Talk:Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard

Campaign finance reform

Discussion continued from Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard#Campaign_Finance_Reform Nblund ^talk 17:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard profiles

I've tried to compile a list of some of the Gabbard profiles that could be useful for both reliability and for weight in this article. Some of these are already cited, but others aren't really used. I would say that these sources are definitely reliable, and are probably good indicators of WP:DUE weight to draw on for her political positions and background (within reason):

• PBS
• New York Times
• Politifact
• The Guardian
• United Press International
• Associated Press

These are sources that are probably reliable for some claims, but that may be too specialized or opinionated too rely on too heavily for the purposes of WP:DUE weight:

• Vox
• Fivethirtyeight
• Rolling Stone
• The Intercept
• NY Mag

If anyone has issues here or sees some that could be added, let me know. Nblund ^talk 20:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

'drain the swamp' --> WP:DUE, …

@Nblund, Re your edit here: Not sure what happened re my original link, but anyway … this gives us a chance to explore WP:DUE or any other arguably relevant policy as a general frame.

The content of her launch speech seems not to have been significantly reported but only archived by 4president.org (which has been unavailable at times) and the Archives of Women's Political Communication, and in this user-created video clip.

How would you see WP:Due applying when a candidate for public office makes a statement of their views, no MSM reports it, and no RS of any kind disputes it — which means there is no minority viewpoint? Notability does not apply to content within an article.

Re 'drain the swamp', that has its own WP page as an 'idiomatic expression'. How does that bear on its use here? Humanengr (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources for something, we shouldn't be covering it here either. Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge about a topic, but it doesn't cover things (even true things) if reliable sources don't do the same. We need to defer to secondary sources because that's really the only way to make an objective determination about what is and is not important. Otherwise, we would end up cherry picking facts to make Gabbard look bad or good depending on our own personal biases. I think we have plenty of sourcing on her positions in order to cover her adequately using only high quality citations. I recognize that she has received less press coverage than other candidates. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no way to rectify this. We can't fix bias in the sources.

It does have an idiomatic usage, but idioms aren't necessarily neutral, and the "drain the swamp" language is strongly associated with the guy she wants to run against. Moreover: Wikipedia is a global website and readers who are not well-versed in American political jargon might not understand terms like "big pharma", so as much as possible, we should try to translate those terms in to their plain English equivalents. Nblund ^talk 21:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

re "If reliable sources don't do the same": Here, the primary source is a reliable source for their view. (The point some make about it being 'self-serving' is easily handled by a "she says".) Also, iiuc, you're not counting the archival by 4president.org and awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu as RS.

re "what is and is not important." Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge about a topic cites Rex071404#Principles for "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." In this example, I'm talking about a short list of key topics mentioned in the launch of a political campaign (~1% of the speech), not all the details of the speech.

Thx re idiomatic usage; agree. Humanengr (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

People aren't necessarily reliable sources of information about themselves, they aren't always forthright about their views and priorities. Kim Jong-Il would not have described himself as a "dictator", but we still don't use his self-description on Wikipedia. Even when they're reliable for uncontroversial statements, they aren't really useful for determining WP:DUE weight - Gabbard is not a good source for the most important things about Gabbard. You're talking about going in and choosing ~1% of the speech that you believe is important, but that's a pretty subjective task. It rests entirely on your personal opinion about what is and isn't significant, and we've got not objective standards to judge whether or not you're correct if we don't use secondary sources. What is there that can't be found elsewhere? Nblund ^talk 23:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No need for gratuitous comparisons to Mr. Kim. (Steve Cuozzo, citing the Meat Institute, does the same thing in his NY Post piece about Gabbard & Booker eating vegan at the Iowa State Fair.) I'm not convinced that "drain the swamp" is very commonly associated with Gabbard. Moreover, speaking of plants, garlic (allium sativum) is supposed to be very promising for the prevention & treatment of malaria: §. We shouldn't be stuck on the early 18th century suggestions of researchers like Giovanni Maria Lancisi (1717: De Noxiis Paludum Effluviis).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Unrig the System Summit

@Nblund, re this edit: found this and this for 2ary sources. This wasn't my contribution, but do think it fits reasonably well. Ok? Humanengr (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The first one seems like a niche blog run by a guy from a conservative thinktank. The second source is a student newspaper. Both only contain brief mentions of her involvement and they don't say what she said or did. What does this tell us about Tulsi Gabbard's political positions? I suspect all of the candidates in the race are opposed to corruption. Nblund ^talk 23:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Transparency added to Overview §

This is clearly a policy issue for her. Am considering if and how to to move parts to a § on 'Transparency'. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it? It seems pretty clearly related to her campaign and her missing the debates. Certainly all of the coverage I've seen from reliable sources covers it as a direct response to her missing the deadline. The lengthy blockquote is excessive either way. Nblund ^talk 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund Re “It seems pretty clearly related to her campaign and her missing the debates”: Yes, Carlson’s prompting question “tell me if I'm misstating this. The Democratic Party is refusing to -- the DNC is refusing to recognize as valid polls that puts you, that would qualify you for the next debate.” was about qualifying for the debate.

But she completes her short initial response with “I think the bigger problem is that the whole process really lacks transparency.” After his “Right”, she ends the next portion with “I think this also points to a bigger issue and challenge that goes beyond the DNC and party politics is the government itself.”

In the next segment: “And, really, what they see is a small group of really powerful political elites, the establishment, making decisions that serve their interests, and maintaining that power, while the rest of us are left outside. The American people are left behind. So, these -- these are the deeper-seated issues. I think it's important”, which Carlson interrupts to acknowledge with a “Right”, she continues, “that we recognize and that for me as president, that I would seek to change.”

That is policy by definition.

Re what RS say: Newsweek: “Gabbard went on to say that this challenge is not unique to the Democratic National Committee but extends to the entire federal government. She argued that voters are losing trust in the government because they only see 'powerful elites' being elected to office while candidates like her are left behind.” RCP highlighted the line: " 'I think this also points to a bigger issue and challenge that goes beyond the DNC and party politics is the government itself,' Gabbard added." Humanengr (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but is it her most important policy position? Because the length and placement of the quote gives the impression that it is. It's a response to an event that happened just yesterday, and it seems like WP:RECENTISM to give it such a prime position. Maybe the section on "campaign finance reform" could be changed to "electoral reform", and could include a mention of her position on the electoral college and a paraphrase of the end of this block quote? Nblund ^talk 13:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As is evident from the bullets just inserted, transparency for Gabbard is much broader than ‘electoral reform’. It also spans domestic and foreign so should not be subordinated to either.Humanengr (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems like WP:SYNTH. You're bringing together a bunch of disparate issues where she's said "transparency", but I'm sure we could find a bunch of instances where she's used the word "democracy" or "freedom" as well. That doesn't make it a policy position, and i'm sure we could also find a bunch of those for every other candidate as well. We've got a bunch of profiles talking about her key issues, but I don't really see many saying that "transparency" is one of them.

At best, there's nothing here that couldn't be summarized in a couple of sentences in its own section. It kind of seems like you intend for that list to prove your point in this talk page discussion - but readers are probably going to find it confusing. Nblund ^talk 15:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "I think the second quote could either be placed on the page for her 2020 campaign, or merged into a subsection here": your paring omitted most notably her points about 1) people losing faith in government and 2) a small group of powerful, political elites making decisions that serve -their-interests while the rest of us are left outside. She identified those as "the deeper-seated issues". That belongs on this page, either in the overview or in the transparency section. Humanengr (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean that belongs in addition to the bulleted list, or as an alternative to it? Nblund ^talk 18:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Include the above and pare the bullets to listing civil liberties and national security; GMO labeling; the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement; limiting the presidential primary debates in 2016 as examples with cites. Humanengr (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's a start. But I still don't quite see the point of having a bunch of bullet points connecting disparate policies to one another. Are there any reliable sources that link her position on GMO labeling to her position on the criteria for qualifying for the debates? WP:SYNTH discourages editors from combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - it seems like we're doing that by linking these issues under the rubric of "transparency". Nblund ^talk 19:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s her term, not a ‘rubric’ that I created. On tulsigabbard.org, she invokes that term for:

• GMO labeling: … “Fighting for sensible, transparent food policy has been one of Tulsi's key priorities in Congress”
• DNC reform: … “If we don’t reform the DNC then we are destined for more losses. Openness, inclusion, & transparency are not issues that are up for debate.” [from tweet]
• Campaign finance reform: “Limit ‘dark money’ by forcing transparency of outside groups, corporations, and wealthy donors”
• TPP: “Demanding Transparency in the TPP”
• Medicare for All: “ensure transparency so people know exactly what the cost is and what they’re paying for.”
• In the title of a 2015 bill she introduced— Civili liberties: “Strengthening Privacy, Oversight, and Transparency (SPOT) Act to expand the functions of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)”
• as well as in the title of another she co-sponsored Infrastructure: “H.R. 5609 Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act”

We can say that in the past she has explicitly highlighted 'transparency' as an issue when discussing/proposing x, y, and z.

How are these connected by anything more than the term "transparency"? Her website is not a particularly good source here, but even her website doesn't appear to link these disparate issues to one another. We have plenty of reliable secondary sources that summarize her key positions - I don't see any need to resort to this kind of synthesis. Nblund ^talk 01:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In line with your suggestion, I've shifted the components to other relevant sections. Humanengr (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Armenia and Azerbaijan §

Opening here for continuing from the prior discussion at Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard#The_Daily_Wire_&_the_Daily_Caller_on_Artsakh. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Humanengr. I pretty much copied SashiRolls' wording (minus the off-topic genocide reference) and added some context clarifying the event's relevance to US foreign policy. Parishan (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a political position and so is outside the scope of the article. I would note also the propagandist writing style. Gabbard's spokesperson "said" it was approved by the State Department, but we cast doubt on that by implying it was against U.S. foreign policy. Then we have, "Gabbard's spokesperson refused to comment on the ban." But the sources don't even say whether she was asked about it. And of course the section provides no explanation about why American congressmen would travel to Nagorno-Karabakh in this manner. It could be because Azerbaijan refuses to allow foreign observers to visit and has blocked all foreign assistance to the area. Both Gabbard and the Minsk group want to resolve the problem through negotiation with all sides. And if she had received permission from President Ilham Aliyev no doubt it would be spun as Gabbard is a friend of a Putin puppet dictator. TFD (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

TFD, I would like to point out one thing. It seems that you have been absent from the discussion for almost two months. Since then, the discussion has significantly progressed. Recently, SashiRolls has suggested a compromise version, Humanengr seconded it, and I agreed with it with a few exceptions that no one seemed to object to and that I explained above. You showing up on this article and deleting content because you disagree with it is not the right path to take and constitutes edit-warring. In general, I find it counter-productive that users who appear interested in discussing a particular topic take voluntary weeks-, sometimes months-long leaves from a discussion (but not from others) despite unresolved issues pending and, when their non-involvement is interpreted as a sign of approval or indifference and the paragraph is (modified and) put back into the article, they reappear only to remove the paragraph. What is particularly inconvenient is that during their absence, they sometimes lose track of the discussion and come anew with the same set of arguments, which are not even a matter of discussion any longer or have already been addressed.

1. The wording that casts doubt on the approval by the State Department is legitimate because the State Department travel advisory clearly warns against travelling to Nagorno-Karabakh: [1], [2], as do foreign ministries of many other countries: Canada, the UK, France, etc.
2. Honolulu Civil Beat dedicated its article not to the details of Gabbard's visit but to her being banned from Azerbaijan and when an article says that "responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat... the press release did not address the ban by Azerbaijan, and Latimer offered no further comment", it is not particularly "propagandist" to summarise this as "the spokesperson refused to comment on the ban". If you find this wording too strong, I do not object to just formulating it exactly as it stands in the article. However, this is no reason to delete content from Wikipedia.
3. The Minsk Group is a designated international mediation body for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict whose efforts are solicited by both Azerbaijan and Armenia under the Bishkek Protocol and which Gabbard is not a member of. You cannot compare Gabbard's position and diplomatic capacity with those of the official peace process-regulating institution.
4. On June 29, you already raised the question of how foreign observers visit Nagorno-Karabakh without upsetting the government of Azerbaijan, and I provided a list of links showing that the area is frequented by international missions without any trouble once they receive accreditation from the country whose authority over Nagorno-Karabakh is recognised by every other country in the world, including the US. This includes official mediators, OSCE and PACE monitoring missions, post-war resettlement fact finders, HALO Trust staff, authors, analysts and reporters (for example, Thomas de Waal, Simon Reeve, etc.), and none of them made the news or was criticised for compromising their integrity. Gabbard went there without accreditation and made the news, in addition to expressing views that are not in line with the official US policy. Therefore, this cannot be about Azerbaijan rendering access to Nagorno-Karabakh impossible so that there is no other way to visit it than by violating its immigration policy. The claim of Aliyev being a "Putin puppet" is completely irrelevant ("puppetry" does not delegitimise sovereignty), not only resembling what you yourself once qualified as "investigative journalism" but also plain untrue. Incidentally, this year, the alleged "Putin puppet" state is receiving $100 million worth of military aid from the US government as opposed to Armenia (home of one of the largest Russian foreign military bases in the world, which in fact has an alliance agreement with Armenia against any foreign military intervention) which is only receiving $4.2 million. However, this is all beside the point. Coming back to the issue, I am not against developing the context of the paragraph to clarify the political background for the reader, but this should not presuppose resorting to synthesis and original research (e.g. "Gabbard did X because Azerbaijan does Y" and other "investigative-journalism" statements). This is not what Wikipedia is about, and Ms. Gabbard is not on trial here; all we do is operate with what reliable sources say about it.
5. I still do not understand why according to you, "this is not a political position". What is it, then? Parishan (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Parishan, you said: "I pretty much copied SashiRolls' wording [...]" For reference I object to such distortions: my proposal bears only very distant resemblance to what you posted. I notice you did not cite the bit in the article about Gabbard's statement mentioning that the Hawaii legislature had recognized the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh in March 2016, and instead chose to personalize to "Gabbard expressed her support for the independence of the unrecognised state". Also concerning Azerbaijan's recognition of the genocide and whether that was important to the delegation:

The committee wants to force Turkey and Azerbaijan to acknowledge mass killings of about 1.5 million people and huge population displacement that occurred among Armenian Christians in the early 20th century when they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire. (source)

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The point about the genocide is irrelevant to Nagorno-Karabakh, and so far, I have not seen one argument in favour of linking the visit to Nagorno-Karabakh (a region that had not even been affected by the genocide) and the genocide statement. Gabbard also made a similar call to the United States in the same statement because the United States do not recognise the genocide either, and neither do over a hundred other countries around the world. Where is the logical link?

The Hawaii legislature recognition is a symbolic resolution of no legal value; besides, Gabbard visited the region as part of a delegation representing the United States, not the State of Hawaii. I am not against including this point in the final paragraph if you think this facilitates understanding the context, but it was not present in your proposal either, so it cannot be held against me in suggesting that my version bore "distant resemblance" to yours.

In any event, even if I agreed with you 100%, this would only prove that Gabbard does have a political position with regard to Azerbaijan, contrary to what TFD is trying to argue here. Parishan (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this really warrants significant mention in the article. I can only find coverage of the trip in two reliable sources. To the extent that there is a political position here it appears to be: Gabbard said she favors self-determination for the people of the region, and she wants a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. I understand there's a larger subtext here - questions about who approved her travel, questions about the Armenian genocide - but those are going to completely sail over reader's heads, and saying stuff about a "refusal to comment" does sort of sound like innuendo. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Parishan, since you think that this proves Gabbard has a political position with regard to Azerbaijan, could you please tell me what it is. Then we can add it to the article. But there was nothing in the section about political positions. Also, you need to remember that information about Gabbard does not have weight because of how you choose to interpret it, but only to the extent it is reported in reliable sources. In my editing, I have never added anything from investigative journalism except where it has been reported in other sources. I created the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal, which was about information that came to light through investigative journalism and included nothing beyond what other sources had chosen to report about the original findings. I think that if we follow weight, then we can avoid pointless discussion. And no I haven't been away from this article for two months. I was unaware it existed. TFD (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"limited use of drones"

@COLLATERAL DAMAGE COLLATERAL DAMAGE and Nblund: The original text was "Asked if she still favors a small footprint approach with limited use of weaponized drones against groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, Gabbard said, 'With these terror cells, for example, yes, I still believe that the right approach to take is these quick-strike forces, surgical strikes in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation, to get rid of the threat that exists and then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations where our military is not able to get in without creating an unacceptable level of risk.'”

CDCD: Your version introduced opinion text from the Intercept. It is not a statement of Gabbard's position.

Nblund: The phrase "without creating an unacceptable level of risk" is not specific as to which risk(s). I think it inappropriate to use language that deviates from the quote. Humanengr (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Its not really inconsistent with the quote, though. I think you could add "to military personnel" to the end of the sentence. FWIW: if we've decided that Gabbard's quote from this article is important, its hard to see how we can avoid also including author's criticisms of her. We can't state those criticisms in Wikipedia's voice (which is why I removed the parenthetical remark) but we also can't cherry pick around the negative stuff. Nblund ^talk 21:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not necessarily consistent either. By offering "to military personnel", you make my point. She did not indicate that the risk was only "to military personnel". She might also be including risk to civilians, etc. Humanengr (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that anyone thinks drones are safer for civilians, but the statement "where the use of troops may be too risky" also doesn't specify who the risk is to, it only specifies that the risk is in comparison to using troops. I'd be fine with changing to a truncated version of the quote: "she favors 'limited use of drones' in situations where the 'military is not able to get in without creating an unacceptable level of risk.'" Nblund ^talk 21:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Go for it. (Also agree that "where the use of troops may be too risky" doesn't specify who the risk is to; but the wording does focus attention on the last noun — akin to pronouns referring to the preceding noun — which leads to possibly inappropriate inferences.) Humanengr (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Advocating for closer ties with "Modi" - not accurate.

" She has repeatedly praised Narendra Modi,[153][154] the Indian prime minister and leader of the ruling Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party,[155] and advocated for closer ties with him."

She has advocated for closer ties with India in general - in a non-partisan way, not Modi specifically. Neither of the links given actually demonstrate her specifically advocating only for closer ties with Modi.

So removing those.

Abhijitmk (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Abhijitmk

The CFR source states "Gabbard favors building closer ties with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi" Nblund ^talk 17:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I question whether the sentence is required at all. The situation is explained in the first sentence. The disputed sentence is followed by criticism and defense. I don't see why anyway we are using a blog as a source. Even though the author is an expert, he is expressing his opinion through rhetoric, which we are then repeating without intext attribution. This style violates Tone: "Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, persuasive style, which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of appeals to emotion and related fallacies. This style is used in press releases, advertising, op-ed writing, activism, propaganda, proposals, formal debate, reviews, and much tabloid and sometimes investigative journalism. It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them." TFD (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Who is Tulsi Gabbard" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Who is Tulsi Gabbard. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Position on Antifa?

Should we add Tulsi's position on Antifa to the article? HussarZwei (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard differs from Democrats in that she wants a greater focus on foreign policy in debates?

The bolded part of this text in the lead is completely unsupported by the citation and is just straight-up false (this is not a difference between Gabbard and other Democratic candidates):

• The political positions taken by Tulsi Gabbard in her 2020 presidential campaign are broadly similar to those of other Democratic primary contenders on domestic issues such as healthcare and environment. Gabbard, however, has placed more emphasis on foreign policy issues, calling for a debate centered exclusively on that topic.

It should be removed, yet the text was restored by the editor SashiRolls.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not false that Gabbard has placed more emphasis on foreign policy issues than other candidates, that's a "sky is blue" claim. A coherent criticism of her campaign is that they don't talk about much else. The article certainly does support that she called for a debate on foreign policy. You are correct that the article doesn't say she was the only one to do so. I did not add this material. Perhaps further articles can be found to further support the "sky is blue" claim, saying that she is pretty exclusively focused on foreign policy and the role of the President as Commander in Chief. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Having recognized that the text is entirely unsupported and that this text is prominently featured in the lead, are you going to remove it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, will let cooler heads than mine or yours prevail. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You're restoring text to the lead of this article that you yourself recognize is completely unsupported? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I sourced the "sky is blue" claim to a NYT squib defining each candidate's signature issues. Notice there is no mention of Syria or Assad in the list of "signature issues". I also reworded slightly such that there is no confusion.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the main difference between Gabbard and other Democrats, per every RS, is her position on Syria. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying other Democrats want to go to war in Syria now? (puzzled)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Per RS, her meeting with Assad and her skepticism of his use of chemical weapons is what sets her noticeably apart from other Democrats, and is what has led other Democrats to criticize her.[4][5][6][7] Some RS also highlight her criticisms of Obama for refusing to blame "radical Islam" for terrorism and for her opposition to accepting Syrian refugees. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that Howard Dean and Neera Tanden are the only people who have criticized Gabbard's Syria position

SashiRolls restored text which suggested to readers that the only people who have criticized Gabbard's Syria position are Howard Dean and Neera Tanden.[8] Not only is it strange to mention that someone was criticized (without mentioning the reason why), but it's wrong to suggest that these are the only people who have criticized her Syria position. I don't think we should mention Dean and Tanden nor do I think it's appropriate to start listing every Democrat who has criticized her. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Howard Dean & Neera Tanden are rather important Democrats. I did not add this longstanding text to the article, I don't think, but see no reason why it should be deleted.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we add all the other Democrats that have criticized her Syria position or just these two? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm years late to this discussion, but I agree that naming Howard Dean and Neera Tanden as the only critics is inappropriate, but personally, I think the main issue here is that too much weight is being given to criticisms of a single statement from Gabbard in response to a single airstrike, rather than criticisms of Gabbard's Syria-related positions more generally. The paragraph that mentions Howard Dean and Neera Tanden contains several preceding sentences about positions that undoubtedly attracted far more criticisms, notably Gabbard's skepticism that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons or her suggestions that the chemical weapons attacks were staged. We should describe criticisms of her foreign policy as it relates to the Syrian Civil War as a whole, not how two people reacted to how she phrased her response to a strike ordered by former president Trump.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Failing to clarify to readers that she no longer supports the Green New Deal

The editor SashiRolls removed text sourced to the Guardian, which summarized Gabbard's position on the GND as "an early supporter of the Green New Deal championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives, but has since backed away from it."[9] This text makes clear that she does not support the GND. The existing text merely says that Gabbard has "expressed concerns about vagueness in the version of the Green New Deal proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey", leaving it unclear whether she supports the GND or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the text is redundant. She did not co-sponsor it; she expressed concerns about... we don't need to say the same thing eighteen times. And your source does not develop that story (everything you quote is in fact a parenthetical aside—it's even in parentheses—in the story). Were there some substance to the reference, I would not have deleted it. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the argument that the Guardian is unreliable for its claim or is the argument that the text is redundant? Because the Guardian is clearly a RS per the RS noticeboard, and there is clearly a distinction between expressing concerns about a bill and backing away from supporting it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving text about chem weapons from a paragraph on the topic to a totally different paragraph

The editor SashiRolls moved text about Gabbard's view on Assad's use of chemical weapons from a paragraph on that very topic to a totally different paragraph (under Gabbard's views on her views on 'regime change war' in Syria).[10] It feels standard to keep content on the same topic within the same paragraph rather than spread it across the whole article in random bits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll look into this diff, this may have been a mistake. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, this was not a mistake: the paragraphs are two years apart chronologically! (I misread what you wrote above, I thought you were saying I had inadvertently moved it to a new section or something.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, it is better to keep content on the same topic within the same paragraph rather than distribute every single sentence in the article so that it is chronological order. This seems very basic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, reacting to the tone on this page, I didn't spend much time checking into this. In fact, coming back to it, I realized I had inadvertently only added one carriage return rather than two; as such it was possible to say I moved Eliot's claims to the bottom of a separate paragraph, because a single CR isn't enough to make a paragraph. I've fixed my mistake; somehow I knew there was one. Apologies for the confusion. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Attributing a Bellingcat report to its author

We don't attribute RS reporting to the author of the report. We attribute it the publication. Otherwise, readers are misled into thinking it's an opinion piece.[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins is for all intents and purposes Bellingcat. I noticed you provided "our" readers no link to either Bellingcat or Eliot Higgins. Why was that? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat is a RS per the RS noticeboard, and it's certainly not just one guy's website. I have no objection at all to hyperlinking to Bellingcat, and I'm puzzled by the insinuation that there was sinister intent in not hyperlinking to Bellingcat. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WBG's close of the RFC you started the same day this article came out suggested it is preferable to give Bellingcat's pieces in-text attribution since they can (potentially) be POV. Hence, I attributed the authority to the author. Would you like to add a link to Bellingcat, in addition to the author link? Be my guest... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The text already attributed this to Bellingcat, so your comment here pointing to the RfC and suggesting attribution is unnecessary and irrelevant. The question is about whether the attribution should be to the publication or the author. Given that Bellingcat is a RS and this is not an op-ed, we ought to attribute it to the publication, not the specific author of the report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I added the link because it was suggested during the RfC that Bellingcat should probably not be used at all on a BLP concerning Tulsi Gabbard, as better sources should be available. ([12]) It's true that article is, at least stylistically, an opinion piece.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

One user in a RfC said that. The RfC concluded with a consensus that Bellingcat was a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to open a new discussion at RS/N now that you're actually using the article in a BLP, despite being cautioned about it. Also, I couldn't help but notice the contradiction between your edit to mainspace and your position here.

No, I am absolutely not going to re-open a three-month old RfC that concluded with a clear consensus that Bellingcat was a RS to ask again whether Bellingcat is a RS. There is nothing at all contradictory about the edit that you bring up.[13] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Gabbard called for a foreign policy debate" in the lead

That Gabbard called for a debate on foreign policy is not lead-worthy content. This is not one of the most notable political positions of hers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, Can you first explain your removing the other lead material here as "most of this is poorly sourced"? Thanks Humanengr (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in there is cited to a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That edit removed:

Gabbard criticizes what she terms the "establishment war machine" for escalating tensions and an arms race that could lead to nuclear war; and "media giants ruled by corporate interests (…) in the pocket of the establishment war machine (…) [stoking] rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war." Gabbard calls for greater transparency in the electoral process and a broad range of policy areas.

The sources are RCP (2x), 4president.org, c-span, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Washington Free Beacon. The last you retained and moved. What about those is non-RS? Humanengr (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The only RS in the bunch is the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, which only says "In addition to accusing Google of trying to muffle her campaign message, she has blamed the political establishment and mainstream media for ignoring or smearing her, suggesting in campaign materials that they are in the “pocket of the establishment war machine.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

"Gabbard repeatedly praised?" Modi … "Her support" ?

The India § starts:

Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship. She has repeatedly praised Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister and leader of the ruling Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. Her support has led some critics to charge that she is too close to Modi and to Hindu Nationalists in India. She has disputed claims that she is partial to the BJP or to any other political party in India, and has stated that she has met with officials from both major parties.

What in these sources supports the phrases "Gabbard repeatedly praised" and "Her support" ? Humanengr (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is typical agitprop. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama and Trump have had nice things to say about Modi, but our message to readers is that there is something unusual about Gabbard reflecting what they say. TFD (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Agitprop? This is just RS content. Also, there's a confused false balance in your OR reasoning for why this content should be excluded. Presidents and Secretary of States engaging in diplomacy is not the same as a member of Congress making something her focus (which is why this is something that RS highlight). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, Which content, specifically? Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

My preferred version is to reflect what RS say about Gabbard and hindu nationalists, which is that she is "aligned" with them or supports them. I did not write "repeatedly praised" and I don't think that's reflective of RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, need I remind you Mrs Gabbard served in the House's Foreign Affairs Committee, that the Legislative branch is not subordinate to the Executive branch of govt in the US, and that, therefore, there is nothing uncommon in Congressmen and women engaging in diplomacy for what they see as the best interest of the nation in the eyes of their constituents? John McCain did this ALL and none of your so-called RS ever as much as batted an eyelash about it. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

"Repeatedly praised" is type of weasel-wording one would expect to find in polemical writing, such as an article in the Center for American Progress rather than an encyclopedia. How often is repeatedly? Twice in a lifetime? Six times an hour? Praised is deceptive too since of course politicians say nice things about leaders of U.S. allies. Notice this type of phrasing is only used against people we don't like although in this case Gabbard has not "repeatedly praised" Modi any more than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have. Hence the Obama article merely says Obama "went to India, where he spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit before meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over lunch." No mention that Modi is a Hindu nationalist or suggestion that Obama was too close to him. Google "Obama praises Modi" and countless articles appear. Yet it is not mentioned in Obama's article. TFD (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither current sources nor other sources I have looked at indicate, in a manner suitable for BLP, that Gabbard praised Modi much less "repeatedly praised" or "her support". Following WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"), we should pare this down to [updated]:

Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship "of mutual respect … for many reasons—not the least of which is the war against terrorists." Critics charge that she is too close to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and to Hindu Nationalists in India. She has disputed claims that she is partial to the BJP or to any other political party in India, and has stated that she has met with officials from both major parties.

Humanengr (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

1. "Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship." is vapid and does not belong in this article. 2. "Critics charge" is not appropriate language given that it's RS that say that she's aligned with hindu nationalists. 3. I have no objection to saying she rebuts that she's supportive of the BJP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

1. is not vapid because many congressmen wanted to exclude Modi from the U.S., while others have proposed sanctions against India for human rights abuses. 2. Critics charge is appropriate since there are no reliable sources that Gabbard is aligned with Hindu nationalists, just charges by critics. It's disingenuous since Gabbard's position on India is the same as the Clintons, Obama, Trump and most of the U.S. Congress. Also, you fail to mention that Gabbard visited India on behalf of the bipartisan Foreign Relations Committee, but you present it as her acting alone as she did in her Syria visit. TFD (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, I added the cite and some context from there to address 'vapid'. Humanengr (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Humanengr's wording unequivocally. Guarapiranga (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Humanengr's wording unequivocally. Also thank's to Guarapiranga for their explanation of the role of members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and to TFD for their description of the huge difference in media's treatment of Gabbard's contact with India compared to other US politicians. Xenagoras (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, both 'supports' and "aligned with" are redundant with 'partial to' in the 3rd sentence; so propose incorporating elements of the 2nd into the 3rd and adding the cite ([7]) for the claims referred to in [1]:

Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship "of mutual respect … for many reasons—not the least of which is the war against terrorists." She has disputed claims that she is partial to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi or Hindu Nationalists, or to any other political party in India, and has stated that she has met with officials from both major parties.

Humanengr (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that wording. I would leave out however "has stated that" since the facts are not in question. TFD (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, agree re facts. Reordered, added some text to suit, & cites. Would this work?

Gabbard supports a strong US-India relationship "of mutual respect … for many reasons—not the least of which is the war against terrorists." Critics charge that she is too close to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and to the ruling Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. She has met with officials from both the BJP and the other major party, Indian National Congress, and has disputed claims she is partial to any political party in India.

Humanengr (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems fine. You present the known facts, the opinions of detractors and her response. TFD (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Organization of page should be before and after her presidential primaries loss

Gabbard has done a 180 degree turn in her views. It would be useful for readers to see the full range of her views.

Before 2020: Generally liberal, cozying to the Bernie Sanders camp. Demonstrating against the Keystone pipeline. Emphasizing Kamala Harris' prosecutorial background (during the presidential primary debates).

After 2020: Generally parroting the right wing lines. Vaccine and science skeptic. Appearing at CPAC. Contrarian.Dogru144 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an over-complication to have some of her political positions split up into before and after sections that are in different parts of the article. I would just leave the article organized completely by political topic.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral language for The Intercept apology

Since the The Intercept removed the controversial sentence against Tulsi with an apology, saying that it was not intended "to question the motives of those political donors" and apologizing "for any such implication"; therefore the grammar language should be accordingly neutral and non defamatory as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Shankar, Soumya (5 January 2019). [14]. The Intercept. Retrieved 12 January 2019. RogerYg (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Updated language that is more neutral and non defamatory as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. RogerYg (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)