SashiRolls (talk | contribs) →Saudi Arabia: add link |
SashiRolls (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
::I believe I have made your desired changes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=882743588&oldid=882733590 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. [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC) |
::I believe I have made your desired changes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=882743588&oldid=882733590 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. [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=882710172&oldid=882709586 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. [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | t]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls|c]]</sup> 02:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:54, 11 February 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 13 January 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)
Science of Identity
It's surprising that this isn't even mentioned in this article [1], [2].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.[3] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I won't stand in anyone's way.- MrX 🖋 20:22, 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)
- 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)
- The New Yorker article IS media attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
lobbieslorries 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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:
- 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)
- Because this is decided through editorial consensus. What "relationship" does she have exactly? --Malerooster (talk) 03:47, 16 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)
Interesting news analysis of her presidential candidacy for possible content expansion
- "The Democratic candidate’s perplexing, Bannonesque foreign policy and passivity toward Assad may make her radioactive. And then there is the homophobia."
- "Tulsi Gabbard publicly criticized fellow Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono’s questioning of a 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."
- "The enigmatic congresswoman has earned substantial praise from many across the right—from Fox News star Tucker Carlson to white nationalists like David Duke."
- "The congresswoman from Hawaii’s past is filled with anti-LGBTQ activism, calls for bombing Syria and endorsing torture"
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- russia propaganda machine discovers 2020 candidate Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:55, 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)
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)
- 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)
- '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)
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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".[4] 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[5]. The individual changes can also be observed on the page's history[6]. 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)
- This is what your edit summary stated: "please make major changes like this section by section; many things were deleted without comment".[4] 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)