, like the first sentence of Donald Trump's article, or for general themes like a foreign policy matter. Most wording will never remain static. This may sound trivial, but I'd suggest editing the article to see where the current sticking points are in the context of the current article, then discuss those accordingly, informally, with the input of third parties if necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of support of the edits recommended in the RfC. Even most of the editors who spent considerable time protecting Hillary Clinton articles in the last cycle failed to respond. TFD (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In order to properly follow procedure, this close has been appealed at AN (temporary pre-archive link). So far, the closer has not explained their reasoning any more there than here. A second pair of eyes found no consensus for A & B, but found consensus for C. It was noted that the RfC does not mandate wording of C for all eternity, which suggests that using the past tense for C rather than the present tense (as it refers to a previous position) would not be problematic.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Syria trip

The following has been removed from political career. Where does it belong? Unlike the other subsections of her political career it does not span multiple years or even multiple weeks. She was in Syria for four days. Perhaps it can be folded into foreign policy to avoid redundancies?

text of sub-section moved from "political career" to "foreign policy"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In January 2017 Gabbard met with President Bashar al-Assad in what she said was an unplanned meeting during a trip to Syria and Lebanon. She had reportedly not informed House leadership of her trip in advance. Gabbard said in a press release that the trip was approved by the House Ethics Committee and paid for by Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services (AACCESS-Ohio). She later paid for the trip with her own money. On February 7, 2017, it was reported that Gabbard failed to comply with House ethics rules, as she had not filed the required disclosure forms by the deadline, but according to her office she complied with House ethics rules by filing her post-trip financial report by the deadline. Remaining forms and her itinerary were submitted on February 8, 2017. Within a week of the trip, Gabbard relayed the Syrian people's message: "Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS—they are all the same,” Gabbard told Jake Tapper, describing the Syrian conflict as “a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government." References

All opinions welcome. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

FEC data

This was added to the page by an IP. I believe this is probably considered WP:PRIMARY, though I may be wrong. It is definitely too detailed for her biographical entry and even for the entry on her 2020 prez campaign, IMO. Thoughts? Clicking the link and resorting, it looks like she's using ActBlue...

FEC data 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to FEC.gov - Coverage dates: 01/11/2019 to 06/30/2019 Total receipts $6,062,974.29 Total contributions $3,514,802.51 Total individual contributions $3,513,727.51 Itemized individual contributions $1,366,725.00 Unitemized individual contributions $2,147,002.00 Party committee contributions $0.00 Other committee contributions $1,000.00 Presidential public funds $0.00 Candidate contributions $75.00 Transfers from other authorized committees $2,500,000.00 Total loans received $0.00 Loans made by candidate $0.00 Other loans $0.00 Total offsets to expenditures $48,165.28 Offsets to operating expenditures $48,165.28 Fundraising offsets $0.00 Legal and accounting offsets $0.00 Other receipts $6.50 References

The Bharatiya Janata Party is Hindu-nationalist

An IP number deleted this, saying it was an "error". That's literally what the LA Times describes the Bharatiya Janata Party as. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I do think for this formulation to be due it would be necessary to show that Gabbard supports Modi because the BJP has Hindu nationalist roots, rather than supporting him because he is the elected president of India. There are several sources (NDTV for example, her backing out of a big fundraiser in Chicago), showing she says the latter.

Also it appears that JP Nadda replaced Amit Shah as acting president of the party. (source) What exactly are you basing this claim that N. Modi is the leader of the BJP on? While he may have influence, I've found nothing indicating that that is a true statement.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely no need to demonstrate that Gabbard explicitly supports Modi because he is the leader of the BJP. If we describe her support for Modi, we describe who Modi is, as well. This is basic stuff, but of course gets stalled and vetoed on this article. And RS typically characterize the BJP as being led by Modi and the party being his[24][25], yet of course that now has to be debated as well, because why not waste time on that also? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable that in some countries the de facto leader of a political party can also be the PM or President, but in most, I think, these latter are far too busy running the country, having lunch with Obama, etc. I notice that when lunch with Modi is mentioned on Barack Obama's page the entry does not mention BJP. If you want you can start a discussion on Barack Obama's BLP to see if you can include that Modi is the leader of the BJP, I'll bring the popcorn. :)

Here's the only reference, as of this timestamp, to Modi on Obama's BLP: "He then went to India, where he spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit before meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over lunch." And believe it or not, in the Indian express article en.wp sources that to, Obama is even quoted saying he likes Modi and believes in him. o.O 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll note the absence of substantive arguments. This editor knows about WP:OTHER, yet can't resist the urge to again present a rambling diatribe and debate some other topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

analogy. Yes Mr. Snoog I am aware there are others l'autre != loutre ...other != otter. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bharatiya Janata Party is actually a broad center-right party formed out of a coalition of various parties opposed to Indira Ghandi's state of emergency. You might want to mention that Gabbard also met with leaders of the opposition Congress Party, Rajeev Gowda and Shashi Tharoor. TFD (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll stick to what reliable sources say, thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just stop using that tone. Here are three examples of you distorting what "RS" say that I (or others) have found in the last two weeks:

1. [26] on this page. The source does not talk about "fraud and perjury". You should know this since you added the source on Feb 12, 2017. [27]
2. [28] Here you claim the source says Bill Lee "created" a holiday ex nihilo when in fact the governor has been legally required to declare the holiday every year since the 1970s (as the article says).
3. [29] (only the 2nd source (an opinion piece) verifies the 1st claim, the other two do not.

You have been caught red-handed three times in the last 2 weeks and yet you continue to have this "holier-than-thou" tone with a long-standing editor like TFD?! Someone other than me should really take you to a noticeboard. If I do it, someone will surely distract from the issue. Does anybody think these are "mistakes"? What should we do about a contributor who systematically misquotes/misuses sources? (remember the fake gorilla poll on Jill Stein? I do. Here's "gorilla" in the TP archives for Jill Stein... here's "plagiarism Daily Beast" for that matter...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please get rid of these off-topic and creepy rants from this talk page. You can add them to the off-wiki forums where you and other disgruntled and/or banned wikipedia editors obsessively complain about me and how Wikipedia does not conform to some fringe worldviews. And do not edit my text, as you just did. As for the substance: (1) Source says she was arrested. That she was arrested for visa fraud and perjury is undisputed and uncontroversial, even if this one source does not specifically say that. (2) Lee did sign a bill to proclaim a day in honor of a KKK leader. (3) That's a lede, and in the lede, one of the sources substantiates the language. The sourcing in the body also substantiates the text. (4) Harambe is a gorilla, and the poll was not fake. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In each case you have distorted what the source says. How Wikipedia is supposed to work: wiki-text is verified by the inline sources provided. In 0 of the 4 cases you mention above was that the case. Also: you complained about my revision of the section title to something more neutral in accordance with WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, using uncivil language in your edit summary to do so (another day at English Wikipedia...):

Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc

Red-handed, particularly on this page in diff #1. What Tulsi objected to was not the diplomat's arrest, but the manner of her arrest,; as the IP you reverted said... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that the BJP are Hindu-nationalist, regardless of what unsourced claims TFD brings to the table. It's what RS state and it's what our very own Wikipedia page about the party says. Furthermore, your change the header makes it so that my comment makes zero sense. You're altering the text in order to misrepresent and distort my comments. Stop it immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As usual, the problem is one of reduction: you might learn something reading this report. I did. The first article notes the distance between the RSS and the BJP. The second notes that within the broad label "Hindu nationalist" there are moderates who basically identify Hinduism as first among equals (in the same way that public holidays in the US & Europe are Christian holidays, for example). In other words, quit using it as a scare tactic. Again, the question you are trying to avoid on this BLP of a US citizen running for President is: does TG support Modi because the BJP has Hindu nationalist roots, or because he is the elected president of India? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You bring a report about the BJP to the table which mentions "Hindu nationalist" or "Hindu nationalism" 130 times (!) and which describes the party on the first page of text as "a party built on an ideological foundation of Hindu nationalism" to dispute that the party is Hindu-nationalist. Good grief. You can't make this shit up. As always, a pleasure to have my time completely wasted with this nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought that report "to the table", Snoog, because I am honest. I do not stop in reading a label but seek to understand what it means in practice. As I understand it, the BJP won the 2019 election handily, making it a popular force to be reckoned with in India. I don't know why we are meant to say "Oh Noes! They celebrate Holi & Diwali! Infidels!" when in fact we should say that this is what the democratically elected government looks like today in India. Again, once you have successfully argued that "far-right wing Hindutva" should be mentioned next to Modi on Obama's BLP, then we can talk about it here too. Based on your argument above, if someone likes and supports Modi -- as Obama does based on his public statements -- their BLP should reflect that they like and support a far-right Hindutva BJP politician. Why you seem to be intent on adding that information here but not on Obama's BLP seems rather transparent. Now, I will leave others to discuss whether or not your misrepresentation of 3 sources in the last 3 weeks is a problem worthy of disciplinary action or not. Please do not reinstate your text which falsely claimed TG criticized the arrest of the consular official. She criticized how that official was arrested as both sources show. As for your filling the talk page with aggressivity, well... I'll let others judge that too.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument is now "the BJP is popular, so we can't describe it like RS do" and more rambling off-topic WP:OTHER BS? What a waste of time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are we mentioning that Gabbard met with Modi while not mentioning that she met with opposition members as well? TFD (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If RS report that, then add it to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So is this edit the entirety of the dispute? The LA Times source specifically describes her as being "aligned" with Modi and the Hindu Nationalist BJP. The Guardian

offers a similar characterization. Mother Jones, and Vox also cite this - although they seem to be mostly relying on the reporting from The Intercept. I don't see any real dispute about Modi's nationalism, and there's also not much disagreement that Gabbard is tied to him. It seems like this is the only reason that this comes up in coverage of her. I can certainly see a case for exercising some restraint, but we don't need to read her mind to note that Modi is a controversial figure and her links to him are notable mostly for that reason. Nblund ^talk 15:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

On this article, every single minor detail, no matter how well-sourced and uncontroversial, is vetoed (primarily by one user) and has to be subject to long talk page discussions that are mostly just rambling about unrelated things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the part of the Quartz article that was curiously glossed over. The part where she mentions meeting with members of the Congress Party, who are not in power. Nblund feel free to google "Tulsi Gabbard", Rajeev Gowda and Shashi Tharoor as suggested above. The main point of contention is the spin as demonstrated by the story of the misrespresentation of TG's position on the consular official, the fact that only one side was cherry-picked from the Quartz India article, etc. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I did, but Gabbard herself seems to be the main source for it. When I look at mainstream reliable sources, they mostly talk about her ties to Modi specifically, and the criticisms that have come from those links. I don't think it's that surprising that anyone "glossed over" her comment since it appears that reliable sources aren't really buying the idea that she has no preference.

I agree that we should avoid taking a position on criticisms, but I don't know why we spend so much time talking about Modi if we're not going to acknowledge the primary reason mainstream reliable sources cover it. Why not just say "critics have argued that she is too closely aligned with Hindu Nationalists like Narendra Modi, while Gabbard has argued that she has x y and z reasons for supporting him." up front? I think everyone might benefit from trying to write for the WP:OPPONENT here. Nblund ^talk 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"critics have argued" is not the same thing as "it is a fact." While we report opinions, we do not report them as fact. Gabbard met with Modi and opposition leaders. Barack Obama and Donald Trump invited Modi to the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton visited him when he was in Washington. TFD (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

She is basically following in Obama's footsteps. (Ever noticed how their speech is somewhat similar? Must be the Hawaii sun! ^^) I agree that the consular official story was overblown. It has served its purpose in the entry for the past 2.5 years, I suppose. But of course had I deleted it, I suspect that would have been instant drama. Now, as for the WaPo article and "some critics" that seems to be a poor practice and a poor reference... the sum total of what is said in the article is the following: "Among other things, she’s been dogged by protesters who say she’s too close to India’s Hindu nationalists and the country’s prime minister, Narendra Modi." The NDTV interview is much better because she makes clear that her understanding of Hinduism is incompatible with Hindu nationalism (if you have the time to actually watch the 17-minute video, I do recommend it, you'll understand her better). There's a good quote in there, but I'd need to listen again... I'll let you work on the article for a while in peace :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree, but it is a fact that she has advocated closer ties to India including better relations with Narendra Modi. It is also a fact that Modi is generally considered a Hindu Nationalist. The opinion is that this is a bad thing or that she is linked to him for any reason beyond her general support for close US-India relations. Presidents' foreign policy obligations often require them to meet with other foreign heads of state that they dislike. Members of Congress accepting those invitations is often seen as more controversial because it's basically always voluntary, and some see it as overstepping their Constitutional role.

Regarding the WaPo source: I think that is a reasonable summation of articles in The Intercept as well as The Nation, and New York Magazine. I am open to using a more explicit in-text reference though. Nblund ^talk 17:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The way it was wording implied that not only was it a bad thing but that it was a fringe position. Furthermore, it did not overstep her constitutional role, since it had the support of the Foreign Affairs committee and was probably supported by the White House. There is a difference between saying that someone complained about her actions, it is another for the article to express disapproval or to provide false information. TFD (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Banking, minimum wage, Federal Reserve and Tech firms should be under one 'Economy' section

These issues are currently in sub-sections of their own within a larger economy section, but it's kind of pointless given that all these sub-sections are very short (one sentence, two sentences, three sentences). I've tried to remove the sub-sections and keep it all under an 'Economy' section, but it was of course reverted by SashiRolls. So as with almost every other basic change, I'm now here on the talk page to argue that multiple tiny sub-sections are not needed when the issues all fall under one topic (Economy). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

From the outside (Australia) the Gabbard issue looks interesting, even historic. Someone wrote today that the political class of both sides (if that's what you'd call them) is closing ranks against Gabbard which I have suspected in the last two weeks or so. One analyst even said something that would amount to a boycott. The reasons seem to be her visit to Syria and a general scepticism about wars. Someone in a university should probably monitor and research this, i.e. which news about Gabbard trigger strong or less strong objection from which party or individuals. Whether this amounts to meddling or not could then be analysed in a PHD thesis. Just an idea. The boycotter was on Australian TV (abc.net.au), Planet America, two three weeks ago. 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:9904:8729:8255:F9B6 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing ABC News content

The following content was removed:

• In July 2019, when asked about whether Assad used chemical weapons, Gabbard said, "There's evidence that...continues to come out. I have always said that if that evidence proves that he is guilty, he should be prosecuted."[30]

SashiRolls removed the content with the inane edit summary "why do you think ABC news cut [...] part of her reply and masked the fact she didn't hear the original question?" She was asked whether she believed Assad used chemical weapons twice: The first time, she ignored the question. The second time when the interviewer asked her point blank, she literally said what's quoted above. The fact that the interviewer was relaying a question by a viewer is not relevant at all. Her skirting the question at first is not particularly relevant either, unless the text should say "In July 2019, when asked about whether Assad used chemical weapons, Gabbard at first ignored the question but when asked again point blank, she said, "There's evidence that...continues to come out. I have always said that if that evidence proves that he is guilty, he should be prosecuted."

So not only are there zero legitimate problems with this content, but this is relevant context as to her wish-washy claims regarding Assad's chemical weapons use (the article gives readers the impression that she believes there's "no doubt" that he used chemical weapons whereas the quote above is far less clear-cut). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This article has a problem. It gives far too much WP:WEIGHT to Syria, Assad, chemical weapons, and Tulsi Gabbard's (possibly changing over time) opinion of same. What the reader wants to know when reading this page is [1] How she differs from other democratic candidates (military experience and position on the seven countries where we are currently at war[31]) [2] how she is doing in the polls, and [3] Human interest stuff like the surfing. Her opinion about Assad would be way down on the list.

I am fine with whatever the consensus is about what we say about Assad and chemical weapons, but I strongly oppose having it be more than one long or two short paragraphs. Can we trim it down, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That's completely out of sync with RS coverage of Gabbard. The thing she is by far most notable for, besides being a 2020 candidate, is Assad and Syria. You may think surfing is more interesting than a member of Congress (and possibly future president) running interference for a genocidal dictator, but that's not reflected in RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors who write things like "a member of Congress (and possibly future president) running interference for a genocidal dictator" should not be editing the page of that member of congress. It seriously calls into doubt your ability to edit the article with a WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RGW
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
More bland, blatant ideology from the military-industrial apologists who run Wikipedia. Maybe if people like you wouldn't shove their ideology and evidence-free assertions into every single article about actual progressives, then people would take Wikipedia somewhat seriously.115.41.39.109 (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ABC clip

I have reverted the addition of a selective quote from ABC News, because it is a pretty clear case of spin by omission:

Interviewer: Do you think he [Assad] used chemical weapons? Gabbard: There's evidence that [... has been reported and that] continues to come out. I have always said that if that evidence proves that he is guilty, he should be prosecuted.

@1:54 in the tweet they cite with the actual clip, note also that Gabbard did not hear the original question Also, there are already 45 references to Syria in Gabbard's BLP, none to her Google suit, none to her pointed tackle of Kamala Harris... why do you think that is? Any complaints about my removing this spin? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. That yellow text that was omitted adds literally nothing, but if that's your sole concern, then we can go ahead and add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, can you stop filling this talk page with irrelevant nonsense? If you want to add content about her Google suit and her Harris clash, go ahead and add it, and stop whining about unrelated matters when specific content is being discussed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does. It shows clearly that she was saying there's evidence that "has been reported and continues to come out" that he has used chemical weapons, whereas with the cut it implies the opposite. This is not worth wasting space on. As I said, Assad is already mentioned 20 times on this page, and Syria 45. Enough is enough. Add something new. I saw a fun Spectator article on her takedown of Kamala Harris, for example. ^^

One hallmark of propaganda is endless repetition; the Assad nonsense has been harped on so incessantly that it’s the first thing many simple-minded journalists and politicians think of when they think of Tulsi.

source

Also, please remove "inane", "whitewashing", "irrelevant nonsense", "whining" and any other POV railroading / gaslighting / aggressivity from your previous comments. Thank you. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, the yellow text adds nothing, but if that's your concern, simply adding the yellow text would resolve this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the difference there. I think the upshot is "Gabbard more or less still has the same position", right? I think the specific quote is less important than getting that across - the February 2019 comment about there being "no question" gives the impression that she changed her view, but I don't believe that's accurate. Nblund ^talk 14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What she said in that crowded interview is perfectly compatible with what she said in February 2019 unless you assume she means that the evidence which is being reported and continuing to come out indicates Assad is not guilty of war crimes, which is not at all what she said. The only thing that would satisfy DNC types is if every time she is interviewed she sticks to the DNC script. This adds nothing new to the article. Important Reminder: Editors beliefs are not what we go on to write articles. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

When I say "I don't believe that's accurate", I'm leaving open the possibility that my reading of the sources might be incorrect. I'm not suggesting we should edit based on my beliefs. In 2017 she said she was skeptical that the evidence showed Assad had used chemical weapons against civilians, then in February 2019 we have her quoted as saying that "there's no question" that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Are you saying you don't see any contradiction there? Nblund ^talk 15:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... and we need how many words to say that, for example, before starting a nuclear war by accident she would have liked to see the inculpating evidence, then later once she had seen that the evidence piling up looked pretty good, she reminded people that she has always said, if he's guilty ==> judge him for war crimes. Ha! I just summarized the story in one sentence (though I would love to add another about the number of times she's been asked this question).

Was this question even posed during the debates? If not, why would that be the "citizen question" ABC has her asked in a crowded lobby?

Incidentally, Syr. (63) wins out over Ind. (34) and ol-Bashir (42) on the TP too in terms of number of times mentioned... not so much about the Oprah article (proposed to on a surf-board, it's all about the light, etc.), or her trip to South Dakota, or even those weird whisperings about the Quincy Institute. Curious. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what any of this has to do with the matter at hand, and I'm not interested in debating the merits of her position, I just want to be sure readers don't get an incorrect impression. I agree that "she has always said" that she wants to see the evidence before drawing that conclusion, but then she's quoted in the article saying that "there's no question" that he used chemical weapons - which seems contradictory. The more recent coverage suggests that she still has doubts, and so I think the simplest solution is to just remove that quote. Nblund ^talk 22:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see you've done it already. We'll see what people think. For reference that was added in this edit, back on Feb. 20 (diff). Hope you don't get accused of "whitewashing ABC News content" as I was. What's worse, it was even "longstanding" ABC News content. You are brave. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth - if we are seeking consensus I agree with Nblund ^talk's recent edit and 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c}'s comments. Does this make me brave as well? BattleshipGray (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, this is currently what her website states: "There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war. However, I remain skeptical about two particular CW attacks, one at Khan Sheikhun on April 4, 2017, and the other at Douma on April 7, 2018... there is evidence to suggest that the attacks may have been staged by opposition forces for the purpose of drawing the United States and the West deeper into the war."[32] Upon closer listening of what she said in February 2019, she essentially says the first sentence above. As a result, it's not accurate to give readers the impression that she accepts that Assad used chemical weapons in 2017 and 2018. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so that sort of makes sense. If there's secondary sourced coverage of the hair-splitting, then maybe it's worth covering, but I think the current version (with the quote about "no question" removed) gets the same point across. Nblund ^talk 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously?

Seriously? A $400 campaign contribution when she was running for Honolulu City Council in 2010? That is what we think is important enough to include on her Wikipedia page? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The source used (Civil Beat) says, "Tamblyn’s Twitter attack was off in one respect — Gabbard gets no money from the gun lobby. Her Honolulu campaign did accept $400 from the Hawaii Rifle Association’s political arm in 2010 when she ran for the City Council. But she’s never received political donations from the NRA while in Congress and boasts of receiving an “F” rating from the group on her campaign website." I will remove it before readers think the article was written by Correct the Record trolls. TFD (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this tasty tidbit was added on 19 May 2019. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Snoog has now started reverting by reverting TFD's removal of this $400 donation without discussion. Next they reverted Capriaf's reordering of the Foreign Policy section, reverted to their preferred wording on Iraq, removed a tweet, etc., etc. This is a straightforward 1RR violation. Oh. But wait. Isn't there a technicality about how "if there are no intervening edits it only counts as 1RR even if its 80RR?" I think there may be. Maybe that's why the reverting editor has requested nobody else edit the page while they have the pressure-washer firing? Who knows? I believe SS needs to stop disrupting the page by reverting multiple editors in direct violation of the 1RR and BRD notices on this page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not restore the $400 donation, you brazen liar. Also, what on Earth are you rambling about regarding the reverts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't read your edit, just the summary stating that you were restoring the source. Of course, you can assume bad faith all you want. Incidentally, the history is 1) MrX enters the bit about how Grube thinks Gabbard has a mixed history because she took money from a the Hawaii Rifle Association in 2010. (see diff above) 2) Capriaf adds that it was $400 about a week later to add perspective, 3) TFD, seeing that perspective, removes the sentence entirely, 4) you add a different part of the article back, 5) you accuse me of being a rambling "brazen liar" because I didn't analyze every element of your campaign in fine-toothed detail. I also see that you entered a redundant reference without giving the author inline credit for their extensively quoted words. (sigh) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Gabbard considers the 2003 invasion of Iraq to have been a disaster"

For some reason, this text is in the article:

• Gabbard considers the 2003 invasion of Iraq to have been a disaster[33], in part because victorious withdrawal after removing Saddam Hussein from power was complicated by civil war.[34]

This text is not supported by the sources. This is the only thing the Intercept piece says: "Gabbard has been an outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in the Middle East; from the disastrous Iraq War...". This is the only thing the Politico says: "Gabbard said defining winning or losing in Iraq is difficult because it wasn't a traditional war. "One of the problems we’ve seen today, as well as we saw throughout the time that we spent there, is victory was not clearly defined," Gabbard said on CNN's "State of the Union." "We had many things, we had taking out Saddam Hussein, we had a civil war … had the threat of al Qaeda and terrorists.""

So, neither of the sources refer to the Invasion of Iraq. The latter source (from 2013) does not say she opposes the Iraq War or the Invasion. She does not characterize the Iraq War as a "disaster" in the Intercept source. What she's saying in the Politico piece is not accurately summarized at all. Even though the text is WP:SYNTH gibberish (as explained in my edit summary), it was immediately restored by SashiRolls.

Also, text on her views on the Iraq War needs to be dated accurately. She was after all a soldier in the Iraq War. It is therefore of value to readers to know when she became a critic of the war. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

lol. I've self-reverted in case this was a "get sashi" moment (23h40 minutes since my last revert: honest, officer, it felt like it was 24h!). If anybody thinks "disastrous Iraq War" and "defining winning or losing in Iraq is difficult" & "victory was not clearly defined" do not refer to the Iraq invasion, well... feel free to put your position forth below. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You seriously can't read those three sentences and accurately summarize them? "disastrous Iraq War" is not a Gabbard quote - this is not complicated. "Iraq War" does not necessarily mean "Invasion of Iraq", and it's from 2018. And no, her 2013 remarks in the Politico interview do not necessarily mean she opposed the war. There are plenty of people who supported the war but criticized the planning and conduct of it. This is not complicated, yet you have now restored it twice? What a waste of time, as always. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted this again--apologies, SashiRolls, but I think Snooganssnoogans has the better part of the argument here insofar as that's not a direct quote, and, I believe, a bridge too far to assign that particular wording to Rep. Gabbard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, the only thing I was kind of attached to was providing a link to explain Gabbard's words (cited above from Politico) "we had a civil war..." for those who might not know the history. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons Noticeboard

I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again.

If that does not work, I plan on putting together a case, going to WP:AE, and requesting administrator assistance.

You may ask why I haven't picked a side and started editing the article. While I do have an opinion as to how well each side of the ongoing series of content disputes is following WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, I am also convinced that me jumping in and taking sides at this point will only make things worse.

I will repeat what I wrote at BLPNB: If you are more interested in rooting for Team Read or Team Blue (or rooting for one particular player on Team Blue and against another) than you are interested in NPOV, you should leave this article and edit somewhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The corporate news media & politicians trying to destroy Gabbard, is bad enough. That it would happen on Wikipedia? very sad. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As well, we have Google manipulating search results. I searched for RS to support the Tweet in question (see BLP/N). Nothing showed up in Google. The only results offered by Google gave us no more than a single line from Tulsi's last debate, and all were the same. I had to use "Duck Duck Go" to find 2 sources that covered Tulsi's anti-war/pro-infrastructure views (the gist of her Tweet). Duck Duck Go gave us: NPR, Mt Pleasant News. petrarchan47คุก 01:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Move Political positions to its own 'Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page' …

replacing the redirect and allowing for further expansion there. Humanengr (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The page does not suffer from size problems. There's no need to fork it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

People should always feel free to fork en.wp!! (You only lose its google juice.) Cf. WP:FORK. The WP:SPINOFF has already been suggested and resisted by snoo+X. I have always been in favor of politicans' BLPs being protected from day to day mud-splashing during campaigns. Some influential players are not in favor of affording (certain) "second-tier" candidates this BLP protection. I mentioned this in a noticeboard thread that was spun off from this page, first to BLP/N, then to WP:AN.

Cf. Political positions of Amy Klobuchar 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Intro to Policy positions section

@Snooganssnoogansm Wrt to your removal of the intro text, I propose using the following verbiage extracted from the MSNBC text summarizing the interview at link below.

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

Humanengr (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

That sentence can be added to the US military interventions sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s broader than U.S. military interventions. It bridges foreign policy and domestic policy. Humanengr (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. She's saying war is expensive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not only $ for war; it's also $ for nuclear arms race; she wants to repurpose those $ to domestic needs. Which means it spans both topics.

The problem is that we’ve got a foreign policy establishment, too many politicians in Washington and, frankly, a military-industrial complex that have all been working to amp up tensions between the United States and other nuclear-armed countries — like Russian, and China — putting us into this new Cold War, an arms race that is pushing us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war. The change I’m seeking to bring about is to deescalate these tensions, to stop wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars on these wasteful regime-change wars, this new Cold War and arms race, and take those dollars and invest them in things like healthcare for all, making sure we’ve got clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, making sure that we’re building a strong, green economy with good paying jobs, investing in infrastructure.

Humanengr (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that that sounds like a good overview for the (domestic) policy intro. It is clearly her #1 issue as has been observed by lots of press outlets. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s also broader than domestic policy. That's why it belongs at the top of the Policy positions section. Humanengr (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and SashiRolls: Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding it to the general intro to her policy positions. That's a good place for it.

I also like the liberty of the section title "war machine" instead of the more customary military-industrial complex which apparently written drafts of Eisenhower's speech had labeled the Congressional-military-industrial complex, but Eisenhower chose to change the line after a last minute round of golf ... cf... Joe Rogan's interview of TG (the second one I believe). Still, I'm not sure Gabbard has used the term "war machine" herself, has she? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Campaign email: "Today, our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine. When journalism is deployed as a weapon against those who call for peace, it threatens our democracy as it seeks to silence debate and dissent, creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war."

References

We use secondary reliable sources, we don't pull quotes from interview transcripts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to policy on that? Thx Humanengr (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you should speak in the first person singular, the plural is pretentious. Even then, it depends on the quote in your case, doesn't it? Have you forgotten the number of quotes you pulled from the "post-partisan" WaPo blog post called "Transcript of Jill Stein's meeting with the WaPo editorial board"? (You can count them here, if you'd like...) That said a paraphrase citing NPR, Time (1st debate transcript), etc. would be fine. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems time to revert using my proposal above, which has not met with valid criticism. Humanengr (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Position and title for 'Assange, Snowden, and Manning'

I'm thinking it should be relocated to Foreign policy, titled as-is or as 'Prosecution of Assange, Snowden, and Manning' or ?? Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving it is sensible: all three have been involved in foreign policy matters and Assange is not a US citizen. Since the latter will be argued not to be a "whistleblower", it's best to be circumspect and stick to the basics as you have suggested: they (have) all face(d) prosecution for revealing state/corporate secrets. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

§ Trump administration

I'm thinking this should be moved to Foreign policy and retitled "Interaction with and critique of Trump administration", or some similar but shorter form that is clearer than the current. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

To add to the end of the "2020 presidential campaign" section: During the second democratic debates, Gabbard assailed Senator Kamala Harris over her record as a prosecutor, saying Harris owed an apology to the people who “suffered under your reign.” Ali Rohde (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

Under "Nuclear arms race", please change “Nuclear strategists are talking about how we are at a greater risk of nuclear than we ever have been before.” to “Nuclear strategists are talking about how we are at a greater risk of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1139956997057601536?lang=en https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/2020-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-explains-her-foreign-policy-priorities-62893637721 2604:6000:1209:4061:6419:F6D0:DFB1:111E (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--SharabSalam (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Op-ed or not?

Recently an editor removed this saying it is sourced to an op-ed. I don't find the source op-ed. They are solid sources. Here is the paragraph:

Wajahat Ali, MSNBC news host Joy Reid and several other US news pundits additionally repeated old conspiracy theories about Gabbard on Twitter. A.B. Stoddard, the associate editor of RealClearPolitics summarized the situation as "There are serious knives out for Tulsi Gabbard."

Sources

I went to the talk page but I didn't find discussion about this removal. I think this removal shouldn't pass easily without extensive discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

All of those look like pretty clear-cut opinion pieces to me. Some of the sources are just straight up garbage (Consortium News/Red state) others are obviously editorial content in respected sources (Matt Taibbi/Glenn Greenwald). It might be acceptable to cite the latter with in-text attribution, but they can't be cited for claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice. The paragraph gives the clear impression that Wikipedia is taking a stance on a contested political issue, and that's not going to work.Nblund ^talk 02:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Without a link to an edit, no on can determine what you are discussing. TFD (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to this removal. Most of that was added in an effort to balance this edit I suspect. That Rogin op-ed was really scathing, building as it did to a crescendo at "moral bankruptcy". (cf. § for Rogin's bona fides on ethics) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

PolitiFact check

The simplistic conclusion of the PolitiFact truth-o-meter article is reductive and will not be of interest in 10 years time. Not only does it eliminate the nuance of what Politifact's respondents said in reaching its 0-1 conclusion (nearly all the respondents cited indicate there was some truth in what she was saying about arms), but it fundamentally misrepresents what Gabbard said in the Fox News exit interview cited at the beginning of the article. In that interview, Gabbard talks about the export of Wahhabist ideology, not about weapons. I suggest we can easily find much better sources than this. As such, I have removed it. Anyone disagree?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to the diff you're talking about? I'm not seeing it. In general: a huge chunk of this article fails the 10 year test. I think you're probably right that this may also be WP:UNDUE, but I think that standard needs to be applied more consistently throughout the article as a whole.Nblund ^talk 03:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

diff. You may be right. I've personally deleted 19K more than I've added. You're a relative newcomer (you got here 5 months after me in 2017), so it's not surprising that you've only deleted 2,3K more than you've added. ^^ That said, I'm glad that we've got something that covers a bit more terrain than Assad, Modi, & Gabbard's teenage political positions now.

More generally, though, 1RR restrictions do tend to lead to page expansions as people are hesitant to delete anything or spend the time paraphrasing quote-farms for fear of being dragged off to an EW board. I, for example, have used up my 1RR for the day. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)