Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Previous name

Tulsi Gabbard became Tulsi Gabbard-Tamayo through an arranged marriage in 2002 and she was divorced in 2007. Removed based on no documentation/citation to confirm so-called "arranged marriage'.Tgtfriend 04:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC) .

I can't find sources with dates for her marriage and divorce, but I have found her note to constituents where she mentions the name change; adding it because it helps clarify why in some sources she's "Gabbard" and in some she is "Gabbard Tamayo". Sumana Harihareswara 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"first American Samoan in Congress" citation

It looks like User:174.61.181.47‎ didn't understand that one should actually insert the URL of a relevant news article into the article as a reference, rather than simply in an edit summary. No permanent harm done and I've added the citation. Cheers! Sumana Harihareswara 18:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible ref re: senate seat

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/cory-booker-tulsi-gabbard-hawaii-senate_n_2365658.html

--JBL (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulasi?

The article references her first name on several occasions as being Tulasi instead of Tulsi. Is Tulasi perhaps her legal first name and Tulsi a nickname? By the way, the two links pointing to hoohiki1.courts.state.hi.us (the divorce agreement and the injunction against harassment) are both not working anymore (if they have before). I could not find a replacement, either. --Widerborst (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it possible that Tulasi is or was her legal first name and Tulsi is a nickname, since yes, as you point out, various official sources (such as the White House Fellows candidacy and the legal documents) call her Tulasi. I see that Project Vote Smart says her "Full name" is "Tulsi Gabbard" and a quick skim of Tulsi For Hawai'i filings has her as "Tulsi Gabbard". -- including in places (e.g. this filing) where her dad, Gerald Michael Gabbard, is listed as "Gerald M. Gabbard" rather than by his nickname that he's commonly known by, Mike Gabbard. So maybe she's changed her name since that last court filing? I'll do more digging.

The Hoohiki documents are available, but you have to go to their site first and hit "Enter" and then look at the URL from the reference or directly look up the case number. I don't know any way around that; sorry. Sumana Harihareswara 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So here's something a bit confusing: a legal filing regarding her 2010 city council run (State of Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission records for "Committee: Friends of Tulsi; Report On: 2008-2010 2nd Preliminary Primary July 1 - September 3, 2010"). The campaign bought a few things that summer where she used her own credit card to pay for stuff right away, and this filing records the campaign reimbursing her. Two of the three items say "Tamayo, Tulsi G." and one says "Tamayo, Tulasi G." And then four times in 2012 she lent money to her campaign as "Tamayo, Tulasi G." (April 6th, May 8th, June 14th, and June 22nd 2012). But that implies that even in June of 2012 her name was still "Tamayo," and we know that as of April 2011 she was no longer publicly going by that name; did she never change it? This is quite confusing! Sumana Harihareswara 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your diligent work. I will have a look at it later (I wrote the German Wikipedia article on the Congresswoman, so I am very much interested in the details of the facts). In the mean time, I think it might be an option to e-mail her D.C. office and ask for clarification, ideally together with a request for publically available sources confirming whatever answer would be given (to avoid WP:NOR conflicts). This could potentially shortcut a lot of otherwise neccessary detective work which might not even be as fruitful. --Widerborst (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Around January 25th, Ms Gabbard seems to have been placed on the United States House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. I first noticed this on page for the subcommittee on the Dems' site for the overall committee but now also see it on the subcommittee page of the overall committee. I have been unable to find any actual news sources or announcements by Ms Gabbard herself about this subcommittee assignment, though. --Widerborst (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Military service

Is the subject of this article still an officer in the national guard, or did that end in 2010? The section heading and the content appear to contradict itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

According to her House of Representative website biography "Tulsi continues to serve as a Captain in the Hawai'i National Guard's 29th Brigade Combat Team."[4] However, who knows when that was last updated. — -dainomite   04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See also section

I am not sure what Tulsi Gabbard has in common with the other politicians in the "See also" section (or even why an article on one politician should have a "See also" for other politicians). Gabbard is of Samoan/Causian heritage; the others have Indian ancestry. Gabbard practices a non-Christian religion (as do one or two of the others on the list), but so what? Can we just remove the entire section? Peter Chastain (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed Jindal and Haley. I think the religious "first"s are pertinent and related to a main reason people would want to look up Gabbard (first Hindu in Congress), so I've left Dalip Singh Saund and Ami Bera. But I don't want to put a giant list there including Hank Johnson and Lewis Charles Levin. Are there existing lists of milestones we could point to instead for "first Congressional Representative by religion" and "first Representative of each ethnicity", kind of like List of Jewish political milestones in the United States or the other lists of firsts? I don't see one so maybe I will create one and link to it. Sumana Harihareswara 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Branch?

What branch is she serving in? ANG is not a branch. Images show her with the crossed pistols of the Military Police. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.23.155.84 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

CPT Gabbard is an MP. You can see the crossed pistols and the regimental crest on her uniform. Canute (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And the MP green shoulder boards. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

She is described as a "combat veteran," which is almost surely incorrect. Also, she was apparently in the National Guard and called to active duty a few times, but isn't it true she didn't even do one full hitch on ACDUTRA? In other words, the people who wrote the article didn't explain what her military service was at all.

Awards

What are the sources for the awards, especially this one? Also, does anyone know what kind of award exactly Tulsi Gabbard got from the Kuwait National Guard? --Widerborst (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at her official service photo (see above on this page in the Branch section) and reported what I saw there (it is very easy to recognize the German award). I didn't recognize the Kuwaiti badge, nor could I find it in a cursory search. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a couple of more recent photos (she is wearing the railroad tracks of a captain) and still wearing the German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency in Gold. Also, she appears to have received an oak leaf cluster for her Army Commendation Medal. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Tulsi Gabbard

Cyberbot II has detected links on Tulsi Gabbard which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/city-councilmembers-of-honolulu-hawaii-oppose-bill-54

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Tulsi Gabbard

Cyberbot II has detected links on Tulsi Gabbard which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/city-councilmembers-of-honolulu-hawaii-oppose-bill-54

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tulsi Gabbard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140718084304/http://mauifeed.com/national/whats-hawaii-democratic-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard-up-to-in-washington-these-days/ to http://mauifeed.com/national/whats-hawaii-democratic-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard-up-to-in-washington-these-days/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150219050151/http://www.staradvertiser.com:80/features/featuresstories/20150215_with_this_ring__Quiet_lowkey_approach_to_love_suits_congresswoman_just_fine.html? to http://www.staradvertiser.com/features/featuresstories/20150215_with_this_ring__Quiet_lowkey_approach_to_love_suits_congresswoman_just_fine.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill 54 Controversy

In 2011, Gabbard introduced and strongly pushed for a highly controversial measure, Bill 54, in the Honolulu City Council. This measure authorized City workers to confiscate the belongings of homeless persons by labeling the items as "stored property". Despite strong opposition (including human rights concerns, concerns about potential thievery due to resulting desperation, problems with existing shelters, fiscal concerns regarding the high costs of enforcement, and particularly concerns about Hawai'i's unique constitutional law, Kanawai Mamalahoe, which protects "those who sleep by the roadside"), the measure passed, and became City Ordinance 1129.

Since its passage in late 2011, the City has used overtime county workers to rout homeless people, by taking the belongings (such as blankets, tents, and tarps) that they need to survive outdoors. It has also paid particular attention to the (de)Occupy Honolulu encampment at Thomas Square, an affiliate of the larger Occupy movement, which has been raided by the City 10 times.

Under the ordinance, property is to be stored for a period of 30 days. However, there have been numerous reports of this being practically impossible due to a remote storage location miles from Honolulu, long wait times, a complex system of appointment-making, and flat refusal by the City to return more valuable items (such as generators), making it virtually impossible for indigent persons to reclaim their belongings. City workers have also been on record enforcing the ordinance in controversial ways, such as the confiscation of tagged items from private property, which circulated broadly on internet video.

Thanks for the links to sources. I've added a paragraph about Bill 54 to the "Honolulu City Council tenure" section. Sumana Harihareswara 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can be used to clarify Gabbard stance on the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librab103 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Councilmember Tulsi Gabbard-Tamayo, who introduced the bill, said that the bill is not about the “homeless,” but rather about protecting the right of the public to have free, unfettered access to public facilities and property. Ambiguities regarding the bill are not limited to its implementation. Some of those who support the measure, including Gabbard-Tamayo, acknowledged that it does not address the “homeless” problem in Honolulu. However the State’s Homeless Task Force’s Mark Alexander supported the measure, saying that the bill would encourage the houseless people affected by it to seek the outreach services available to them. He cited encouraging statistics about Honolulu’s “homeless” population, but noted that hard data collected is subject to interpretation.

Untitled

Bill 54 section

No purported benefits of the Bill 54 has been cited in this section.--Helters3 (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to find out how long she was with the DNC and what she did while there.Librab103 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I found this tweet of the letter Gabbard sent to her fellow officers of the DNC which states she has been a vice chair of the DNC for three years. We need to see if we can find a copy of it online.Librab103 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Husband

That link takes you a dead guy from the 1800's. I doubt that is her husband.

There was concern on Huffington Post that her husband was raised by the same so-called ISKON splinter cult as the one she was raised in. Dogru144 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted press release

With this edit, Snooganssnoogans deleted a citation which had been here for a while. I don't see any consensus on this here on the talk page.

what got deleted:

Regarding the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, she said:

"I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling today. Some countries in the world are theocracies. Fortunately, the United States of America is not one of them. Therefore, as long as the government is involved in marriage, it must do so with fairness—treating all Americans equally. Today's ruling by the Supreme Court is an important victory to this end."

References

Can you explain this removal? Your additions in the aforementioned edit also seem to me to be rather POV (including long citations from when Ms. Gabbard was 25 23 rather than paraphrasing, for example). SashiRolls (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Here is a thing that the subject of the article said" sourced exclusively to the subject of the article is not very encyclopedic -- did any secondary sources write about the fact that she said this? If not, I'm inclined to support removal. --JBL (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote is not particularly notable or interesting. Like nearly all Democrats, she supports the ruling. It's a waste of space to include a long bland quote on it. The pages of other Democratic politicians don't include quotes along those lines on the same-sex marriage ruling (e.g. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton). I also just want to note it's very disconcerting to see that someone as emotionally and mentally unstable as yourself is following me around and going to quibble with every single edit I make. All I can say is that I'm extremely glad that this account is anonymous, and that your harassment is limited to Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Coverage in her constituency [5], [6] My opinion is that it is as notable as her statements at 25 23 which come from an article saying she has evolved. SashiRolls (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

For unconventional positions or positions from which politicians have evolved, it definitely makes sense to explain what the rationale for the position was. She was a state legislator at the time, so it's not as if we're talking about the youthful indiscretions of a non-politician. Calling civil unions something that only "a small number of homosexual extremists" support is both a fringe view among Democrats at the time and indicative of how far she has evolved on the issue. It definitely belongs in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted and hope that you will seek consensus before removing any more consensus-based material. I would also suggest you don't mix adding and deleting in the same edit so that it is easier to see what your effective changes to articles are. This has been one of my consistent problems with your edits. Thank you for your help in making a neutral POV encyclopedia. SashiRolls (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You deleted a bunch of well-sourced content and re-introduced a long bland quote, along with other cumbersome text. You then demand of me that I edit differently on Wikipedia so that you'll have an easier time reverting content. This is harassment. As for the substance: There is absolutely zero reason to seek consensus for my edits, as they're completely standard fare and you haven't raised any policy-based reasons for reverting them. You're also blatantly lying by claiming that the long bland quote was "consensus-based material". You have absolutely no idea if it was, you're just here to revert my edits whatever they happen to be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm watching your edits for bias, you know that, especially concerning politicians like Tulsi Gabbard. I reverted your fleshing out of a quote in all its gory glory to make Gabbard look bad, while eliminating entirely the newer position that would make her look less "fringe". I know that the DNC is annoyed because Gabbard resigned, but I don't think this is a reason for unaligned editors to start rewriting Tulsi Gabbard's LGBT section on her Wikipedia page.SashiRolls (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if both of you would stop with all forms of personal attacks and other personalized comments -- they are inappropriate, unconstructive, and in violation of wikipedia policy. I invite each of you to go through your comments here and strike the personalized parts. There is certainly scope here to have a content-focused conversation. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We have reached a neutral position on the article. I would not be opposed to paraphrasing Gabbard's new position, but am opposed to fleshing out Gabbard's position 12 years ago and deleting her more recent positions. That's all there is to it in terms of content. SashiRolls (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You are simply restating your a priori position as if it were the result of a discussion that hasn't happened. So far, two neutral editors have weighed in; I have expressed skepticism of your position and V.M. has reverted you. I strongly opposed inclusion of long, mundane quotes from press releases; if you want to write something proper using secondary sources, go ahead, but you haven't done that. I am also skeptical of your position on the older stuff, though I haven't thought as much about it yet. I am going to revert to the last version before the personal attacks broke out and we can continue to discuss how to rewrite it. --JBL (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, Wikipedia principle that I feel should be invoked: WP:UNDUE. Eliminating a recent two-line press-release which actually is rather remarkable insofar as it directly criticizes Islamic theocracies, and adding full quotes from when she was 23 years old (12 years ago) which had been summarized by the Original Poster (OP) perhaps too "summarily"... there is grounds for work. I will come halfway and propose the following paraphrase: In June 2015, Gabbard issued a statement supporting Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision which legalized same-sex marriage, arguing that the United States was not a theocracy. This should be placed in chronological order, so as to mirror the evolution in her thinking due to her tour of duty. (or so it seems to me) SashiRolls (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

References

For full disclosure JBL be aware that I drew VM's attention to this matter here.SashiRolls (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Citing squarespace

In the edit cited in the previous section, User:Snooganssnoogans, you changed the tense of the verb from the past tense (which corresponded to a 2012 article) to the present perfect. Could you explain what led you to do that, given that the source you consulted was a dead link to what looks like it might have been a blog opinion piece? http://www.expression808.com/home/2012/7/5/tulsi-gabbards-moment-of-truth.html  ?? SashiRolls (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fruit Salad

Medals and awards, affectionately known as fruit salad, have been interpreted for me as follows: Combat Medic Badge, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster denoting a 2nd award, Army Achievement Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with 1 Bronze Star, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Mobilization Device, Army Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, Reserve Component Overseas Ribbon. I assume they are in order from top to bottom, left to right. I seek to source these with clickable links to verifiable text, but service members tend to be able to visually verify them from photographs. Leaving this here so I don't forget. Hello everyone :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Gabbard's Parents

There seems to be significant disagreement about whether basic information about Gabbard's parents should be included in her article. I looked at some featured articles, which are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, including both content and style/format, that are biographies of living people, and they seem to include basic information about the biographed person's families, especially their parents. For example, the article on Barack Obama has basic information about his parents and their birthplaces, as does Mitt Romney. Furthermore, I quickly found several good article that do the same, such as Joseph McCarthy and Bill Clinton. Almost all good articles or featured articles on US federal political figures included basic information about their parents. Therefore, I believe it is not necessarily justified to remove basic information about Gabbard's parents on the basis of it being not relevant. Matt18224 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentences in question focus for no discernable reason on the citizenship of her parents. They break the flow of the paragraph, violating both the chronological and logical order of information. If you think some part of this information should be included, I invite you to add it in a way that doesn't make the paragraph worse. --JBL (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gabbard was born in American Samoa, and children born in American Samoa are not automatically granted citizenship at birth unless at least one of their parents is a US citizen. Considering she's a holder of public office and has been in the media spotlight since her endorsement of Senator Sanders, many would consider her citizenship to be relevant to her biography, just as John McCain's was during the 2008 Presidential election, since both were born outside of the continental United States. I agree that the paragraph does not flow particularly well because of the placement/wording of those sentences, but you're also welcome to reword it and improve it in the future if you feel such edits will contribute to the quality of the article. Matt18224 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

McCain's citizenship was in the news because he was running for president and one of the constitutional requirements for that office is to be a natural-born citizen. There were lots of RSs about it. The source being used in the current section is only dubiously an RS, and it says nothing about T. Gabbard's citizenship as far as I see.

Your rewritten version is certainly an improvement over the restored version, thank you. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Matt18224: Maybe it is the election season, but that citizen stuff seems to be in fashion lately. However unless reputable, serious newspapers/media outlets do discuss her citizenship, this is non-issue for Wikipedia. Having said that however I see no problem with adding one or two sentences about her parents. Information about the ancestry is only optional, but certainly not forbidden. In doubt, in particular in the case of disagreements between editors, we simply follow the representations in the most reputable sources on her. If such sources provide information on her ancestry, so do we and if they don't then we don't.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In light of Trump's 'diversity initiative' in his Cabinet, discussing Tulsi Gabbard's parents may be germane. MaynardClark (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Tulsi isn't a right-winger on refugees.

Greetings. I sent a message and her staff sent me this:

https://www.facebook.com/VoteTulsi/posts/1293470697376013

She isn't a right-winger on the issue of refugees.

--2001:4646:18D3:0:5056:EB85:A4FD:7885 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources in terms of how to describe politicians, not editors' interpretations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Syrian trip edits supporting links

1. Allegations about people accompanying her trip denied by Khawam -"Total garbage," echoed Khawam, denying any association with the SSNP. "They're going to be hearing from our lawyers about all of this."

1. Gabbard's post travel disclosure forms

Rajo89 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Snooganssnoogans, Rajo89, please knock it off. You've been going back and forth on a 5000-byte edit that spans the entire article, and this is bad behavior on both sides. Some of the changes by Rajo89 are obvious improvements; I've put a few of those in again. Some are obviously not improvements: if the only source for something is a Gabbard press release or congress.gov, then it hasn't received third-party secondary-source attention and doesn't belong in here. It would be great if you would attempt a non-personalized discussion about these edits, one at a time. (Snooganssnoogans, it would be helpful in particular if you would make an attempt to distinguish between the additions that are improvements and those that are not, rather than just blanket-reverting repeatedly. Rajo89, it would be helpful in particular if you would stop making additions that have been opposed repeatedly on the talk page.) --JBL (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joel B. Lewis. I will like to clarify a few things: 1) I did add stuff sourced from Gabbard's press releases or congress.gov that didn't have secondary-source. I will try to find secondary sources for these. I don't see anything in the talk page that has been opposed that I added, but I will double check. 2) Is the opinion of Bannon that is still in the article (in the Trump section) and that I think should be removed, relevant to the article? There are many congresspeople or others in the administration who have given opinions about Gabbard that have received media coverage, but it doesn't seem like a congressperson's wiki should included such things, unless it's a endorsement for their election.Rajo89 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

→Also I'd like to remove this sentence - "The Hill described Gabbard's stance on refugees as "right-leaning"" - this is an opinion of Bannon cited by the Hill, rather than a fact. A more objective source is NumbersUSA that advocates for lower immigration and for reducing refugee fraud ranks her a D Rajo89 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add the NumbersUSA score but don't remove the Hill article. The Hill article is not an opinion piece and it does describe Gabbard's stance on refugees as "right-leaning". This Atlantic article also describes her "her alignment with Republican senators on Syrian refugees coming to the U.S."[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So the actual quote is "her more right-leaning stances on guns, refugees and Islamic extremism." This is clearly a characterization of the author of the Hill piece, not of Bannon. On the other hand, the involvement of Gabbard in that article is minimal: it is literally just a single sentence, and that sentence carries no analysis or information to support its characterization, so not a great source. Moreover, our article currently misrepresents the Hill: "more right-leaning" [than who or what?] is quite different from "right-leaning" unqualified. Meanwhile, is there any reason to think NumbersUSA is a good-quality source for information like this? (It's some kind of political advocacy group, right? Does it have a reputation for good-quality analysis of politicians?) My inclination is to remove both. --JBL (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This Atlantic article also describes her "her alignment with Republican senators on Syrian refugees coming to the U.S."[8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic reference is based on this, which looks even better as a source. Neither the Atlantic piece nor the Tribune-Herald piece it references support "right-leaning." It is not clear to me that a discussion of a particular bill about Syrian refugees is a natural fit for a section with the broad title "immigration." --JBL (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joel B. Lewis. I don't feel the following is relevant to her wiki. As I mentioned above, there are lots of media articles where congresspeople have opined on on her. It doesn't make sense to include everyone's opinion unless it was an endorsement for her election

"Gabbard did not join the 169 congressional Democrats who signed a letter of opposition to Stephen Bannon's appointment as Trump's chief strategist.[160][161] Bannon has described himself as a "big fan" of Gabbard.[162] According to one source, "He loves Tulsi Gabbard,” and another source said that he “wants to work with her on everything."[163]"Rajo89 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Gabbard has received considerable coverage over her interactions with the Trump administration. It is totally notable that she did not sign the letter. It is also notable that Bannon admires her, according to a significant number of reliable sources. 21:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting help with sources

I'd love some help finding sources on the following topics:

• Her positions on education, gun control, health care reform, China, torture, Iran, civil liberties, Israel, marijuana legalization/the war on drugs, Cuba, North Korea, tariffs and trade, defense spending, progressive taxation, campaign finance, and euthanasia.
  • This Truthout interview has some hints but I'd like something more detailed.
• Gabbard's political stance on SOPA and PIPA. I know she was at least interested in them: "Check this out - see where your members of congress stand on SOPA/PIPA and contact them: https://projects.propublica.org/sopa/" (Jan 19 2012 tweet that originally contained a bitly link)
• Gabbard's view on the war in Iraq, which she served in. What does she believe now, and what did she believe when she first enlisted?
  • She now says, "I was against the war in Iraq. We never should have gone there in the first place." Can anyone help me find what she said when she volunteered to serve in Iraq?
• Any influence she had on Mike Gabbard's party switch from Republican to Democrat. One sort of weak source says that she did push for that.

• The press release on her dad's party switch mentions her. Sumana Harihareswara 21:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Her political differences with her father. Did he campaign with her during the House race? He had previously used his site to announce that she won a City Council seat, but after she split with him on the same-sex marriage issue, did he ever publicly make statements supporting her political career? - "On the evening in August 2012 when Tulsi won the Democratic primary, Mike was all smiles for the cameras. He showed unconditional support for his daughter, despite the fact she publicly rejected his hatred of our people 3 months ago, right here on the pages of eXpression! Magazine." I can find photos of them together during the campaign, but no statements.
• The date of her marriage, the date of her divorce, and the startdates and enddates of her deployments. Pretty much all the coverage I can find of her early military and political career refer to her as Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo so I figure she must have gotten married in 2002 or earlier, but I can't find a wedding announcement. Her April 30th, 2011 update to constituents says that she "divorced a few years ago, shortly after I returned home from an 18-month long Iraq deployment with the Hawai'i Army National Guard", and she's had two deployments, 2004-2006 and 2008-2009. Her About page says that her first deployment was 12 months long; so I infer that her second deployment was 18 months, and that her divorce followed.

• I found the divorce filing but it's kind of hard to find the date of her marriage. Sumana Harihareswara 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• The date of this photo: "Senator Mike Gabbard and his wife, Carol, welcomed their daughter, former State Representative & First Lieutenant, Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, and hundreds of other Hawai'i Army National Guard soldiers home at a ceremony at Barbers Point on August 18th" -- what year?
• Her campaign managers for the House election. When did she hire Max Glass (who was her campaign manager as of November 2012), and was her campaign manager ever Devon or Devin Bull?
• Residence questions during her City Council run. - "Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo easily won a City Council seat this year despite questions about her ties to the district" - what concerns? Is it just a baseless smear?
• Why she won the Democratic primary for HI2, especially given Hanneman's early lead. One forum commenter, "Sir Montego", suggests: "I think this is the result of the Sierra Club endorsement destroying Mufi's environmental record (IMHO CD2 people care more about the environment than city slicker CD1 people) and supporters of the other two candidates realizing that they shouldn't throw away their votes on someone who has no chance to win." Stronger sourcing and analysis would be welcome. I'll probably end up putting the majority of the detail into United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii, 2012#District 2.
• The specifics of her faith and religious practice. Here are some bits I can source and bits I can't:

• She was raised Hindu ("my parents raised all five of us with an important value of "karma yoga" and always wanting to be of service through everything that we do") and practices japa meditation. In the Rediff interview, she says "I'm a Vaishnava in the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya. As a Vaishnava, my perspective of Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma comes from the Bhagavad Gita." From Indo American News: she plans to swear in on the Bhagavad Gita. From HuffPo we know a few of her favorite Gita verses.

• This speech by Gabbard includes her quoting from the Brahma Samhita and Sri Isopanishad. Sumana Harihareswara 14:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Does she attend a temple? She attended a temple dedication ceremony in October 2012 and visited a Hindu monastery in January 2012 and attended a memorial event at ISKCON Hawaii on 19 Aug 2012 to mourn the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin. But none of those imply that she regularly attends services at any of those locations. (From my own experience as a Hindu I would say that it's not too unusual to simply pray at home instead of regularly going to a temple.)
• Does she follow Jagad Guru Siddhaswanupananda Paramahamsa? A kind of thirdhand report says she does, but I'd like something stronger.

• Her small business. Her current Twitter profile describes her as "Member of Congress. Soldier. Small biz owner. Healthy Hawaii Coalition. Doing my best to be of service." But her About page doesn't mention her currently running or owning a business - just mentions that, when she was younger, she helped her parents with their family business. What is the current small business? In 2002, as "Tulasi Gabbard Tamayo", she listed her occupation as "Self-employed martial arts instructor and coordinator for nonprofit environmental education program". Is that it?
  • This BusinessInsider piece implies it was a film production company.
• Her experience with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was repealed in September 2011, and I remember reading that she mentioned that she was proud to be the person who implemented its repeal in her unit, but I can't find the article now. Can you?

Thanks to anyone who can help. I'm happy to move stuff from the Talk page into the article so you can drop links into this section if that's easier for you. Sumana Harihareswara 13:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Logan Act

This edit ("Gabbard has been accused of violating the Logan Act...") is objectionable for a number of reasons. Per "Unsupported attributions", it does not tell us who has accused her. It does not actually say what the Logan Act is, making it appear serious. In fact no one has ever been tried or convicted under the act although there was an indictment of a Kansas farmer over 200 years ago. Also in order for it to have weight, we need to show that it has received attention in secondary sources. Finally, the source is a blog and fails rs. Bear in mind this is a "Biography of a living person". TFD (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The author of the article is a recognized authority on the issue. Lawfare is furthermore recognized as a reliable and notable source. Your own original research and assessments of the legality of her actions are irrelevant. As for attributing the concerns over her violating the Logan Act, we can simply quote NPR: " raised the potential of a Logan Act violation when Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii met with Syrian leader Bashar Assad"[9], the Guardian: "Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act"[10], the Week: "Some reporters have questioned whether Gabbard's meeting may have violated the Logan Act"[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

My "own original research and assessments of the legality of her actions" is a paraphrase of what the source says, which apparently you have not read. The notability of the source is irrelevant because "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." Policy says we should use caution in quoting blogs as they are not subject to factchecking. Articles are supposed to reflect the weight of published opinion, and the same policies apply to all subjects. No secondary source has quoted the blog. TFD (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are several sources which refer to the possible breach of the Logan Act in connection with the Syria trip. Most of these sources mention this point in relation to the trip where she met Assad in Syria. This (and the response to this, including criticism) is already covered in the article. None of these sources think that there's much chance of a prosecution or conviction, and many note that nobody has been prosecuted under the act for basically forever. Therefore, I am not sure if one should mention this point, which everyone agrees is not going to go anywhere, even if true. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there some reason this aricle is whitewashed of all mention of Gabbard's close ties to Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson?

That seems like a pretty notable fact about a Democratic member of Congress who presents herself as a champion of progressivism.[12] — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia articles require reliable sources, not partisan hit-pieces. Gabbard was honored by the Jewish "World Values Network," which chose Adelson to be one of the co-hosts. The Network has also honored Sean Penn, Yoko Ono. While Gabbard co-sponsored the Adelson-supported Restoration of America's Wire Act to ban state on-line gambling, the opposition to the bill came from Grover Norquist, backed by Adelson's casino rivals. (Hillary Clinton took their side and unlike Gabbard their donations for her superpac.) So all we have is proof that Gabbard met Adelson once. The state of Hawaii was one of only two states to oppose allowing state gambling, so that could be an explanation for her vote.

Had Gabbard refused her award or opposed the bill, her detractors would have said she refused an award from a Jewish charity and joined Grover Norquist and Los Vegas casino owers in allowing online gambling. It's like a coin toss in Iowa, she loses either way.

TFD (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Biracial

Why does this keep getting removed? Mike Gabbard, her father, is clearly not white. He was not just "born in American Samoan" (someone keeps editing this in) but of Samoan descent.

She identifies as mixed (is also Hindu), and is biracial as a matter of law. So please stop removing this. Steeletrap (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought those laws were repealed in the 60s. I don't see you making those changes to the Obama, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren articles. As always, we should be guided by how reliable sources normally describe her. When I type in ""tulsi gabbard" "biracial"" to Google news, I get only two hits.[13] ""tulsi gabbard" "mixed race"" gets seven hits.[14] TFD (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You're the guy who tried to tendentiously edit on the Hitler's religious views page, right? Falsely claiming that the Table Talks were a forgery and that Hitler was a Christian?

Anyway, there are thousands of hits to those terms on Google. There will be more as Gabbard gets into the national spotlight. Steeletrap (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty early in the discussion to bring up Hitler, I think. Per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", we'll have to see how the media describes her if and when she gets more media attention. TFD (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

She describes herself as a mixed race woman on the biography section of her personal site. That settles this issue.

ANd i wasn't calling you Hitler, dopey. I was referencing prior bad-faith editing on your part. https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard Steeletrap (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the term "biracial" in general does not meet the intellectual standard of the Wikipedia. And certainly should not be used without a strong case to do so, which I do not see here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Look up policies and guidelines on weight and the lead. It may be that when you think of Gabbard the first thing you think about is race mixing. But our guide is what reliable sources find most important. If they say anything at all, it is that her father was an American Samoan, which is already in the article. That may change if and when her profile increases, but this article is not the place to lead the change. TFD (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

She describes herself as mixed-race in a very short biography on her website, to which . You may, TFD, believe that America is a color-blind society, and that any reference to race is itself racist or an attempt to re-establish miscegenation laws. But many Americans, esp. non-white, would disagree. Being mixed race is an important marker of identity for many people in the United States. Unless you are disputing Gabbard's parentage, I think that we have to go off WP:Aboutself. Steeletrap (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You have to read up on neutrality because it does not mean we highlight facts you consider important but ones that reliable sources consider important. TFD (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Self-identification is pretty clear on this one: "I was raised in a multiracial, multicultural, multi-faith family." ([15]) "As a mixed race woman, combat veteran, martial artist, lifelong vegetarian, and practicing Hindu, she also is the embodiment of the type of diversity which is at the very heart of what America was founded upon." ([16]) I don't see a clear preference among "biracial," "multiracial," or "mixed-race" here, but put one of the above in.--Carwil (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you were writing an article about her for a newspaper then you could use your personal judgment to determine what was important. But since this is an encyclopedic article and a tertiary source, we must place emphasis on what reliable secondary sources say about her rather than we find important. Balancing aspects says articles should "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." TFD (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship

The statement on Gabbard's citizenship is sourced to a statute. I have proposed to tag the sentence as "better source needed." I found a source that supports the statement (http://www.samoanews.com/local-news/why-american-samoans-cant-run-office-or-even-vote), but am not certain whether it is reliable and do not have time to check into it, so I have not added it. Thoughts, anyone? SunCrow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Kuwait

A Google search revealed different dates for Gabbard's military service in Kuwait. Some sources say she went there in 2008, while others say 2009. I have submitted a proposed edit that would remove the 2009 date from the article and leave the statement dateless. SunCrow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Short description content removal rationale

@Power~enwiki, why did you make this edit? Is there a reason you want the military content out of the short description? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Active Duty is misleading; members of the military are not allowed to be on active duty while serving in Congress. It also doesn't match with how other politican summaries are handled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of controversy over missed Veterans hearing

Not sure of the best way to add this, but this was a really big deal for veterans considering the frequent focus of her work in congress. I would appreciate if someone could add this.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/tulsi-gabbard-surfing-111659

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/07/tulsi-gabbard-veterans-surfing_n_5948176.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.73.7 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems too trivial. I cannot find any mention in major news networks. So Gabbard once missed a senate hearing because the people she was meeting earlier were late for their appointment. And she wasn't even a senator. TFD (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed too trivial/minor for an encyclopedic biography. Aside from that it smacks a bit of a pseudo-controversy anyhow, the classic politicking move when you can't find a real controversy, manufacture one or hype some trivial stuff.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Unless this ends up generating significant coverage somewhere down the road, it doesn't appear worth mentioning based on that coverage. Nblund ^talk 01:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting news analysis of her presidential candidacy for possible content expansion

• Tulsi Gabbard the Jill Stein of 2020?

"The Democratic candidate’s perplexing, Bannonesque foreign policy and passivity toward Assad may make her radioactive. And then there is the homophobia."

• Gabbard-Hirono clash shocks Hawaii

"Tulsi Gabbard publicly criticized fellow Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono’s questioning of a judicial nominee."

• Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard accuses fellow Democrats of ‘religious bigotry’ in questioning judicial nominee

"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a potential 2020 White House contender, is accusing some of her fellow Democrats of “religious bigotry” in their questioning of one of President Trump’s judicial nominees."

• Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President

"The enigmatic congresswoman has earned substantial praise from many across the right—from Fox News star Tucker Carlson to white nationalists like David Duke."

• Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 Campaign May Be Over Before It Starts

"The congresswoman from Hawaii’s past is filled with anti-LGBTQ activism, calls for bombing Syria and endorsing torture"

• What Is Tulsi Gabbard Fighting For?

"Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, spoke highly of Gabbard during the 2016 election. A source from the transition team told the Hill that Bannon loved Gabbard and wanted to work with her “on everything.” That praise precipitated a meeting with the then-incoming president and his team at Trump Tower shortly after the election, at which time it was rumored that Gabbard was in the running for secretary of State."

- MrX 🖋 13:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There are mostly highly opinionated sources. The first one btw reminds me of National Enquirer articles. It's headline asks the question that no one was asking, "IS TULSI GABBARD THE JILL STEIN OF 2020?" It then goes on to say those fears are "probably overblown." CNN and other sources have provided analysis on Gabbard's foreign policy, early opposition to LGBT rights, etc. and are better sources. At least they try to provide various opinions. TFD (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm don't really agree, but there is a common thread of sources asking whether she is actually a viable candidate. Of course they were saying that in 2015 about another questionable candidate, so who really knows.- MrX 🖋 02:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article says, "Critics have accused her of being an “Assad shill” and therefore also a “Putin puppet”....Gabbard has offered vociferous support for India’s staunchly nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, who, as chief minister of Gujarat, was accused of complicity in a 2002 religious riot against Muslims that killed more than 1,000 people....Gabbard’s presidential aspirations are probably dead on arrival....That doesn’t leave many constituents in Gabbard’s corner—except, perhaps, RT." I guess you and I disagree on what the word "opinionated" means. I suppose you may be right that Gabbard would respond that it was a fair and accurate summary of her position. To me, I humbly submit, it is opinionated.

We could routinely mention that Clinton and Bush supported a war in which 1 million people died and the U.S. spent trillions of dollars and it was justified by intelligence rejected by every single independent commentator. That would be true and reliably sourced but probably seen as opinionated.

TFD (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Science of Identity

It's surprising that this isn't even mentioned in this article [17], [18].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be be the same reason the Hillary Clinton article does not mention the Clinton body bags and the Obama article does not mention the dispute about his place of birth. They were unwarranted theories. An investigation by the Honolulu Civil Beat found no evidence of any connection between Gabbard and the Science of Identity Foundation.[19] TFD (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TFD: What article are you referencing? That's just a link to the site. More recent reporting still indicates that her father is connected to Chris Butler - the guy who runs the group. That doesn't mean it's necessarily worth mentioning here, but that connection seems supported. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. It should now link to the article that says, "Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee." The Daily Beast article does say her father was linked to Butler, whatever that means, although he was a Catholic and member of the Knights of Columbus. Presumably he was never a member or devotee. Probably best to see if it becomes an issue in the media at which point expect responses and informed commentary so that we can report the facts. TFD (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Civil Beat article is from 2015. The more recent New Yorker article straight-up calls her a Butler disciple. I'm a little confused by the contradiction here, but it seems like both Butler and Gabbard were actually interviewed for the New Yorker article, and Gabbard seems to acknowledge that he's a spiritual leader "...“I’ve never heard him say anything hateful, or say anything mean about anybody,” she says of Butler. “I can speak to my own personal experience and, frankly, my gratitude to him, for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me, and to so many people.” Maybe she decided to address the connection openly? I don't think this should be over-emphasized, but a major profile of her really puts quite a bit of emphasis on that connection. Nblund ^talk 02:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker article does not seem to have attracted any media attention. In Barak Obama#Religious views there is a brief mention of Reverend Wright, who became a major issue in the 2008 campaign and news media showed endless clips of Wright saying "God damn America." Obama attended his church for sixteen years. I think it is better to see whether mainstream media establish weight for the story, at which point we will be able to report the story accurately. TFD (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker article IS media attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this been covered by other major news organizations? I'm not convinced this is worthy of inclusion at this point.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hawaii papers have covered it pretty extensively. Recent coverage from Washington Monthly and the National Interest. The New Yorker profile is probably the most extensive national-level coverage she has received up to this point - and it's already cited in the article - so I'm not sure why some mention of this wouldn't be warranted in her bio. I think we should avoid discussing it in a way that implies that it is a scandal, but it seems reasonable to at least include some mention in the stuff about her early life and upbringing/personal life sections. Nblund ^talk 20:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I won't stand in anyone's way.- MrX 🖋 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I erred on the side of caution and just added one sentence on it in the section on her personal life - there's already a fairly detailed discussion of her religious views in that section so this seems like a sensible fit. This may be worth revisiting if this starts to be picked up as a major issue in her campaign, but I do think we should avoid the more sensational speculation that some of the coverage delves in to. Nblund ^talk 00:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And I erred on the side of caution and removed it for now. How notable is this "material" really and should it be included and why?? --Malerooster (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the topic of the preceding discussion, are you asking me to rehash it? I would characterize it as "fairly notable" because we have 3 different articles (including a major profile in the New Yorker) that discuss her relationship with Butler in detail. At a minimum, it seems like it is at least as notable as the other details in that section such as her Vedic-style wedding or her martial arts instruction. Nblund ^talk 00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to rehash it, thank you, maybe others can comment. Yes, those other details seem pretty trivial. The "material" about her "connection" to Butler seems more pointy, if thats a word. --Malerooster (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed "Gabbard has expressed admiration for Chris Butler, a leader of an offshoot group of Hare Krishna devotees based in Hawaii." I find the sentence inapt for an encyclopedic article. It doesn't explain who Chris Butler is, why he was controversial (or even if he was) or what the real connection was. A politician expressing admiration of someone is in itself not unusual. There are many moons until Iowa and New Hampshire and we can wait for CNN etc. to cover the controversy and then be able to cover it fairly. TFD (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's a uncontroversial statement of fact that summarizes her own quote about Butler in that profile. I'm not sure what your objection is here - but that sounds like an argument for more detail, rather than less. Her connection to the Hare Krishna movement is helpful for understanding how she came to Hinduism as a westerner. Butler appears to have been a pretty central influence in her spiritual life. It's not inherently controversial to express admiration for a new age religious leader, so why would we detail other aspects of her religious views and ignore this one? Nblund ^talk 02:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not include at least a mention of Gabbard's relationship to the religious organization headed by Chris Butler in this article? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Because this is decided through editorial consensus. What "relationship" does she have exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not really an argument. Here's more coverage today from Vox.com: "Tulsi Gabbard grew up in Butler’s movement, which has faced allegations of cult-like practices. She told the New Yorker’s Kelefa Sanneh that he shaped her Hindu identity, speaking of her “gratitude to him for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me.”". The article goes on to discuss the connection between her ties to Butler and her past views on gay rights. Nblund ^talk 17:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Vox has never been presented at RSN, but its "explanatory journalism" which explains reality from a New Democrats perspective makes it suspect. The author actually worked for Think Progress and has no education or experience in journalism outside these two questionable outlets. I don't know what he means by saying Gabbard "grew up" in a Hindu cult when she and her family were church going Catholics. But more importantly is the issue of weight, specifically the section Balancing aspects:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. 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.

The fact that a publication dedicated to one faction of the Democratic party chooses to run an article trashing a member of a rival faction is only noteworthy if mainstream media decide to cover it.

TFD (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Intercept article in her entry is also interesting. Looking into her crystal ball, I suspect Gabbard sees her faith and religious practice might be a campaign issue if she was already invoking JFK's position on his religion in 2017. The pull-quote that was added with the New Yorker reference is just too fun! The meat-packers best get their lobbies lorries rolling. My real question: TFD are you talking about the New Yorker or Vox? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article "How Tulsi Gabbard went from rising star to pariah — and then presidential candidate" in Vox. As I explained, for people who are extensively covered in mainstream media it violates weight to bring in "news" that is ignored by the mainstream news media. But anyone who wants to see extensive negative information in this article should take solace from the probability that mainstream media will provide it if Gabbard becomes seen as a serious contender. If she wins the nomination, watch them suddenly switch support to Trump at least until the election. TFD (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"Extensive negative coverage" seems like an odd way to characterize a single sentence paraphrase based on her own statements. I think it's probably time to try to get some outside feedback, but just so I'm clear here: you aren't disputing the factual accuracy of any of the reporting any more, but your position is still that any mention of Chris Butler is verboten in this article, because the The New Yorker doesn't count as the mainstream media? Nblund ^talk 23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I saying that (a) we don 't know what Gabbard's connection with Butler is/was and (b) the facts and opinions in The New Yorker have not received the degree of media attention that is required by weight. In fact most news media publish original stories that other outlets ignore. Can you explain how inclusion meets the requirements of the Bslancing aspects policy. TFD (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't know the precise nature of the connection, but reliable sources have reported that her parents were part of Butler's group, that Gabbard grew up around other members of the group, and that Gabbard has called him her guru and talked about his central role in her spiritual development - are you disputing the accuracy of any part of that? As Volunteer Marek already pointed out: the New Yorker article itself is media attention. Where in either WP:DUE or WP:BALASPS does it say that other outlets need to report on the reporting to qualify a due? Nblund ^talk 15:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A single source is not "the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The test is whether or not the bulk of mainstream media has paid attention to it. Also see Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which is part of the verifiability policy: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It certainly is exceptional to claim that a public figure who is a practicing Catholic was in fact a member of a Hindu cult. Bear in mind that BLP policy states, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability." TFD (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard about this. Nblund ^talk 17:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Historical LGBT positions in the lead

Since we announced her candidacy in the lead, it is only reasonable to write about something closely related and widely reported.

Shortly after announcing her candidacy, she drew scrutiny for anti-gay remarks she made in the 1990s and early 2000s.

I don't see a valid reason for deleting this short sentence summarizing a significant point.- MrX 🖋 13:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As the other person pointed out what is new is not necessarily the most notable.80.111.40.28 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It was first reported in 2002. That's not new. - MrX 🖋 15:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia added every controversy a political candidate has had then leads of articles would be never-ending.80.111.40.28 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Considerable space in the body is devoted to her past anti-LGBT positions and statements which are fairly extreme for a Democrat (not just the standard 'opposed to same-sex marriage'). Seems fine to mention in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like WP:RECENTISM to me, given the focus on the present (and possibly fleeting) scrutiny of her views, rather than a focus on her views. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This should just be written up as a "X held anti-LGBT positions but changed over time". It shouldn't be framed as "she was criticized for holding anti-LGBT positions". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. She was this way but now she's that way. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with something like that, as long as we don't sugar coat the fact that she actively worked against LGBT rights.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article with weight proportionate to the body. Since there is so much about this in the rest of the article, it needs to be mentioned in the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean that we have to ignore things just because they are current events, and it's obvious from the coverage that this is going to continue to be a persistent question for her. Her LGBT views have been an issue for about as long as she has been a national figure. Nblund ^talk 17:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim that it will obviously continue, though likely, is just speculation at this point, so recentism is a valid criticism.

Another thing to note is that none of the other declared or potential candidates have a note about what they're most scrutinized for directly after the sentence stating that they're running, or anywhere in the lead for that matter. For example, Warren doesn't have a note in the lead saying she has come under scrutiny for her claims of Native American ancestry. You could also argue this will be a persistent scrutiny during her campaign. It would be an overbearing standard to include politicians' controversies in the lead, as a previous editor mentioned here.

If an addition about these older views of hers to the lead is insisted upon, I'd suggest modifying the relevant part in the previous paragraph, e.g.:

"... has called for a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, previously opposed but changed her stance to support same-sex marriage in 2012." 107.77.204.173 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions

I have asked @Snooganssnoogans: to limit themselves to making transparent changes to the article rather than making massive changes to the article. Most of the changes proposed are controversial and will need TP discussion according to the BRD process. A single example to explain the method being used... in the minimum wage section, a throwaway sentence about how TG thought both Republicans and Democrats bore some responsibility is cited to an article about Assad. Many articles about Assad are added, many articles not about Assad are removed. A counterterrorism section is relabeled "Islam" and the lawfare article they added is now removed because they don't seem to like that the article says that she had in fact cleared her trip... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Why, Snooganssnoogans, don't you think rules apply to you? You've reinstated your edits without discussion of any of the relevant questions raised above. Specifically, the deletion of the counterterrorism section, the complete respinning of the Syria section, etc., for which you would have needed to get talk page consensus. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This is what your edit summary stated: "please make major changes like this section by section; many things were deleted without comment".[20] I followed your request and did the changes "section by section". I have now self-reverted the text given that your complaint (as expressed in the edit summary) has shifted, you're now making threats, and that it's clear that you simply intended to block any and all changes made by me and force every single change to go through you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This was a general comment about your habit of making wholesale changes; it was independent of the BRD rules. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My edit can be seen in its entirety here[21]. The individual changes can also be observed on the page's history[22]. The changes are all improvements. As for the few substantive arguments provided by Sashirolls against the changes, (1) the text from a "counterterrorism" section has been moved into correct sections (most of it into a Syria section and one sentence into an "Islam" section), (2) the text sourced to the Lawfare article was misleadingly written up and falsely suggested to readers that Gabbard was sent on a fact-finding mission by Congress, (3) the text in the Syria section reflects RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

This edit appears to remove a Hill article in which TG roundly criticizes Saudia Arabia with the mysterious edit summary "belongs in the s-arabia section above". No problem adding articles or massaging text within reason, by all means be bold, but please don't delete stuff without reason. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clearly and concisely explain whether you agree or disagree with the changes? The edit summary clearly shows me merging two virtually identical sections, which you somehow find to be "mysterious" (furthermore, I clearly said I was deleting "duplicated material" in my large edit). Are you upset about the edit summary or the actual changes? As for the substance, there were two extensive quotes from her about her opposition to US arms deals to S-Arabia, which basically said the same thing. I deleted one of them. This is not her campaign website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have made your desired changes (here). I chose to abridge in both places and to relegate the longer citations to the quote fields. I think as long as there is a Trump section to her page that we might as well summarize the same thing there, but there's no need to repeat the zinger quotes, I agree. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lede

I'm slowly working through Snoogs' list of changes, and have reached the proposed lead change: here it is. What do folks think? I oppose using BLPs on en.wp as a political platform.

I saw that while you were editing here someone else was adding sections about Gabbard's alleged white nationalist supporters to her 2020 campaign. I think that's actually the page you're looking for for many of your contributions in fact, Snoog, if you don't mind my saying so. This is her BLP. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a single substantive reason has been presented for opposing the changes to the lede. You're just casting aspersions. I reiterate my request that I have posted multiple times: Can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? You're literally blocking any and all changes to the article while failing to explain why. To say that you're "slowly" working through the changes is an understatement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The substance of my reasoning is simple: you want to add the dismissive text that I linked to above. You think Modi and Assad are the most important things about Tulsi Gabbard's life; (al)most (all) reasonable people will disagree with you. You think it is OK to cast aspersions on a Hawaii politician by saying she supports "Indian nationalists" rather than the Indian president or the party in power. You chose to focus on those folks you think should be removed from power, there from your browser window on the world. I think the world is a bit more complicated than that and that rather than deleting articles in which TG says that the US should not be selling arms to those who finance terrorism (see evidence in the previous section) or that the "US should not be the world's policeman" (your India edits), you might consider that what she has been quoted as saying could very well be a true^TM representation of her beliefs. It is WP:UNDUE to present only one side of a debate... if we say in the lede that TG has been accused of "supporting hindutva figures", we would also need to include that she has responded with concerns about "religious bigotry", concerns which led at least one media outlet to retract parts of its story.

tldr; I am firmly opposed to your proposed lede changes (as is) on the grounds of WP:NPOV (you only want to portray one side of any story from her life identified as potentially damaging by her enemies) and WP:UNDUE (adding both sides of every story changes the lead into a political tug of war that nobody needs, least of all, the average reader. This is an encyclopedia. It has articles that are meant to document political campaigns and the mud that gets slung during them. There's even a handy link to TG's 2020 campaign right there at the bottom of the "lede".

and here, for ambiance. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? This is not complicated. Stop with the casting of aspersions, WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and grievances about unrelated content disputes on other Wikipedia pages. Also, why are you AGAIN complaining about the removal of one of the two duplicated sections about the Saudi arms deal? - you yourself agreed that it was fine to remove the duplicated content (after a completely pointless talk page discussion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This paragraph needs rewriting

& a better topic sentence. We need to consider the quality of The HIVE (Vanity Fair?) editorial as a source, we need to either include both sides of Scoville's Logan Act article or drop it entirely. It seems to me that I already asked to drop the spokesperson's long quote with an ES "no need to quote the spokesperson", but there has been much retwiddling with this paragraph as I recall. Maybe it was in the duplicate section above about the Syria trip. This came from foreign policy > Syria.

According to Ryan Scoville, Gabbard "appear[ed] to have obtained prior authorization from the House Commi::ttee on Standards of Official Conduct" in January 2017 for a fact-finding mission to Damascus. Gabbard spokeswoman Emily Latimer said she “felt it was important to meet with a number of individuals and groups, including religious leaders, humanitarian workers, refugees, and government and community leaders.” Gabbard met government officials, including Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the New York Times, she is the only American official to have met Assad since his use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. 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 Zack Beauchamp, "Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically."

References

Gosh the titles of some of these sure do seem like they belong on the 2020 campaign page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The text at the start of the paragraph grossly misrepresents the Lawfare article to give the false appearance that Gabbard was sent to Syria on a fact-finding mission by Congress. That text should indisputably be deleted. If the Lawfare article is to be used, the text should mirror what the source actually says. The rest of the text should all be restored, with the exception of the spokesperson quote (I'm sure a better quote from Gabbard herself can be found about this trip). This NBC News source can be used to substantiate RT's defense of her[23]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights

There is a dispute over two versions of text related to Gabbard's criticism of fellow Democrats for questioning a judicial nominee about his involvement in an anti-LGBT organization. The dispute concerns both the language used and the placement of the text (whether it belongs in the "LGBT rights" subsection or as sole item in a "Religious freedom" subsection). These are the two versions:

• A. (In the LGBT rights section) In 2019, Gabbard accused fellow Democrats, including Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, of engaging in "religious bigotry" when they questioned the Trump administration's judicial nominee Brian C. Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization which had funded anti-LGBT rights causes. Gabbard said that it was "imperative that we stand united in our commitment to protect religious freedom". Hawaii News Now reported that Gabbard's own father was a member of the Knights of Columbus.

• B. (In the Religious freedom section) During Brian C. Buescher's confirmation hearing for U.S. District Court in Nebraska, Gabbard wrote an op-ed on the Hill's Congress Blog arguing that while she opposed Buescher's nomination, opposing him on the grounds of his association with the Roman Catholic Church or the Knights of Columbus amounted to religious bigotry and violated Article VI of the US Constitution.

References

Which version do you prefer? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• A - This is clearly the version that mirrors the sources most accurately and provides the full context of Gabbard's criticism, what the fellow Democrats were questioning and what the Knights of Columbus is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• B - I prefer its more neutral placement in the religious freedom section. I agree with the person who put it there and disagree with your attempts to move it and embroider new prose.

1. As the article cited makes clear, Gabbard "did not name any names" therefore the wikitext targeting Hirono is an OR distortion of the source, unless that fact is mentioned.
2. Nowhere in the Somnez article cited is anything related to LGBT mentioned (you can check for the keyword yourself, of course, it is not there); nowhere in TG's original blogpost either. Nowhere does your prose make clear that TG opposed Beuscher, which both Somnez' article and TG's blogpost do state.
3. Why have you made so many bad edits to this page? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo source explicitly says the group funded "anti-same-sex marriage initiatives". All sources, including the ones cited, clearly note that Gabbard accused her fellow Democrats, including Hirono,[24][25][26] of religious bigotry, even though she did not name names. It's strange why you can't simply add "she did not name names but referred to..." and "funded anti-same sex marriage initiatives" if this bothered you so much, rather than indiscriminately revert the content and push this and every other change to this article to the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest C. Tulsi Gabbard wrote a blogpost about religious bigotry, pointing out that Article 6 of the US Constitution specifically forbids any religious tests for office. In that post, she mentioned she opposed Beuscher, who was being grilled about his membership in the Knights of Columbus during confirmation hearings. Many pixels flowed, especially from one wikipedian's keyboard, trying to recast TG's gentle reminder about constitutional law into an anti-LGBT position. Sadly, we can't really chose C, which would be the most informative for readers, because that Wikipedian isn't notable yet (as far as we know). (WP:TOOSOON) So, we'll have to settle for B, since TG has indicated her support for same-sex marriage and indicated that she did not support Beuscher's confirmation. — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• B A is factually wrong because it implies Gabbard named Hirona which the sources do not say. No reason why it should mention Hirono but not mention Kamala Harris. For some reason it mentions the the Knights of Columbus has funded anti-LGBT organizations, while the senators' criticism of them was for their opposition to abortion and LGBT rights. Hawaii News Now did not report that Gabbard's father was a member of the Knights of Columbus, it was one of its reporters, Chelsea Davis, and it is innuendo to mention this without specfically explaining its relevance. No mention either that a number of conservative and Catholic commentators expressed views similar to Gabbard's. B unfortunately has too few details, but wins by default. TFD (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would be entirely fine with (1) noting that Gabbard did not specifically name anyone while also noting that all RS explicitly note that this refers to the questioning by Democrats, including Hirono and Harris and (2) noting that Gabbard's criticism mirrored conservative talking points. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• neither Option B seems to take Gabbard's claim (that the opposition was based on his association with the Catholic church) at face value - but that's a contested point. I think something more along the lines of In 2019, Gabbard accused fellow Democrats of engaging in "religious bigotry" when they questioned the Trump administration's judicial nominee Brian C. Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. Sen. Mazi Hirono disputed Gabbard's characterization, and said that her questions were related to what she called Buescher's "record of anti-choice activism" rather than his religion. Or something along those lines. Mentioning her father's religious affiliations seems undue here. Nblund ^talk 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have removed the Roman Catholic Church link from the OP's text when I slimmed the text down slightly (after putting it back in the original section). If anything is said about Beuscher's positions, in fairness, it must be mentioned that TG opposed his confirmation as this is mentioned in both sources used in the text. Concerning the facts of the matter on the religious bigotry question, Beuhscher's prior positions are immaterial, what Hirono asked Beuscher was "If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?" this = (the Knights of Columbus) The citation is on page 25. So if she said Gabbard misrepresented her questions, she would have been wrong, even if the latter had named her. Bad luck! ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The claim comes from Hirono herself and is cited in the Washington Post source, she definitely said it and it's clearly relevant since it is a direct response to Gabbard. It's really not up to us to determine who is right in that dispute - we need to just impartially cover what was said. Nblund ^talk 22:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can agree to that version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresenting an article

In a very telling move, @Snooganssnoogans: has deleted what is marked out in the following sentence:

Prior to her two tours of duty in the Middle East, Gabbard opposed both civil unions and same-sex marriage.

This shouldn't be too controversial as the text itself says:

She says her transformation was spurred by spending time in countries governed by oppressive regimes during deployments to the Middle East as a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard.

“Marriage is a bond of love, and it’s spiritual and metaphysical in nature,” Tulsi told Civil Beat in an interview. “It’s a sacred bond, and that is not an area where government should be involved.”

I will not speculate as to Snoogans' motivations for misrepresenting the article being cited in the topic sentence of the paragraph, but will suggest that they are not making themselves look like someone who should be trusted to edit this BLP given their demonstrable record of one-sided editing on this page. I will ask Snoogans to self-revert. We will see if they can play fair or if their mission is contrary to en.wp's and topic-banning becomes necessary. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your text inaccurately suggested that she was only opposed to civil unions and same-sex marriage prior to 2004 (when she was deployed to Iraq) / 2008 (when she was deployed to Kuwait). She returned to the U.S. in 2009 from the overseas deployments, but came out in favor of same-sex marriage in 2012. There's nothing in any of the cited sources documenting a change on LGBT issues until 2012 (if there are any such sources, feel free to add them). If she herself attributes her 2012 change to her experiences overseas, then we should of course mention that (the article currently does so, as I pointed out to you in my edit summary: "She credited her tours of duty in the Middle East for her change in views.") But we should not be filling in gaps with original research, as you did. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice try. The article says what I cited above. You would need to show that she had voted for anti-LGBT legislation after her tours of duty in order to contradict our source, which I notice you are not doing. A topic-ban from this article would be the simplest: en.wp does itself a disservice by continuing to allow such underhanded tactics to be deployed. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans, which is why I removed the section headings that you added. Our task is not to polish up her image as it pertains to her evolution on LGBT rights. When you have to cite obscure sources and use original research, you are not serving our readers' best interests.- MrX 🖋 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For those studying this article, it is worth noting that the content Snoog cites ("She credited her tours of duty in the Middle East for her change in views.") was immediately after the topic sentence in March 2017, but was moved farther away from it in the section "LGBT issues", because the section started quite sensibly (at that time) with a topic sentence drawn from the same article: "Gabbard supports reproductive choice and LGBT rights, saying that the government should not be the "moral arbiter" in people's lives. " (Now, the article starts with her positions prior to her national and international experiences.) The long-standing content is starting with the claim that TG supports reproductive choice & LGBT rights. How much shall we bet that I will uncover (using wiki-blame) a certain prolific editor completely changing the spin of the section? Speaking of x-tools, I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon. (evidence) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Considering your unfortunate history in this topic area, I doubt you are someone who should be giving reminders, so please keep such advice to yourself, or bring evidence an any alleged misconduct to an appropriate noticeboard.- MrX 🖋 23:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The content dispute is clear. The section was written originally with TG's current position stated in the topic sentence. It was changed recently to highlight her previous position, citing a source that gives both her original & current position and the reason for her position changing. My text summarizes all three elements in a few words. Please indicate what is inappropriate about such rigorous reading of a source? You did not address the content dispute in your comment. You accuse me of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here, when the article cited is crystal clear, as is this entry's history concerning what "long-standing content" actually is. Concerning your claims about my desire not to smear to burnish TG's BLP at every turn, I think we'll just have to disagree about their appropriateness or their accuracy. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I see your point but do you think you could suggest a way to reflect what sources say, rather than edit-warring? I note that in this article all your contributions have been to remove positive information and add negative information and ask why you are doing this. TFD (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a false characterization. And the current version of the text reflects what sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, can you provide a single example where you have added positive information or removed negative information about the subject? Clearly you have not. TFD (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The content that I add neither represents her well nor poorly. Updating her beliefs to make sure that the Wikipedia page makes clear that she accepts the consensus that Assad is a genocidal dictator who used chemical weapons on his people is clearly an addition of positive information, if anything (unless of course you disagree with this consensus)[27]... but I reject that such an item is either positive or negative... like all my edits, they simply document where she stands. I also deleted poorly sourced content where she endorsed the use of torture, which if anything, could be seen as a positive (even though I reject that edits such as these should be considered positive/negative). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted Glass-Steagall removal

MrX has amusingly removed a paragraph with a topic sentence sourced to "Tulsi Gabbard is not your friend" (Jacobin) referring to it as poorly sourced promotional material (here). :) This is fairly long-standing content, which Snoog & MrX have decided doesn't fit the angle The Editors^TM want taken on this BLP. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise. This is not a campaign brochure. Twitter and a HuffPost piece written by the subject are not good sources for a self-aggrandizing content in a BLP.- MrX 🖋 13:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Self-aggrandizing" would be saying "Tulsi Gabbard is great!!" Please indicate where you see that in the text you deleted. I see comment about how no Glass-Steagall is not great:

In 2012, Gabbard supported the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, saying “Big banks should not be allowed to gamble with your life savings & your kid’s college fund”. Gabbard argued in an op-ed at the time that if the act had not been repealed, the financial crisis in the United States might never have occurred.

References

— SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This is now rewritten and, I hope, much tighter. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that you added a secondary source, but the broken up quote is not an improvement.- MrX 🖋 12:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are the highlighted headers of her point by point argument. I removed the tweet and summarized her op-ed. This is great evidence of your inability to edit in a balanced way (leaving space for those who think "TG is not your friend" AND for those who wish to summarize her positions fairly).

X's latest deletion: In 2012, Gabbard supported the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, promising in an op-ed during her 2012 campaign to vote to "break up the big banks, [... to] reinstate the Glass Steagall Act, [... and to] ban naked credit swaps".

References

— SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that the material could be paraphrased, rather than elliptically quoted, but if seems that no independent sources have taken note. [28] It would very WP:UNDUE to include her 2012 campaign goals. After six years in Congress, she has either accomplished them or not.- MrX 🖋 12:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

References not mentioning Gabbard at all restored

With this edit, references which had been removed from Gabbard's BLP because they do not mention Gabbard at all were restored without comment. In the next edit summary, @Dan the Plumber: wrote: this is all slanted to pint her in a very positive light. What is she most known for about khan sheikkoun. her 'scepticism' that assad regime was responsible. ffs , the article has to say that. I have restored the page to its last good version in order to let Mr. Dan see that the article does, indeed, mention that she was skeptical, but does not include links to articles that do not mention her at all. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Wikipedia is not a fact checking service and any criticisms of any person must be sourced to someone providing criticism. TFD (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A sentence about the OPCW JIM findings is not 'criticism' of Gabbard, it would be a chance for readers of the article to get some unfiltered information from the OPCW on the subject she had given her ( useless, uninformed, propagandist) opinion on. I'm sure a sentence from the OPCW findings is unwelcome to supporters of Gabbard who want this article to read like an election leaflet, an unwelcome piece of info from the world of reality, but there we are. As edited by sushi Rolls the ignorant opinion, that her opinion is as good as an OPCW JIM opinion, is furthered. She said she wanted to see evidence so a link to the OPCW report should be seen as very helpful and pertinent. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is implicit criticism because it implies she was wrong. As you say, you want to add the information to show that her comments were "useless, uninformed, propagandist." That's criticism. Also, please don't impute the motives of other editors, which is a personal attack. TFD (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

She asked for 'evidence'. The OPCW-JIM reported. You want to censor a sentence about what the evidence , she called for, indicated. Does the OPCW-JIM report 'imply' criticism , that she was a propagandist for the Assad regime when she was so quick to express her 'scepticism'? Well, so what if it does? are you telling me any reports that emerge form the world of reality but that might offend the subject of the article, even one line reports that she herself called for when she said she wanted evidence, are to be ruled out? What is being written here? An informed , informative article that includes top sources like the OPCW-JIM , or a whitewash for this pin up of the Red/Brown Alliance? Dan the Plumber (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, if it is relevant, then you need sources that say so. Also, you need to tone down your criticisms, per biographies of living persons. It is of no relevance to the discussion what you personally believe, but what sources say. TFD (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it relevant? To her wanting to know of any evidence relating to the sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun? Well, obviously it is bloody relevant to that. I know the dangers of synthesis, and such like and I am scrupulous in what I seek to add to articles. The OPCW report won't mention Gabbard, any more than it would mention the views of Putin or Sergei Lavrov ; the OPCW looked at evidence. So much the better. You know you won't find Gabbard mentioned in the OPCW-JIM report so you are really just trying to stop this illuminating sentence from being added, and in effect to give oxygen to the idea that 'Gabbards opinion is as relevant as any other, the world has no idea what happened at Khan Sheikhoun'. But that is a lie. The OPCW-JIM report has words FOR Gabbard since she demanded evidence. It obviously has no words ABOUT Gabbard. It is this kind of information that one should be fighting for, praying that it gets set forth at wikipedia articles, not stifled. One sentence. I am saying that their report evidently is relevant to her views on the sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun, and that creative, scrupulous minds would see that adding one sentence about the OPCW findings, pertinent to Gabbard professing to be interested in that very subject, would not be objected to, and would be seen as an edit likely to improve understanding. Thats the object of these articles isn't it? Not to be whitewashed election addresses. I believe the sentence is being objected to because it jars; a splinter of reality getting into the skin of the fantasies about 'regime change' and rebel sarin attacks and endless 'false flag' stories. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

While it is not necessary that the UN report mention Gabbard you need a source that mentions both Gabbard and the report which you should have no problem in finding if the connection is "bloody relevant" to anyone but yourself. TFD (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The stated justification for including this - that it seems to address Gabbard's concerns about an independent investigation - does seem like original synthesis. The coverage at the time of Gabbard's remarks made it pretty clear that her skepticism was out-of-step with the existing evidence and mainstream views, and we can get that fact across without having to stretch and use a primary source. Nblund ^talk 16:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Khan Sheikhoun

There is as we know a lot of fake news around, and a lot of terrible ignorance and disinformation around , this is a problem of the political culture . Wikipedia shouldn't connive with this so I was wondering if , after Gabbard said she was sceptical about Khan Sheikhoun a sentence could be added at the end of that section to report the findings of the OPCW JIM. This would give readers a chance to understand where the evidence Gabbard had professed to want, led. Otherwise the section just gives the idea that the propaganda of the Fascists and cretins was in some way , decent or credible. What do people think? (Please don't just lecture aabout the WP GREAT WRONGS policy. What I want is a sentence to report what the OPCW JIM wrote about the incident so that readers of the wikipedia article on Gabbard are not just spoon fed saccharine propaganda pre digested by her supporters. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a rather big blue button labeled Khan Shaykhoun chemical attack in the section you don't like. When I see big blue buttons about things I want to know more about, I often push them. I assume most people do the same. When a candidate's bio is pushing a line, I usually smell it. There, too, I don't think I'm so unusual. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You think Gabbard supporters really want to know more about what happened at Khan Sheikhoun? No. I want an article one is currently reading to be as reliably informative as possible. I want a single sentence added. That section is pushing a line, and is made worse by your reversion of my edits imho, not better. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

russia propaganda machine discovers 2020 candidate Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Russian Propaganda

Looking to the 2020_presidential_campaign section;

The paragraph starting "On the same day, NBC reported that several news sources linked to Russian state propaganda";

I initially put some of this content in following the NBC report. I'm a little concerned that we now have a 2nd source of apparently equal weight, which seems to suggest the first NBC source is mostly nonsense. I'm a bit concerned including the whole back-and-forth in this article might not be helpful for the reader, and provide an undue amount of space to the controversy. Can we just move this content to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign? We might bring it back if more sources weigh-in on the issue. NickCT (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a story that appeared in NBC, was ignored by other mainstream media and was quickly debunked by Glenn Greenwald. If it belongs anywhere it is in the article about NBC news. I would remove it for now until it received broader attention, which now seems unlikely. TFD (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

'Now RT video runs new segment questioning NBC report. Talks about anything except the core, which compared the higher volume and more favorable tone for Gabbard vs other dem candidates on Russian media outlets. ' Im a bit concerned an editor who regards Glenn Greenwald (ffs), as some kind of ultimate arbiter seems to dictate everything on this article. Dan the Plumber (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not say he was the ultimate arbitrator. I suggest you read WP:WEIGHT. What facts or opinions you or I or any other editor consider important about a subject may differ and we resolve that problem by reflecting the relative weight provided in reliable sources. One NBC article that attracts no attention except an article by a prominent journalist and a reply from RT debunking it fails weight. TFD (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@TFD RT 'debunking' ???? 'Talks about anything except the core, which compared the higher volume and more favorable tone for Gabbard vs other dem candidates on Russian media outlets.' 'Naturally. And their guest is a sinister imbecile who accuses Syrian children under bombardment of being crisis actors.' (Ugh).Dan the Plumber (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok.... So I say move, User:The Four Deuces says delete. User:Dan the Plumber, are you a stick? NickCT (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I say move too . It's probably better placed in the Gabbard campaign article. Don't move it to the article on NBC news, (ffs) Dan the Plumber (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Unless User:The Four Deuces or someone else objects in the next few hours, I will move this content to the campaign page. NickCT (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree on moving. Yeah, as long as there is a separate article for the campaign, this probably belongs at that entry. Gabbard herself has responded to the story. Greenwald's criticism and Gabbard's response should both be included. Nblund ^talk 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of multiple sources in favor of inferior sources and older sources

There has been a pattern of removing sources on this article in favor of older sources, Twitter announcements, and inferior local sources. this stands out in that our readers are left without citations for further research. I dispute that the references make "duplicate/syndicated arguments", so I will be restoring these.- MrX 🖋 12:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Young MrX should feel free to add all the 2020 campaign page articles to the 2020 campaign page entry, which has a convenient blue link in the last line of the lede, and a hatlink in the section on the 2020 campaign. :) Obviously we are talking about events in the 2000s, so pick your favorite reference and add the rest to the pile over at the campaign page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Or, you could just stop bulk-removing reliable sources and limit your snark to the hallowed forums of Wikipediocracy.- MrX 🖋 13:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this comment about "post-announcement RS" multiple times now... it is bizarre to argue that all RS that have been published since her presidential campaign announcement must go into the Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign and that only pre-announcement RS can be added to this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Why do you continue to remove sources as you did here? I'm trying hard to understand why you seem to think that less verifiability is better.- MrX 🖋 15:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If you were interested in verifiability, you would thank me for loading the video 3 times (it crashed twice) in order to provide an exact transcription of the whole source and add the precise location where the quote can be found. Instead, I think what you are objecting to is that I don't see the need to reference stack 2020 campaign op-eds about something that happened in 2014, and for which we have the original source. (I even compromised and added one of your two 2020 campaign articles in, as you probably noticed, though in my judgment only the most notable of campaign articles should be included on the BLP as they will not be due once the election is over, and so are not DUE WEIGHT now.) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, your Rolling Stone source does not refer to this citation at all, but is supported only by a tweet made by someone named Molly Crabapple. (don't shoot the messenger for providing straight facts) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you write 'someone named'. Why not write 'supported only by a tweet by Molly Crabapple.' Are you trying to put on airs and suggest she doesn't deserve your 'Sashi Rolls' attention. Bit pompous really, make you look smaller, not intelligent imo. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We do not source Wikipedia articles to SashiRolls' tweets, either :) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'political positions' in the lede should be expanded

The part of the lede that summarizes her political positions does at the moment not adequately summarize the body. Judging by both RS coverage and the length of coverage in the body, we need to cover:

• The shift from a staunch opponent of LGBT rights to becoming pro same-sex marriage in 2012. (This was discussed here[29])
• Her controversial views on Assad.
• Her support of Indian nationalists.

The lede already covers her support for Medicare-For-All (the term needs to be added to the body though) and abortion rights. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor SashiRolls just violated 1RR to restore bad changes to the lede that he made[30][31]. The editor is well-aware of the editing restrictions on this page, yet still violated 1RR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please indicate where you get talk page consensus to remove Glass-Steagall from the lede and the body on the 16th of February. By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style. Will self-revert within a few minutes. However, you need to revert your edit from the 16th of February and seek talk page consensus for your removal of long-standing content. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The text on Glass-Steagall was sourced to a tweet and HuffPo op-ed by Gabbard herself, and was subsequently removed[32]. Awilley said very clearly on my talk page that your insistence that every minor edit require a consensus before being made is false, so it's seems WP:TENDENTIOUS for you to keep repeating that line and accuse me of "subverting the BRD process" and "gaming".[33] Are you now at this point saying you disagree with this edit?[34] You want to restore this text sourced solely to Gabbard's own tweet and op-ed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I will indeed oppose your removal of TG's position on Glass-Steagall. The 24 hour period will give people time to find where this has been reported by third parties. In the meantime, you might enjoy reading "Why is Daily Kos lying about Tulsi Gabbard's record on progressive issues?" Of course Daily Kos is not an RS, so their being called out for their political bias is no surprise. Her position on Glass Steagall is mentioned in several of the articles in our biblio already, as you know. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I will now restore this poorly sourced line (edit: the text was restored a few minutes ago by SashiRolls), even though you have presented no RS and haven't done anything to address the problems that justified the removal. And for what it's worth, I did look for RS to substantiate her position on Glass-Steagall but only found fringe sources (Jacobin, an op-ed in Business Insider, Inquistr and so on). I have no idea why you are throwing that Daily Kos link at me - I have repeatedly asked you to refrain from your NOTFORUM comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They are actually called Hindu nationalists. While these things should be mentioned in the lead, you need to phrase them in a neutral way. What btw are her controversial views on Assad? TFD (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

She has been a notorious pro Assad politician, - you didn't know that ? fucking hell, - seems today though she upset the (Redacted) Assadist (Redacted) Eva Bartlett by some acknowledgment of reality, because Tulsi Gabbard said ' "there's no disputing the fact" that Bashar Al-Assad is a "brutal dictator" who "has used chemical weapons" Poor Eva Bartlett got right upset by this , and tweeted to her Fascist followers ; 'Plz don't argue Tulsi is taking a principled position. She is NOT taking a principled position but pandering to moronic masses & repeating war propaganda designed to move public to overthrow Syrian govt.'

in other words : 'the kneejerk response from the Baathists about the imminent threat of “regime change”. You’d think after 5 years of scorched earth asymmetric warfare including missiles, bombs, poison gas, torture and firing squads, these people would have learned that the USA had no interest in removing Assad. 'Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with he OP. Interestingly, I made a couple of changes to the lead to partially address some of the deficiencies before I saw this.- MrX 🖋 20:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber, I only know what I read in reliable sources. Whether or not your argument is persuasive, you need a source that makes the same conclusion, per no original research. TFD (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

RS that show her as a pro Assad? You mean like this [35] where she goes to Syria , meets Assad , escorted by the Fascist SSNP. Theres lots of RS for all this. good article here also tulsi gabbard is not anti war Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Meeting someone is not the same as being an apologist. Your second source is an opinion piece hence not RS. It is important to distinguish between fact and opinion. TFD (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@TFD meeting someone, oh well, if thats all. But the Guardian says she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

'When Russia launched its brutal bombing campaign on September 30, 2015, Gabbard tweeted her support for the bloody offensive, writing: “Bad enough U.S. has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”

etc etc . you know that this is Assadist/Putinist apologism. But life too short to argue the toss. Christ, in the 1930s imagine the chat you'd have had with a Stalinist in a pub or arguing over stuff like this during the Spanish Civil War. Pointless. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

'Around the beginning of the Syrian uprising, in March 2011, Assad once again released jihadists from the country's prisons. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of Syrian students, liberal activists and human rights advocates began being arrested. ' former prisoners fight Gabbard is an apologist , a useful idiot for the regime. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I do think that the links to OpenSecrets in Orr's article are interesting (for the 2016 Defense Industry donations to TG). As the HuffPo article makes clear though (while casting shade on the assertion), she claims to have stopped accepting any PAC donations in 2017. While that Spiegel article is likewise interesting, it doesn't have anything to do with TG, so I'm sure Snoog'll be along any minute now to cite WP:NOTFORUM at you. (or not ^^) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the lead to include all the things Gabbard's opponents wish to highlight. This removal by Snoog is deliberately misleading insofar as it does not indicate that her prior positions on same-sex marriage are at least 15 years old. The last time the evidence in the body of the entry shows her taking any position against any type of marriage or civil union was in 2004 when she was 23 years old. I would add that I am neither for nor against Ms. Gabbard, but would like to see a fair representation of her positions. Other policy positions that should probably be briefly mentioned:

• campaign finance reform (her pledge not to take any corporate money)
• her longstanding call to reinstate Glass Steagall (since 2012)

— SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr X has revised the content again, he and the Snoog are in favor of the following formulation:

• [...], her lobbying prior to 2005 against same-sex marriage and civil unions stirred controversy.

factually inaccurate, as in 2004—concerning civil unions—she was not engaged in lobbying but was engaged in voting. "stirred controversy" indicates that she stirred controversy in 2018 by taking positions 15-20 years ago.

• [...], her youthful lobbying against same-sex marriage were issues closely examined by the press.

factually accurate.

SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, we could change it to "... and her lobbying and legislating against same-sex marriage and civil unions prior to 2005 stirred controversy." How does that sound? And I'm sorry, but "youthful lobbying" is not even remotely acceptable. Not a single source uses that florid turn of phrase.- MrX 🖋 13:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

[CONJ] [APOLOG.], [concessive CONJ] "[ADJ + N]" is [ADV ADV ADV ADJ]. florid: "elaborately or excessively intricate or complicated". SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

More to the point, it's always good to ask who is doing the stirring. I think I'll unwatchlist this page for a few days and !watch other people play. Go, SnooX! SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you not like my proposed wording? I believe it's accurate and neutrally presented. - MrX 🖋 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

What I notice is that you have not corrected the factual errors identified above in mainspace. I'll cook you up something that moves a bit more in your direction, though I really think you are pushing a bit too hard. Another example would be your repeated use of the edit summary WP:EUPHEMISM whenever someone refers to "abortion" as something like "a woman's right to choose". Gabbard herself says she supports "reproductive freedom", which is a rather wider concept. Please don't freak out if you see me reverting your prose. I'm also doing this because "abortion" is repeated four times in a 3 (short) sentence section. Hope your gardening went well, Mister X. It is true that weeds do not have reproductive freedom. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Reproductive freedom" sounds value laden to me, but we'll see what others think. The right to reproduce obviously is not the same as the right to have an abortion. Your edit to the LGBT portions was inaccurate, which a casual reading of the article makes clear. We need to stick to facts and not use the lead to distance the subject from her recent past. You have completely changed the meaning of the India content in the lead, but I have no idea whether it's more or less accurate.- MrX 🖋 16:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Reproductive freedom" is not OK. If Gabbard makes any comments, say, on birth control and discrimination against aspects of reproductive rights, and RS report on that, then we can add text specifically about birth control and those other related aspects. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No, all you did was restore the euphemism. That's pretty cheeky considering the above discussion.- MrX 🖋 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me I added a reference from Marie Claire using the term as you requested in your "sourcing to TG's positions on her website is a no-no" edit summary. I suppose you could argue that the MC journalist just cribbed TG's site or maybe that the TG 2020 crew paid for placement in the Hearst publication. Who knows. Maybe she just thought that it was worth citing. (I admit that's my suspicion on the matter, but others could disagree.) I ran across a Shadowproof article you might like. It was running with this closet archi-right wing "she's hiding something under her smile" line back in 2010. As for the matter at hand, we could say "According to her website and a journalist at Marie Claire citing her website, TG believes..." but that seems kind of long to me. I think readers should be trusted to form their own opinions of the references. Do you agree? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding a couple of weak sources that parrot Gabbard's WP:EUPHEMISM, but I don't think that means we have to use it. It's the equivalent of changing "same-sex marriage" to "marriage equality". It's not encyclopedic tone. Attributing it doesn't really help. We can get more input at WP:NPOV/N if you like. - MrX 🖋 22:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think that her pledge to not take corporate contributions belongs in the lead. It's not a significant point. - MrX 🖋 13:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

MrX I would most respectfully disagree-- based on how such funding controls the US political climate to such a great extent, I do think it's noteworthy enough for a brief mention in the lede. unsigned comment: @Jack.hopkins96:

That's fine. I don't have a major objection.- MrX 🖋 16:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Torture stance

Added this sentence to the "Torture" section, as I find it helps clarify Tulsi's current stance on the topic, citing her exact words from an interview: 'In 2019, she clarified her position by saying she would "continue to strongly oppose torture and the use of [enhanced interrogation] techniques.'". This was undone without a clear reason (the comment reads "Alas poor Merrick... ;)"). I'd like to understand why this was removed --Mirek2 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls reversed it. It seems fine to me, it could be they misread it. TFD (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mirek2: It was a mistake, as was the edit summary, for which I owe you an apology. The revert was due to a knee-jerk aversion to youtube links which can lead anywhere. (I figured I could fix the link once I'd checked to see if the link was legit) I do wonder what Status Coup is though, weird name for an RS. ^^ Joe Rogan's interview of TG is fun! Had the citation not activated my inner busybody, I would have never heard it. Thanks :) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Thanks for the revert! I agree, to me the name Status Coup sounds like a conspiracy site. Still quite an informative interview, though. And yes, the Joe Rogan interview is really good too! :)

References

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

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

• Tulsi Gabbard Official Photo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide recognition

Rep. Gabbard urged that the Armenian Genocide must be recognized in a video speech released March 21, 2019. Should we include this under social issues? Archives908 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

India

Concerning this edit:

People will only be able to evaluate your changes properly if you argue for them here. Let's take your removal of:

In 2013, she joined some of her colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in opposing a House resolution that called for "religious freedom and related human rights to be included in the United States-India Strategic Dialogue and for such issues to be raised directly with federal and state Indian government officials"

which you wish to change in such a way that does not reflect that her vote was with the majority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, including Ed Royce and Steve Chabot and Eni Faleomavega. These are the sorts of problems we will be able to tease out if we look at your edits individually. Your notable decision to rewrite "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship." as "Gabbard has expressed support for Indian nationalists" is nowhere represented in the misleading edit summary "removed video interview", which, in fact, removed three interviews (two video interviews and one in-depth Quartz interview) and massaged the text in many ways. One of the videos you removed was the source of her statement that "there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002. for which you removed the wikilink, but kept the now unsourced text. This is just one example. While I do agree, in general, that shorter is better, there are severe problems with this edit. I will look at the others as I have time. Others will be able to do so, too. Thank you for following the rules. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clearly and concisely explain what the exact problems are and which portions you want to revert? I have zero inclination to go through your laundry list of minor quibbles and vague unspecified problems. For example, are you seriously arguing that we should add that "Ed Royce and Steve Chabot and Eni Faleomavega" voted the same way as Gabbard on something? The "supports a strong US-India relationship" is unsourced. "Gabbard has expressed support for Indian nationalists" is reliably sourced. The "there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002" line is sourced to the Intercept - there's no need to cite Gabbard's own youtube videos. So, to sum up: your complaints revolve around you wanting (1) to restore unsourced text and primary sources, (2) add a line that she voted the same way as some other congressmen, (3) remove reliably sourced text, and (4) at no point did you express support for any of the changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My concerns are not about youtube videos. My concern is that you claim to be eliminating videos but are in fact massaging text, replacing a Quartz article (which includes an interview, but is not exclusively an interview) which very clearly supports the claim that Gabbard "supports a strong US-India relationship".

It is very important that the US and India have a strong relationship of mutual respect. The denial of a visa to prime minister Modi could have undermined that relationship had he used it as an excuse to reject having a strong bilateral relationships with America. This would have been bad for both of our countries. For many reasons—not the least of which is the war against terrorists—the relationship between India and America is very important. (From the first article you deleted in the section.) Let's start with that. Do you agree that was not a justified move?

Also I would add that you would do much better to pull your claims about Hindu nationalists from the Quartz article you deleted, rather than a single clause mention without any argumentation in the Guardian summary of received wisdom. At least that's what I would do if it were important to me to include PoV statements, because that article at least has some meat to it about the Modi visa question the paragraph has always been about. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain every single minor change in an edit summary, nor is there any requirement that editors do so. I mentioned the removal of one paragraph, given that you were complaining about being unable to follow the edits. My large edit already explained that I was removing unsourced text, primary sources and adding RS text. Again, there was no source behind "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" and if there were (the Quartz interview cited later), this is such a mundane and meaningless statement that it should be removed. Who does not support a strong relationship with most countries in the world, India included? Just to be clear, this is now the only problem you have with this edit: You want a line about her wanting a strong India-US relationship? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to get riled up. The question is simple: should the thesis sentence of the first paragraph of India be: A) "TG supports a strong US-India relationship" sourced to the Quartz article that is used for the paragraph or B) "TG has expressed support for Indian nationalists." from an article that is not used to discuss the ideas contained in the paragraph? I could write that up in a more NPOV way for an RfC, if you'd like. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Supports a strong US-India relationship" is kind of empty campaign-speak and it's probably not a great idea to describe Gabbard's views by quoting her own interview answers verbatim. Gabbard is only mentioning this as part of a justification for why she has supported Modi, and so it's probably more appropriate to say that she's supported Narendra Modi and the BJP. Nblund ^talk 00:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: the paragraph is about a bill that sought to reprimand Modi during an election and was seen to be unseemly for that reason by a number of reps, including Gabbard.Frankly don't care that much if we keep the exact "politician speak" about US-India relations (though it was not said in the context of any campaign except the one against the censoring bill, and nevertheless is true even for those who wish to paint her as hindutva). What I object to is starting the section straight off with the spin that she supports Hindu Nationalists, because she agreed with her peers about the bill. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerning this edit that according to the ES has nothing to do with India, I have just watched the interview after verifying that ndtv.com is cited 7581 times on en.wp. I can confirm the quote from the video (16:20), can confirm that the interview does indeed have rather a lot to do with India. The interviewer also asks her a lot of questions about terrorism and Pakistan.

In an N.D.T.V. India interview during a 2014 trip to India, Gabbard said that, "very bluntly," she was "conflicted" about the report concerning CIA use of torture in interrogations: "I can also understand that any of us, if we were in a situation where our family, our community, our state, or our country is in a place where, let's say, in an hour, a nuclear bomb or an attack will go off unless this information was found, I believe that if I were the president of the United States that I would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe."

References

I would agree that this may not be the most crucial citation from the interview. However deleting the interview conducted by a major Indian press outlet strikes me as ever-so-slightly odd. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You changed that text to:

• In an NDTV India interview during a 2014 trip to India, Gabbard said that, "very bluntly," she was "conflicted" about a recently-published report concerning CIA use of torture in interrogations. She was also asked about her 2012 opponent's claim that electing a Hindu was incompatible with the US Constitution.

Having watched the whole interview, can you please explain what the first sentence has to do with India besides being sourced to an Indian news outlet? Also, in the first sentence, you removed Gabbard expressing support for torture under certain circumstances - by snipping that comment by Gabbard, you inaccurately present her view on torture. Finally, the last sentence does not really contain any substance - she was asked a question? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you watched it? (Your participial, followed by the question, "can you..."?, suggests that I have, which is true...)

I chose to weave back in a bit of temporal context (the shorter 500+ page version of the report had just been released, which is why she was asked about it). This also allows us to be more precise about what she actually said she was "very bluntly" "conflicted" about. (Though this is a minor detail, I imagine it isn't wrong to say she's conflicted about torture, but that isn't actually what she said.) As for the deletion of the long quote about torture; I have no objection to it being paraphrased (or cited in the quote tag of the ref). I left reference to it in the first line because it is often mentioned, and so people can quickly find the source and hear what she said about torture (around the 16m mark, we could add in an at= field in the reference template).

I've actually been debating with myself about this TV interview because TfD has said pretty convincingly that interviews aren't great sources. Still, this is longstanding content and the only direct reference concerning what she said about torture (which has since been frequently quoted).

The 16 minutes prior are devoted to India / Hinduism / Pakistan... and took place on Indian TV while she was in India. That's why I added one story among many to the wikitext. I'm not quite understanding your confusion. How many Americans have been interviewed on NDTV? That, in itself, seems pretty interesting to me. Now since everyone wants to talk about complicity, why not let the reader judge? Why wouldn't we give an Indian media company a little traffic for their interview? Now I wouldn't mind straight talk about the status of interviews in wikiland. It's true that people say the darnedest things on network news shows, even when pitched softball questions. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Why wouldn't we give an Indian media company a little traffic for their interview?" - What? Can you please offer policy-based arguments? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. NDTV is a WP:RS, according to en.wp usage. It is relevant and WP:DUE because what she said about torture during that interview has been frequently cited. It also resonates with two other stories about "religious bigotry" currently in the article (in two different sections). It responds directly to the question of her (non-)alignment with the BJP, which comes up frequently in the section and on the page. I must have missed your policy-based argument against inclusion in the section above. Maybe you just had "zero inclination" to give one? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is relevant and WP:DUE because what she said about torture during that interview has been frequently cited" - but you yourself deleted the only pertinent and frequently cited part about her commentary on torture (her willingness to support torture) while leaving in misleading and not-frequently cited part which gives a false impression of where she stands on torture. It's extremely hard to try to edit this article when your stated rationales (to the extent that you actually provide any) for inclusion and exclusion of content are out of sync with your editing behavior on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It also resonates with two other stories about "religious bigotry" currently in the article (in two different sections)." - the fact that she was asked a question??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"It responds directly to the question of her (non-)alignment with the BJP, which comes up frequently in the section and on the page." - What??? The text does not at all in any way whatsoever respond either directly or indirectly to the question of "her (non-)alignment with the BJP". What are you talking about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"I must have missed your policy-based argument against inclusion in the section above." I have explicitly said several times that the comment on torture has nothing to do with India and should not be in the India section. The text (which should actually cover her stated opinion on torture) should clearly be in a section of its own ("torture") or related section ("counterterrorism"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, is there seriously no way out of this? This has been going on for ten days now. Every single minor edit is bogged down in these absurd time-consuming talk page discussions that go nowhere. In several cases, I can't even deduce whether SashiRolls is in favor of including/excluding content and what the reasons are, even though the user reverts the content when I add it. There are multiple edits that I haven't even been able to start talk page discussions about, because we're stuck in these pointless discussions that go absolutely nowhere on the least controversial of edits. So many of SashiRolls's comments are filled with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior has become erratic over time, with accusations of tag-teaming,[36] weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[37][38] and requests that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[39] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: There are ways out of this. I think the best way would be for you to understand what is at the root of SushiRolls's objections and start editing from a more neutral point of view. (Not an endorsement of SashiRolls's POV) ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the reference elsewhere, if you need me to I can add a ref name to it... or you could do it on your own like an adult. The fact that it is mentioned here should be no problem to you. So, no, there is nothing policy-based whatsoever in saying (now) that you want the quote on terror in its own section (when the previous two times your only action was to delete the entire reference to the Indian TV network). Is it that you don't want the story about her opponent's rhetoric on the page? I mean "Hindu" is kind of related to India... also, if you want to know what's all in the other 16 minutes, I recommend you listen to the interview, like any other reader, rather than making things up (this is the first anyone has heard about your desire to put the torture quote in its own section, before you just deleted it, twice...) and whistling for an admin to enforce your donor will. Are you a donor, Snoog? One would think you owned the place. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wtf? You edited my comment[40] to misrepresent what I said. And I cannot for the life of me understand what the second half of your comment is rambling about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I certainly did not intend to replace that sentence with three colons. I saw the three colons and wondered why they were there when responding to you, but assumed you had a script conflict. In fact it appears to have been a misclick. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The text about her support for torture has been altered to "she as president would authorize torture only under one circumstance".[41] Gabbard clearly does not specify that this is the only circumstance where she would authorize torture. That's the editor "PapaDrew's" misreading and WP:OR altering of Gabbard's comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls has violated 1RR for the second time today, this time to restore his preferred version of the text on Gabbard's position on torture.[42][43] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, we can still not remove the bland "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship" statement.[44] The Four Deuces's rationale: "A lot of people opposed a strong relationship with India and its PM was barred from entry to the U.S. until 2015". This edit summary confuses India with Modi, as apparently supporting a strong US-India relationship is just about being OK with a leader who played an active role in deadly ethnic riots which left 2000 dead. It's like saying Merkel is hostile to the US because she has a shaky relationship with Trump. Furthermore, the statement is not sourced to a secondary source. It's just Gabbard's own answer to an interview question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

According Obama's press secretary, Obama's many meetings with Modi, some in the U.S., strengthened the relationship between the two countries.[45] I don't think anyone would say that the U.S. has good relations with countries when they have poor relations with their leaders. Incidentally, you should refactor your comments about the 2002 Gujarat riots, per WP:BLP. In 2012, a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India "found no evidence against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with a riots case in 2002," according to the BBC.[46] This finding led to the lifting of the Modi ban in the EU, the UK and the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Self-sourced content

Self-sourced content shouldn't be used for anything except maybe mundane 'personal life'-type content. We need reliable independent sourcing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm also concerned that the 'Political positions' section is becoming quite lengthy, and lacking in quality sources. We have to be careful not to turn this article into a WP:BROCHURE.- MrX 🖋 7:53 am, Today (UTC−5)

An editor has added a secondary source. The content regards Gabbard's attempts to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed with the consent of the Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1999. The position is important because many people blame its repeal for the banking crisis of 2008. It is certainly important and it would be more constructive to find a better source than to delete it. Primary sources are allowed, its just that secondary sources are preferable. TFD (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem that we get into with primary sources is that they may provide a misleading depiction. For example, numerous Republicans claimed that they were for preexisting conditions and other aspects of the ACA even though they had voted against such protections or were actively supporting measures to undermine them in 2018. If we were to simply use their campaign websites and op-eds to incorporate such content on Wikipedia, readers would get a misleading/false understanding of the stances of these politicians. Independent reliable sources would however have provided the necessary context. Primary sources get us into a mess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Politicians' website can present their positions in self-serving even deceptive ways and if there is no reporting of specific policies in secondary sources then they lack significance for inclusion in articles. TFD (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

However, if there is reporting of specific policies in secondary sources, then they do not lack significance for inclusion in articles. This is the case for Glass-Steagall. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

people who run for the presidential nomination can expect that all their political positions will be examined in depth. Wiki rules are clear that information about a person provided by that person is a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF political positions entry?

In 2016, I proposed spinning off the political positions parts of a presidential candidate's entry away from her BLP. (§§) She was the only candidate not to benefit from this treatment. IMO, the strongest argument for that candidate not having her own political positions page was the fact that she'd never held a national office.

I think that in Tulsi Gabbard's case such a spin-off would respond to MrX's concerns about too much detail in this entry. Thoughts? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for a spinoff at the moment. Also, there is still some primary source content that should be removed from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that spin off article is warranted, since her policies are just not that notable. It may make sense if she gets the nomination. - MrX 🖋 18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

2RR: gaming the rules...

I see that the 1RR rules on this page are being gamed. Two reversions were made earlier today: one removing "longstanding content" about religious freedom, another removing longstanding content about Gabbard's position on whistleblowers. [47], [48]

In order to restore the integrity of the text I would have needed to make two separate reverts, so rather than do so and inevitably be dragged to a drama board, I will simply point out that the spirit of 1RR has been violated with these edits. I have restored the first (MrX has been fighting about the "reproductive rights vs. abortion" language for a while now) but have had to leave the second unrestored. It would perhaps be wise to add to the text what Gabbard actually says in the Newsweek article MrX deleted to demonstrate that the question of surveillance and privacy is a policy position:

“That was something that Snowden uncovered and released, something that I don't know that even as members of Congress we would have been aware of,” Gabbard continued. “So now that we are aware of it, we can take action to close those loopholes, to change those policies, to protect our civil liberties… Was the NSA going to disclose that information voluntarily? Absolutely not.” source

-- SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The notion that making a continuous series of edits is "gaming the rules" is ludicrous. I think it's time that you stop filling talk pages with your bad faith accusations, feverish unsubstantiated smears and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. A continuous series of reverts counts as one revert. ~Awilley (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: So I can revert their 2nd reversion without risk? Your lack of comment concerning Snoogans personal attacks is very interesting. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Also @Awilley:, I'm a bit touchy about this at the moment because of this very freestyle interpretation of 1RR on a page that does not even have the BIG public notice about 1RR on its talk page. So please don't be surprised should I be slightly "chill(ed)" at the moment. 🍨 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If I have inadvertently violated 1RR, I'm happy to self-revert. I think the only portion of my original edit that was contested and restored were some section headings. Are there any objections to any of the changes that I made to them? MrX 🖋 16:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the deletion of the "Social issues" header very useful. The grouping seems to me conceptually helpful. Could you comment on the spinoff below if you haven't already? I asked the question because I do believe you've tagged some parts of the political positions section as being overly detailed? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think better groupings would be Foreign policy and Domestic policy. We should not mislead our readers into thinking that her policies are so elaborate that they need to be further sub-grouped. Some are not even policies.- MrX 🖋 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Article improvements

I made a few changes that were reverted. I think they improve the article by keeping it focused and relevant:

1. Removal of this image which doesn't educate readers:
2. Gabbard's op-ed in a blog masquerading as Religious freedom policy (if it were noteworthy, it may be suitable for a dedicated policy article. See my comments above.)
3. Gabbard's reflections on Snowden and Assange, masquerading as Privacy and surveillance policy. - MrX 🖋 11:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not followed the reversions. If your reversion was reverted you seem to have re-reverted. I have restored "religious freedom" as the text and multiple RS clearly support it (this has been a continuous policy position for years... cf. her opponent for the house seat she currently holds saying Hindus shouldn't be in Congress, for example, or search for "religious bigotry Gabbard" with the search engine of your choice). As for Snowden & Assange, I've added a less interpretive title than "privacy". I have also removed your addition of a low-quality Daily Mail Beast article talking about the 2020 campaign which was not mentioned in the entry about her campaign. Remember, the section on the campaign on her BLP is meant to be a short summary of the most salient parts of the dedicated entry and should not include trivial hit pieces not mentioned there, especially not without noting that they have been identified as such in RS. Cf. Matt Taibi. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I still think the religious freedom section is the answer to a question that nobody asked, but I will defer to other editors. I will also defer to other editors about Snowden and Assange. The material about contributions from Russia enthusiasts is important, but I can live with it being in the campaign article for now. The Daily Beast is not really a low quality source. The way you know that is WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX 🖋 20:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)