Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RFC: Workshop for text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP

There is no consensus to adopt any of the text proposals. Editors are in disagreement about the reliability of the sources used to support the texts and about the neutrality of each of the proposals.

Cunard (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

When the previous RFC on whether there should be mention of the SIF in Gabbard's BLP was closed, the closer stated there was a majority in favor of 'yes' but noted: "A few editors objected to the phrasing of the RfC statement, because it does not specify the exact wording that would be used in the article." The closer left the Proposed wordings section open for workshopping of text. That section was not used but some proposed wording was put under a new section that been created for another purpose. To open the matter to broad participation and centralize discussion, this RfC is for workshopping text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP.

Related material for reference:

• RSN#Honolulu Civil Beat [active]
• RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation? [active]
• Proposed wordings [old]
• Workshop for SIF material [old]

Humanengr (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Text proposals

v.ONE (status unknown)

v.ONE.a

— for discussion of v.ONE.a go here

Tulsi Gabbard grew up in the Science of Identity Foundation community. In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it". Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. in 2019, Gabbard said Butler was "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor" and that his meditation teachings had given her "strength, shelter and peace".

References

v.TWO (withdrawn)

v.THREE (status unknown)

v.FOUR

— for discussion of v.FOUR go here

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.

Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"). Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

v.FOUR.a: Identical to v.FOUR with addition of the 2015 Civil Beat cite to the first sentence above.

References

v.FIVE

— for discussion of v.FIVE go here)

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler (aka Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa).

Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

References

v.SIX

— for discussion of v.SIX go here)

Gabbard’s personal religious views have been the subject of bigoted and sometimes racist attacks since the time of her first run for Congress in 2012:

• The Republican opponent Gabbard faced in 2012 and 2014 publicly argued that a Hindu should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. Congress and that Hinduism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution."
• In March 2015, the Honolulu Civil Beat reported on an intensive effort by a small group of anonymous internet forum contributors attempting to identify something sinister in an association between Gabbard and the Science of Identity Foundation, a religious organization founded by Chris Butler to teach Vaishnava Hindu yoga and meditation practices. The Civil Beat noted that "many, if not most, of the posts contain claims that are not backed up by supporting material, and they can be readily dismissed as rumors and innuendo — even patently false" and that "even if Gabbard were a Butler devotee … none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed or even the Gabbard skeptics [online], can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. … But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda."
• Gabbard's 2016 Republican opponent, Angela Kaaihue, wrote on her Facebook page “Some Christians say, a vote for Tulsi Gabbard is a vote for Satan, the devil — do you agree or disagree?” Kaaihue sent out a press release saying that Gabbard worshipped the devil and posted a flier (still available online) which included the text "Hindus are cannibals” and “Hindu Tulsi Gabbard … I call that a dumb Samoan and her dumb Samoan followers".

In written pieces and interviews, Gabbard has put the religious bigotry she has faced as a candidate in the context of other examples of bigotry against politicians: Abraham Lincoln attacked with accusations that he was not Christian; John F. Kennedy regarding his Catholicism, Barack Obama regarding suspicions he was Muslim; Mitt Romney bearing "direct attacks against his Mormon religion."

References

Discussion

Discussion of v.ONE.a

— earlier discussion here

• Still oppose - This proposal was already rejected more than two months ago. YouTube is an unacceptable source. The HCB material is outdated and WP:UNDUE, and represents a fringe POV. HCB is a weak source when stood up next to the other sources. - MrX 🖋 20:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your refusal to link to the source where she says Chris Butler is her "guru dev" while supporting that quotation being added to wiki-text is a devious path to take. As for Civil Beat, I'll rewrite a new proposal if you like, but both articles should be included in any discussion of SIF links to her campaign. It has been repeatedly explained to you (both here and at RS/N) that you have no reason to oppose the Civil Beat as a gold-star source for Hawaii reporting. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO it's best if we mostly DGAF where the content is posted when it comes to RS considerations. (We do have to consider whether it's a copyvio when discussing what to link to.) In this case, the source seems to be Hare Krsna TV -- Iskon Desire Tree which doesn't seem to be an RS to me. It doesn't matter whether it's on Youtube or their own website. If the source was BBC News, it would probably be an RS, no matter if it's on Youtube or their own website. Video sources are not ideal, still they are often still RS and can be used if there was no alternative. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Youtube is a perfectly fine "source". What matters is the reliability of the author, not the technology of the medium used for presentation. Honolulu Civil Beat is a high quality, multiple award winning [1] RS and certainly not fringe or undue. I urge you again to stop disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Xenagoras (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This is an objective summary, although I recommend to clarify by writing guru dev (spiritual teacher), and I recommend to not use the New York Intelligencer as source because it contains at least one gross misrepresentation of what the interviewed people said and is written as a narrative by a Professor for creative writing. Xenagoras (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of v.FOUR

— earlier discussion here See section below titled: why 5 won't work (yet). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

All of these sources are 'human-interest' (see WP:NEWSORG), so their reliability needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on the reputation of the publisher. Bowles does not provide any source or facts for the summary assertion that Gabbard was "raised in part on the teachings of the SIF religious community". "The SIF religious community" is a weasel phrase that seems as if it says something clear and specific, but it is left undefined. What is this "religious community" and what are the "teachings"? The Bowles article perhaps could be used for quotes from Gabbard since Bowles did speak to her. But the claim "Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her" is a misleading rephrasing by Bowles of what Gabbard actually said:

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

I join Sashi's comments on use of the brief mention of guru dev without sufficient context.

The Hurley article is tabloidy and sensationalist (see the subheading "Prostrating at the feet of a white guru"). Here anonymous "former members" claims are presented without context or information by which they could be assessed (though since it draws on the prior non-RS Stuff material, Rama Ranson is likely the source). It also relies on the NY Mag piece that not only highlighted Rama Ranson's opinion about Butler's politics (though Ranson was apparently 15 when he went to live with his grandmother in San Francisco), but pointed people to Ranson's outlandish website.

"Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community": Again, "part of the community" seems like it says something specific but it is left completely undefined. Also, her ex-husband, a private person, is brought in using the discredited NY Mag piece. In any event why would it be noteworthy if married people belonged to the same church or shared religious beliefs?

I could not find support for "Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF" in the McCarthy cite. McCarthy does include the opinion that Gabbard "downplayed" the SIF, citing the New Yorker article Sashi critiqued, a YouTube video and a Daily Kos 'Community' piece as sources.

But Gabbard did make statements in the Bowles piece and elsewhere that could be used on the SIF for her BLP. Why is that material deliberately being left out, while statements about her alleged 'reluctance' to speak (without explaining the context of the harassment and ridicule her beliefs have been subjected to) are included as newsworthy?

Humanengr (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The information about reluctance to speak publicly about the SIF comes from the Stuff.co.nz article,[2] as well as a dearth of RS where Gabbard has gone on record speaking about it. And there was no deliberate effort to leave anything out -- but there has been a deliberate effort to keep the statement basic, matter of fact, and neutral. If you want to include something beyond what has been proposed, rather than stonewalling others' efforts, suggest an edit. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

1) The Stuff piece is tabloid non-RS; 2) there is no BLP policy that states one can infer a reluctance to speak about something from a “dearth of RS”. That’s a violation of NOR and NPOV; 3) there are quotes from Gabbard topic. It’s just the editors have been refusing to consider them. Humanengr (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You've alleged previously that the Stuff is a tabloid. Stuff has won, or been a finalist for, numerous Newspaper Publishers' Association awards, including best news website in 2018 and 2019. So, don't even. Stuff reported on Gabbard's reluctance; it is WP:V, and it should be included.

There are quotes where Gabbard has deflected (e.g., calling Butler "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor" or that she has “many different spiritual teachers”), but you won't find a quote where she has talked about the SIF directly. If you find one, though, I'd be very interested to see it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Four Five has no sources to support that she's anything other than a follower. Sources for four, except one are reliable Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The logic of this statement escapes me, given that by and large 4 and 5 have the same core sourcing. You also don't mention which "one" you consider unreliable here. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

you won't find a quote where she has talked about the SIF directly. I added this 2017 interview to the talk page earlier, perhaps you missed it? She talks about Chris Butler, if not about SIF... [[3]]. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRollsI don't think I had actually seen this piece before. Do you consider this RS content that you would want in the article? I'm happy to consider it, although there are aspects of it that I do not consider RS-like. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No I don't think it needs to be in the article. At this point the RfC close has been respected and we don't need to add anything else to the article (on SIF). If there is consensus that claims should be added about her reluctance to talk with political reporters about the SIF, and if there is consensus to mention that she has called Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda her "guru-dev" in a ceremonial context, then it would certainly be worth giving readers her explanation of Paramparā in Eastern traditions. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the information from this source shouldn't be in the article, but I think we have different conclusions regarding whether or not there is more to added to the article on SIF. Most editors on the RfC/workshops are in favor of adding more than what has been added. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. My position is that her comments on Butler *will* need to be added if anything is added to mainspace on the subject of her post-March 2015 comments on Chris Butler. (in other words, no, you can't just take what she said in the ceremonial video out of context) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support v.4 (no bloody a, b,c, or d) - It's factual, verifiable, and NPOV. There is obviously no need to cite Civil Beat.- MrX 🖋 20:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As a Kiwi, I find it confusing to talk about Stuff in this context. Most content on stuff.co.nz comes from some Fairfax/Stuff publications so shouldn't simply be called Stuff. In this case the highlighted article is from the Sunday Star Times. A lot of NZ media is tabloidish and frankly the weekend especially the sunday papers tend to be worse at it. Still I don't think it's accurate to the describe it as a pure tabloid. Frankly the modern NZ media landscape means there isn't really room for a published pure tabloid or serious paper. For tabloid, you get magazine crap like Investigate (magazine) or New Zealand Woman's Weekly. Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her" is very vague and misrepresents what Gabbard actually said: "Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor. And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." And is omits that she was raised on the teachings of the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. [4] "In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher")" is a correct quote, but vague for not mentioning a description of what the spirituality actually is (although there are quotes available in other sources). "Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community" is a WP:COATRACK. "Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF" is innuendo that elicits the assumption of some sinister secret.[5] Xenagoras (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of v.FIVE

— earlier discussion here

Why 5 won't work (yet)

1) As I understand it you wish to quote Tulsi Gabbard saying something on youtube but do not want to link to the original primary source on youtube. !Policy says: Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. source References 5 & 6 do not provide any context or link to the video they are quoting. They make bare assertions. Better to provide the actual source.

2) You wish to use the fact that both of her husbands grew up in families who are or were once associated with the SIF religious community. I've looked through the en.wp entries for 11 recent candidates for the Democratic nominations who are married. 9 of those pages do not contain information on the candidate's current spouse's religious affiliation, 2 of them contain information concerning what a candidate's spouse's religion was not, and one contains information about a spouse's work in interfaith cooperation. No page uses a spouse -- let alone two -- to try to insinuate that the candidate is a member of a shadowy conspiracy. ps: the number of spouses doesn't add up, because Biden's article talks about his 1st & 2nd wives.)

no mention:
Jim Warren, Bill Clinton, Chasten Glezman (Buttigieg), Jane Sanders, John Bessler (Klobuchar), Evelyn Lu (Yang), Susan Daggett (Bennett), Jill Jacobs (Biden), April McClain (Delaney),
mention:
(Michael Bloomberg): "The mayor's longtime companion, Diana Taylor, is not Jewish." (in a footnote);
Kat Taylor (Tom Steyer) 'His wife was on the President's Council for the United Religions Initiative whose purpose is to "promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence, and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings."';
Neilia Hunter (Joe Biden) "They overcame her parents' initial reluctance for her to wed a Roman Catholic, and the ceremony was held in a Catholic church in Skaneateles." 3) Regarding the claim of "reluctance", this is widely sourced (see Evidence section above) but needs balancing to remain. Who wouldn't be reluctant when forums (Cult Education, Democratic Underground) are collating as many reported sightings of you at the temple/church/beach when you were 8 into google's memory as possible? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

On the issue of husbands, it was noteworthy enough for the RS citations to write about. It is not trying to insinuate anything, much less a conspiracy -- and it is intentionally written not to insinuate anything. It's completely in line with other BLP articles, such as the Biden article that explains that he and Jill Biden met on a blind date or that the Obamas met while working at a law firm. It provides WP:BLPBALANCE.

Similar for the question of reluctance, which also provides WP:BLPBALANCE. It also implies nothing, but it explains that Gabbard has not gone on record to explain something that the reporters have questioned her about (which itself can generate whatever discussion you're concerned about on forums). Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Another good example related to the husband material is that the Buttigieg articles says he and his husband met on the dating app Hinge. This information is on Wikipedia for Bernie Sanders, as well. It is pretty much standard. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm listening, ... and #1? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Defer to others on that. I wasn't in the original discussion. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, so you have no opposition to including the original video then, if I understand correctly. I listened, and then I fact-checked your assertion: regarding where Tulsi Gabbard & Abraham Williams got to know each other, both the NY Times & O magazine agree in their stories about her wedding: "In fact, Williams and Gabbard connected when in 2012, Williams volunteered to help shoot Gabbard’s campaign ads during her first run for U.S. Congress." ([6]. Neither source mentions Butler or SIF. Likewise, neither of the New York articles above in the Evidence section mention that the two got to know each other because of SIF. Putting this in a paragraph whose topic sentence is related to SIF is not warranted by the sources. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not that I have no opposition -- it's that I have not even really read it or thought about it.

The Oprah mag reference is neither plausible nor reliable. The New York mag source said, "Abraham has known Tulsi since childhood, when they both appeared at gatherings presided over by Chris Butler."[7] The Stuff.co.nz article says, "According to some who knew them, the couple's links go back way before 2012 to their childhoods, when their families became intertwined through an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation, that has roots in New Zealand." [8] A 2001 Honolulu Star-Bulletin article mentioned Abraham Williams' mother, Anya Anthony, participating in a Healthy Hawai'i Coalition (Gabbard's charity) event in 2001 A quick search for articles mentioning Williams' mother reveals she also wrote letters to the editor as far back as 1998 related to Gabbard's parents' political activities. There is more about Anya Anthony's years-long linkages to the Gabbards and SIF in the 2012 Daily Kos article.[9] So, it's clear that saying that they met in 2012 is only a small part of the story. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Looking at muckrack I see that Burley is the chief news editor of Stuff's tabloid Sunday News. The article relies on an anonymously sourced comment in the Intelligencer (NY Mag) article and Civil Beat (which does not draw the same conclusion). That interesting Daily Kos blogpost seems to be an isolated source concerning her campaign finances. Do you know of other sources that have confirmed/looked into any of what is written there? Thanks for moving the SIF sentence up to Early Life and Education. I think that was the right move. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls Bevan Hurley is a national award-winning reporter and the news director for three Stuff publications. If you look at the very bottom of article, you'll see that it was published in the Sunday Star-Times -- and not for the Stuff Sundays tabloid. This should put an end to the speculation about whether this is or is not an RS and/or "tabloidish." Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no value in the passage "... in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States." - MrX 🖋 20:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler (aka Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa). Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her" is very vague and misrepresents what Gabbard actually said: "Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor. And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." And it omits that she was raised on the teachings of the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. [10] " In 2015, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States" is a correct quote, but vague for not mentioning a description of what the spirituality actually is (although there are quotes available in other sources). "Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community" is a WP:COATRACK. "Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF" is innuendo that elicits the assumption of some sinister secret.[11] Xenagoras (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of v.SIX

What is noteworthy about the SIF in relation to Gabbard is not the SIF itself but how her personal religious beliefs have been used in a campaign of rumor and innuendo suggesting there is some sinister 'secret agenda' afoot. In the context of her being hounded by such attacks, her attempts to maintain some privacy for her spiritual life have been used against her as evidence that she has something to hide. This proposed text version is the only one that puts the rumors about the SIF in context. Humanengr (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has their network. I still think Grube's article (#3 above in 1a) should be at least on the 2020 campaign page. I think we should also stop thinking of "Science of Identity" as a paragraph. If you listen to her "service for others" mantra, it is clearly inspired from that tradition, for example. cf. video on this page. That doesn't make it bad/nefarious etc, it's just roots. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Smacks of WP:OR, and there are poor and unreliable sources in there. Which reliable and independent source(s) clearly states she's been subjected to such attacks? --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: ?? CNN, Atlantic, NBC in addition to Civil Beat, HAFsite, Rawstory, and the primary source verified and linked in the NBC article. Claiming this is is poorly sourced when the RS are directly in front of you is either incompetent or clear evidence of biased and obstructive behavior. Humanengr (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't specify which source (but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Medium stands out) Please strickout your comments. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This material is being workshopped. There are RS that can be substituted for the points of the last paragraph such as the Civil Beat story. The Medium piece need not be included. The Civil Beat is also a source for the first bullet and I am adding it there.

You asked "Which reliable and independent source(s) clearly states she's been subjected to such attacks?" when the RS and IS were directly in front of you.

I suggest we put the conflicts behind us and workshop this material to get it into RS form for inclusion in the BLP. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the redaction.

If you cannot answer the question specifically, then don't expect to get any consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This proposed edit is unrelated to a discussion about the wording for the SIF material. Please don't attempt to the SIF text contingent upon this mishmash. You cannot combine sources to reach a the novel conclusion that "Gabbard’s personal religious views have been the subject of bigoted and sometimes racist attacks since the time of her first run for Congress in 2012". See WP:SYNTH. The extent of the material is WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This fails WP:OR and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Also, it's not really about SIF which is what this "RfC" is supposed to be about. - MrX 🖋 20:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While well researched and detailed presented, it lacks the most important thing: a description of Gabbard's spirituality. This material about bigoted attacks should be shortened and added to a description of her spirituality. I will present my own proposal. Xenagoras (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

This section isn't needed. There is extensive discussion above (see v.FOUR, v.FOUR.a, v.FIVE, and now the discussion around version 1a). v.FOUR appears to have the most support. Please continue comments there. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: A few days ago I pointed out that you were using the § that I created for explanation of my reversion of your unworkshopped SIF text for new proposed text discussion. The closer (six days previous) had suggested using the Proposed wordings section of the earlier RfC. I stated: "Given the extra sensitivity required regarding assertions about a living individual’s private religious beliefs; the contentious material online deliberately linking the name of the SIF with ugly, salacious and defamatory claims; and the fact that for many editors this has been a holiday period, ample time should be allowed for discussion of the form."

You responded: "Feel free to ping whoever you think might need to weigh in on this discussion (SashiRolls, Ronz, Nblund, Ronz, TFD, MrX, etc.)" Rather than pick and choose some individual editors to invite (as you subsequently did), it is appropriate for this to be a fresh RfC open to the community for discussion that is not buried in a section I had created for another purpose.

It's easy for you or anyone else to cut-and-paste current preferred text above. Humanengr (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This notion of an RfC is poorly conceived, according to the guidelines in WP:WRFC. You apparently didn't ask other editors on the talk page whether they think an RfC would be helpful. You have formed a specific question or proposed text. And Newslinger didn't recommend an RfC. Furthermore, the goal of this seems to be WP:GAMING and WP:STONEWALLING, given the sheer amount of discussion that has already occurred on this topic (and months of opportunity for anyone in the community to weigh in) and that v.FOUR above or v.FOUR with some minor edits seem to have the most support (given no support for v.FIVE and serious opposition to version 1a). Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This effectively is not a new RFC: it is a continuation of the prior one after you confounded things by failing to follow Newslinger's direction. Three days after Newslinger noted that there was no consensus on the form of text and that the Proposed wordings of the earlier RFC would be left open for that purpose, you unilaterally inserted SIF text (that included a BLP-violating reference that I had asked you repeatedly to take out of your proposed text) into the BLP, declaring "based on latest Talk discussions". I reverted and asked you to follow the direction to workshop; you reinserted again stating your unilateral conclusion "based on lengthy Talk discussion" and starting that my reversion was "malicious". I had to resort to a formal complaint, after which you self-reverted. In response to my explanation on the Talk page of my reversion, you stated "No 'workshop' needed". I again pleaded, "Post your proposed form of content in the Proposed wordings § above and allow an appropriate time for all editors to respond." You chose instead to paste proposed text in reply and now you are claiming that posting there constitutes adequate workshopping and there's no need to publicize. You also stated that there had been some discussion in yet another section that Newslinger was probably not aware of – but there was no consensus there either.

And that is exactly the point: workshopping the text to address the concerns of editors should not occur in a fragmentary manner sprinkled among other sections, with a few editors invited individually. It should occur either in the Proposed wordings section of the 1st RFC or here (which is simply a clean slate for that purpose).

We have workshopped the text. It doesn't need a new RfC, which this clearly is. As for the Newslinger decision at the end of December, I didn't happen to see it before inserting SIF material, which by then had long been open for comment. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The earlier RfC was for comment on whether there should be mention of any SIF material. This is now about the specific content that would be appropriate to include about a living person's private religious/spiritual beliefs/experiences. What is your objection to shining light on this discussion and ensuring it is treated with sensitivity and appropriate care to "get things right", as mandated by Jimmy Wales: "One of the social things that I think we can do is WP:BIO [...] I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem. [...] And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, 'Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ', yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right."(Jimbo Keynote, 4 August 2006) Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a proper RfC. We now have three substantially similar discussions. Just list the options, conduct a straw poll, and chose the option with the most support after a few days. - MrX 🖋 03:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: In addition to the reasons for proceeding carefully and systematically that I have stated above, I have been so busy responding to your and Samp's disruptive unilateral insertions of text contrary to the closer's direction (and refusals despite repeated requests to remove related BLP-violating text on the talk page) that I have not had time to identify the current proposals and respond. I will do that next, but I see you have, once again, taken it upon yourself to defy the need for consensus-building identified by the closer a week ago — even with the straw poll you suggested immediately above. Now that I have the versions systematically collected, I will have a chance to review and comment if you and Samp will stop your disruptive behavior that is diverting time and energy. Please revert your unilateral insertion so we can proceed without distraction. Humanengr (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO and we have every right to add the SIF text to the article, per the outcome of the RfC. Nine days is plenty of time for you to offer any number of adjustments to the multiple options that have been presented. Also, STOP lecturing me on Wikipedia process. I have far more experience editing, discussing, and negotiating content on Wikipedia than you do. - MrX 🖋 20:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd that you would phrase this as you and Samp have "every right to add the SIF text." Humanengr (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

See your talk page. Four editors have assented to the material proposed by Samp4ngeles. - MrX 🖋 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding these reverts of my edits earlier today, we need to include addition context about Gabbard's relationship with Science of Identity foundation. At the very least, we need to include that she is still an adherent to their teachings, and I also believe we should include some mention of her guru Chris Butler. Finally, the wording "fully embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager." seems to fly in the face of WP:NPOV which is why I changed it to "As a teenager, she embraced Hinduism". Comments are welcome. - MrX 🖋 19:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Parents' occupations

I find it odd that this article does not mention of Gabbard's parents' occupations. From what we know, during her childhood her father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College until 1983, then ran a school for children of Science of Identity Foundation devotees until 1987, then until ran a deli in a health food store run by Science of Identity Foundation devotees, then worked for a state senator affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation's founder until the early 1990s, then was listed as a teacher for the Science of Identity Foundation in the early 1990s, then became an activist in the late 1990s. When Gabbard was an adult, her father started a business called Hawaiian Toffee Treasures around 2001, then ran unsuccessfully for city council in 2002, then successfully ran for state office in 2002 and is still in state office.

Gabbard's mother was listed as a teacher for the Science of Identity Foundation in the early 1990s, worked in the early 1990s for the same state senator as her husband did who was affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation's founder, and was secretary of the Science of Identity Foundation till 2000. When Gabbard was an adult, in 2000, her mother ran successfully to become a school board member and held the position a couple of terms.

BLP, particularly for politicians, typically include a brief summary of parents' occupations, so what's the best way to do so? Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a copy of your text with the religion exchanged to a more commonly known one:

I find it odd that this article does not mention of Gabbard's parents' occupations. From what we know, during her childhood her father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College until 1983, then ran a school for children of Jewish devotees until 1987, then until ran a deli in a health food store run by Jewish devotees, then worked for a state senator affiliated with the Jewish community's founder until the early 1990s, then was listed as a teacher for the Jewish community in the early 1990s, then became an activist in the late 1990s. When Gabbard was an adult, her father started a business called Hawaiian Toffee Treasures around 2001, then ran unsuccessfully for city council in 2002, then successfully ran for state office in 2002 and is still in state office.

Gabbard's mother was listed as a teacher for the Jewish community in the early 1990s, worked in the early 1990s for the same state senator as her husband did who was affiliated with the Jewish community's founder, and was secretary of the Jewish community till 2000. When Gabbard was an adult, in 2000, her mother ran successfully to become a school board member and held the position a couple of terms.

BLP, particularly for politicians, typically include a brief summary of parents' occupations, so what's the best way to do so?

The best way to handle this is to purge it from the BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the latest proposed text below. This line of argument, focused around background information, is a distraction and is not constructive. Samp4ngeles (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you write it [12], although it is "distracting and unconstructive"? Xenagoras (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's background information that might be useful, but debating it, rather than the proposed text, is not a good use of anyone's time. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is potential wording:

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College when she was born, and after the Gabbards' return to Hawaii in 1983, he was headmaster for the Ponomauloa school in Wahiawa, Hawaii for several years; together, Gabbard's mother and father subsequently ran a deli, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed, and were teachers for the Science of Identity Foundation where her mother later served as secretary. Tulsi Gabbard's childhood, her mother and father both entered politics, with her mother serving two terms on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004 and her father serving on the Honolulu City Council from 2002-2004, running unsuccessfully for Congress in 2004, and serving as a Hawaii State Senator from 2006 to the present.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Information about her parents should be limited to about 1-2 sentences as is common practice for biographies. Also, we should stick to WP:SECONDARY sources, with preference given to the highest quality sources. There is noThe LGBT lobbying is already in the article, and should remain because Tulsi was involved. Briefly mentioning her parents SIF involvement is fine I guess, but there's no need to pound it into readers' brains. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX I made some edits to this effect. Her parents had such a varied background that its perhaps not as easy to sum up as other BLPs with parents who had single professions. And some BLPs have bits on parents that are longer than 1-2 sentences, if it's notable. Anyhow, this should roughly do it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I still think its a bit lengthy. How about something like this?

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College and then headmaster and teacher for the Ponomauloa School after the family's return to Hawaii. Both of her parents subsequently were small business owners, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed, and taught for the Science of Identity Foundation, where her mother served as secretary. Gabbard's mother served on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004 and her father has been in politics since 2002, serving as a state senator since 2006.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX Closer. The deli (which made the news when they had to shut it down due to a reaction to her father's anti-LGBT rhetoric) and fact that her mother was an officer of the Science of Identity Foundation are both notable. The toffee business, perhaps not as much given that it wasn't in her childhood. See my markup, in bold/strikethrough. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Explaining my last reversion of Samp4ngeles's and Xenagoras's edits for the Talk page: I corrected the history re 2004 in the lede, adding cites, and deleted the post-childhood mat'l from Early life. The introduction of trivia regarding her father and brother's tennis was removed. The entire effort to expand on material from Gabbard's family seems to be COATRACKing and detracts from the article. Humanengr (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr. This entire talk section is unnecessary because the current amount of info on Gabbard's parents is already sufficient and adding more would give them undue weight in this BLP. Samp4ngeles' attempts amount to COATRACKing as you said. Xenagoras (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Y'all need to re-read WP:COATRACK, because this wording is unrelated to any concerns there (i.e., it makes no point about something else, does not fail to give a truthful impression, and does not excessively focus on one or more aspects of the subject) and is in fact WP:WINAC and WP:NPOV. The current amount of info on Gabbard's parents is not commensurate at all with what exists on other 2020 candidates' BLP, as it talks merely about where they were from and their ancestry. For example:

Biden: Biden's father had been wealthy earlier in his life but suffered several financial setbacks by the time his son was born. For several years, the family had to live with Biden's maternal grandparents, the Finnegans.[17] When the Scranton area fell into economic decline during the 1950s, Biden's father could not find sustained work.[18] In 1953, the Biden family moved into an apartment in Claymont, Delaware, where they lived for several years before again moving to a house in Wilmington, Delaware.[17] Joe Biden Sr. subsequently became a successful used car salesman, maintaining the family's middle class circumstances.[17][18][19]

Sanders: In 1921, [Sanders' father] immigrated to the United States, where he became a paint salesman.[10][12][13] His mother, Dorothy Sanders (née Glassberg, 1912–1960), was born in New York City[14][15] to Jewish immigrant parents from Poland and Russia.[16][17] . . . . Sanders's older brother, Larry, said that during their childhood, the family never lacked for food or clothing, but major purchases, "like curtains or a rug", were not affordable.[28]

Warren: When she was 12, her father, then a salesman at Montgomery Ward,[12] had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[5] After leaving his sales job, he worked as a maintenance man for an apartment building.[15] Eventually, the family's car was repossessed because they failed to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears.[5]

Yang: His parents emigrated from Taiwan to the U.S. in the 1960s.[2] They met while they were both in graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley.[3] His father graduated with a PhD in physics and worked in the research labs of IBM and General Electric, generating over fifty patents in his career.[4][3] His mother graduated with a master's degree in statistics.[5] She became a systems administrator at a local university,[6][7] and later became an artist.[8] Yang has an older brother, Lawrence,[6][9] who is a psychology professor at New York University.[7][8] Yang's father, uncle, and cousin also became professors.[8]

Klobuchar: Klobuchar is the daughter of Rose (née Heuberger), who retired at age 70 from teaching second grade,[4] and Jim Klobuchar, an author and a retired sportswriter and columnist for the Star Tribune.[5] Klobuchar has one younger sister, Beth.[6] Her father is of Slovene descent; his grandparents were immigrants from Slovenia's White Carniola region, and his father was a miner on the Iron Range.[7][8] Klobuchar's maternal grandparents were from Switzerland.[9] Her parents divorced when Klobuchar was 15 years old and in high school. The divorce took a serious toll on the family, and Amy's relationship with her father was not fully restored until he quit drinking in the 1990s.[10]

By comparison, the proposed text for Gabbard is a good summary that is entirely consistent, reasonable, and measured:

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College[1] and then headmaster and teacher for the Ponomauloa school after the family's return to Hawaii.[2][3] Both of her parents subsequently owned a deli, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed,[4][5] and taught for the Science of Identity Foundation, where her mother served as secretary.[4][6] Gabbard's mother served on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004. After several years as an activist, her father entered local politics in 2002 and has served as a Hawaii State Senator since 2006.[7][8][9]

Samp4ngeles (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Her parents have been discussed by sources, so it makes sense that we would touch on them here. Their involvement in politics is certainly relevant. I think the deli and toffee are wholly unrelated to Tulsi Gabbard though. - MrX 🖋 20:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to leaving out mention of the deli specifically and agree that the toffee/candy business is not significant, although it could make sense to group both together and say that they were "small business owners," given the existence of references like this. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Further digging at the Lehi, Utah "find a grave" site reveals that her paternal grandmother once founded a famous "refreshment stand" in Leloaloa. HIH. I think since Mike Gabbard has a page, there's no sense duplicating info here that's over there about what he was up to before TG was born and while she was toddling. As for her Mom on the Board of Education, is there anything in your sources about TG? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the sarcasm, Sash, but "Aggie's Refreshment Stand" doesn't seem notable enough to include here. Maybe if it was a Fortune 500 company or something. Inclusion of information on grandparents' work could, however, hypothetically be notable. For example, the article on Mitt Romney mentions his great-great grandparents' activities related to the LDS church. The article on Biden says his grandfather was an oil businessman. In this case, however, we're just focused on Tulsi Gabbard's parents. As easy as it would be to just direct everyone to her father's article (of which there is not mention of her mother's professions), I go back to the fact that it would be inconsistent with BLP for 2020 candidates. The proposed text is a good, succinct summary that doesn't require sifting through details on another page. And if you're looking for additional sources to add to the proposed text (which I will now) relating Tulsi Gabbard to her mother's profession, you'll find quite a few. Here is a decent one. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Updating the proposed text based on the discussion above:

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College and then headmaster and teacher for the Ponomauloa School after the family's return to Hawaii. Both of her parents subsequently were small business owners, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed, and taught for the Science of Identity Foundation, where her mother served as secretary. Gabbard's mother served on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004 and her father is a Hawaii State Senator.

Sources

- Samp4ngeles (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Please list below all the sources you want to add which mention Tulsi Gabbard from your list above, Samp4. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"Multireligious"

The inclusion of the word "multireligious" in the sentence "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household" needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS. This vague term stems from a statement Gabbard herself made in 2012 (see [13]) saying, "I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household. My father is of Samoan/Caucasian heritage and he is a deacon in the Catholic church. However, he also likes to practice mantra meditation, including kirtan. My mother is Caucasian and a practicing Hindu." Admittedly, there are numerous sources that parrot this "multicultural, multireligious" statement, but the multireligious part of that statement cannot be viewed as reliable. Gabbard's parents were in the news frequently during Gabbard's childhood, and there are no sources during that time indicating that either of them was Catholic or Hindu (and, in fact, there are a lot of sources to the contrary). Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hindu and Catholic = multireligious. Are there other religious influences mentioned in the refs? --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz I'm not questioning that her family is Hindu and Catholic, or was in 2012. But Gabbard was 31 years old then. The statement "was raised in a . . . multireligious household" seems to match a persona crafted for political purposes but just isn't supported by any reliable sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems like OR to further a POV not in any sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not my intention at all. I simply hadn't focused on this word before. I was going to add "Citation needed," but I instead looked for citations and couldn't find any. It's a simple search to find the original quote in the 2012 article. Additionally, if you look at the versions of this article, the "multi-religious" language came in only after the article with the original quote was published. With regard to POV, the multi-religious language was added on November 8, 2012, by an editor, @Honuedit, with only three contributions, all relating to Tulsi Gabbard. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be kept out. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

One more bit of information that I didn't notice till now -- the primary source that the quote came from was not RS: https://www.rediff.com/news/report/concerns-of-hindus-are-near-to-my-heart-tulsi-gabbard/20121031.htm . Then the Times of India used the language on November 8, 2012: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/Hindu-American-elected-to-US-Congress-for-the-first-time/articleshow/17137684.cms . Then The Atlantic used it on March 5, 2015: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hindus-in-american-politics/386941/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

An article cited in the lead, "THE FIRST HINDU IN US CONGRESS" in the Indian Weekender says, "Tulsi grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household." TFD (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic doesn't use it to describe Gabbard. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that where it's used to describe Gabbard (at least in the refs I've looked at so far), it's sloppy reporting that has no depth. In contrast, the refs that do have depth do not say anything like this. --Ronz (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, re your "it's sloppy reporting that has no depth", what specifically are you referring to? Humanengr (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's my quick assessment of the sources. This discussion was started by Samp4ngeles on whether or not "multireligious" should be used. From what I'm seeing so far, I agree it should not be used because the better sources don't. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, From here, I see "Gabbard … also discussed various aspects of her Hindu faith, …. … “I grew to understand from a young age being raised in a multi-faith home — my mom is a practicing Hindu, my dad is Catholic — and for us as kids we grew up studying and reading from both the Bhagavad Gita as well as the New Testament. So, we heard stories about Krishna and Arjuna at night when we were going to sleep as well as stories about Jesus of Nazareth." Other 'multi-faith' include here; here; here; here; here, here; 'multifaith' include: here, here; here; 'multi-religious' include: here; here. Humanengr (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, On what grounds are rediff or Times of India not RS as you indicated above? Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr To start with, the original quote came from Rediff, which is not a "high-quality mainstream publication" nor an RS. The wording came from a quotation of Gabbard. "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original)." "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere," but there has been no substantive discussion of this claim by Gabbard in 2012 -- literally nothing that describes what is meant by multi-religious as it applied to Gabbard's family when she was a child. On the contrary, there are multiple RS that in fact find the opposite -- that Gabbard was raised in a family with one religious view, centered around the teachings of Chris Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation. I could go on .... @Ronz may have views on this as well. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, WP:ABOUTSELF governs here. Humanengr (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Throwing a bunch of sources together without concern for their quality is not the way to move forward. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz, As I read it, under ABOUTSELF, a self-characterization can be excluded as "unduly self-serving" (Samp4ngeles's allegation) if that were upheld after due consideration. But under the policy, the quality of the sources is not an issue (self-published and even questionable sources are acceptable). Can you clarify what you wrote about the sources I had cited in light of this policy? Humanengr (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is BLP info, so quality of sources not only matters, we're required to use high-quality sources. Does that answer your question? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Description of the need for reliable sources in WP:V is immediately followed with an exception for WP:ABOUTSELF, saying: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." [emphasis extended] as long as the ABOUTSELF criteria are satisfied. (These latter include the 'not unduly self-serving' criterion, which would need to be addressed next.) Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And BLP has additional requirements. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP has additional requirements for sensitivity, not that the statements a person makes about themselves need to be reported in reliable secondary sources before inclusion. Are you referring to something else? Humanengr (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree on the importance of high-quality sources and independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you read the ABOUTSELF exception where self-published and poor quality sources are allowed? Humanengr (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at this point. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You said "I'm afraid we disagree on the importance of high-quality sources and independent sources.” That is not the case, as I agree with that as a general rule. But ABOUTSELF provides an exception you have not acknowledged. I’ll try to explain one last time. The WP:BLP § entitled 'WP:BLPSELFPUB' lists 5 criteria that do not include quality. That § also refers to WP:SPS which is part WP:V. The structure of WP:V is that §2 Reliable sources (aka WP:SOURCE) is followed by §3 Sources that are usually not reliable (aka WP:NOTRS). That latter has subsections 3.1 Questionable sources, 3.2 Self-published sources (aka WP:SPS), and 3.3 Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (aka WP:SPS) which refers to 3.1 and 3.2, saying as I quoted "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, …”. That means that quality (as well as ‘independence’) is -not- a criterion for self-published sources. The 5 criteria that apply to self-published sources there (and repeated in BLPSELFPUB) appear right after that statement. The requirement for ‘quality’ does not appear for 'about self' in either of those sections — which cover an exception. HTH, Humanengr (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: We disagree.

@Ronz, I confirm that @Humanengr is completely correct. The WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB policies serve to allow self-published sources with the restrictions defined in these policies, the most important ones being confirmed identity (authentication) of the source (e.g. blue check mark Twitter/Youtube) and no claims about third parties. Xenagoras (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

See my comment below. Time for RfC? --Ronz (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz I am not sure which comment you mean, I assume 17:54, 4 January 2020 ? The WP:BLPSELFPUB policy is concise: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used." In case your worry is purely about quality difference between sources: Please think for a moment whether a third party source (e.g. a newspaper author) knows better or worse what exactly the religious believe of a living person is. I am firmly convinced that a living person knows better what she herself believes than stranger does. I also recommend having a look at the personal life section of other politicians. The religious believe of living people is described exclusively by quotes from the living person. For the reason I just gave. Xenagoras (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The comment immediately below, which you decided to insert your comment before, Arguing against using higher-quality, independent sources is a waste of time from my experience. This isn't about her current beliefs, but how she was raised: a topic where she's reluctant to go into detail. Her summary should not be used over those of better sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz This argument does not make any difference, because no journalist can know better than Gabbard herself about what religious teaching Gabbard received during her childhood. Was there any journalist in Gabbard's nursery observing how Gabbard was educated in religion? (She was home schooled.) Btw, there are several sources where Gabbard describes her religious upbringing. A certain group of editors has failed to use them for several months by now. Also btw, Gabbard's current exhibition of religious behaviour [14] [15] [16] is completely in sync with what she says about her childhood. [17] Xenagoras (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm insisting on relying upon high-quality, independent sources for how to present this, rather than her own framing. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC is a good idea so that these 'better sources' saying "she was not raised in a 'multi-religious' household" can be assessed once and for all. Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguing against using higher-quality, independent sources is a waste of time from my experience. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

“Hailing from a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational family, Gabbard has been a member of Congress since 2013 and holds the distinction of being the first Hindu to be elected to the chamber.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanengr (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr This source that you use to justify adding the term back into the article provides no further insight or justification beyond the other sources that parrot the original rediff quote attributed to Gabbard ("I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household. My father is of Samoan/Caucasian heritage and he is a deacon in the Catholic church. However, he also likes to practice mantra meditation, including kirtan. My mother is Caucasian and a practicing Hindu."). In particular, it does not explain whether the family was multi-denominational during Gabbard's childhood (with all indications to the contrary). There are sources that indicate her father turned to the Catholic church around 2004 and that her mother at some point became Hindu, but that was after Gabbard's early life. Please self-revert your edit until which time you can justify inserting this language. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr I echo what @Ronz just wrote. And in response to your suggestion that WP:ABOUTSELF governs here, that's outlandish. Politicians throughout history have exaggerated aspects of their life stories or identities to appeal to different groups, so extra scrutiny has to be given to ensure that the sources here are not "unduly self-serving" and that there is not "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." In my opinion, it's not hard to envision a scenario where Gabbard's statement to an Indian interviewer could have been exaggerated. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, authenticity of a source (as used in WP:ABOUTSELF and the equivalent WP:BLPSELFPUB) means that the identity of the source is confirmed. "Authenticity without reasonable doubt" means e.g. identify-verified (authenticated) social media accounts: those with a blue check mark on Twitter/YouTube, as well as video/audio sources exhibiting well known people whose faces/voices are well recognized so that their identity is "confirmed without reasonable doubt" even in video/audio that has no authentication checkmark on Twitter/Youtube. Xenagoras (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras Thank you for explaining that. Looking at this further, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB still do not appear to be appropriate here. WP:BLPSELFPUB says, "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Humanengr, however, is trying to apply this to a politician's biography. Similarly, WP:ABOUTSELF is primarily for Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, rather than politicians' bios. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles you cited the policy WP:SELFPUB which is the wrong policy in this matter. WP:SELFPUB states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people." Our matter is a person writing about herself, not about a third party. The policy to apply in this matter is WP:BLPSELFPUB which states, "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used." Xenagoras (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras From WP:V (emphasis added): Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Also, what's your source on your previous comment that authenticity means "identity of the source is confirmed," versus the lay definition of "worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact?" Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles you claim to cite WP:V, seemingly adding another policy to your argument, but in fact you cited WP:SELFPUB again. I already explained why WP:SELFPUB does not apply in this matter and why WP:BLPSELFPUB applies in this matter. Please do not game the use of policies and guidelines by WP:PLAYPOLICY selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy or cherry-picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others to support a view which does not in fact match policy, and do not WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT spuriously and knowingly claim justification under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy.

My source for claiming "no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of a source" in WP:BLPSELFPUB means "the identity of the source is confirmed" is as follows: WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are equivalent. This gives insight into why these policies were created: WP:ABOUTSELF is a synonym for WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:TWITTER, which means the policy for usage of self-published sources is tightly connected to the widespread use of social media. Social media accounts have an authentication mechanism which users can use to verify their identity. If person X writes on Twitter about themselves, this can only be used in the BLP of person X if the Twitter account of person X has verified identity (blue check mark). Lacking this rule, anybody on Twitter could claim to be person X, and if we included the Tweets of an unverified Twitter account in the BLP of person X, we would expose Wikipedia to legal litigation by the real person X. Xenagoras (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras So, this is the second time you've said that WP:BLPFSELFPUB's reference to "authenticity of the source" means, "the identity of the source is confirmed." In actuality, however, WP:BLPSELFPUB leaves the phrased undefined. So does WP:ABOUTSELF. A lay interpretation, then, is according the definition of authenticity, meaning, "worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact" (i.e., WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and needing "multiple high-quality sources"), which this claim is not given contradictory RS and lack of multiple high-quality sources. All of that aside, if WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are the same and/or based on WP:ABOUTSELF alone, then we have to take the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy into consideration. This "multireligious" claim does not meet the standard.

N.b: The WP:V I referenced above is noted as further information on WP:BLPSELFPUB. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles your claim about the meaning of "authenticity of the source" has been dismissed by the wikipedia community, which confirmed my interpretation there See also the latest explanatory contribution to the discussion. Xenagoras (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that she crafted a message regarding her upbringing violates WP:BLP. I suggest that you remove that from this talk page. Humanengr (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: Also, pls remove your "laughable", I request that you remove that and adhere to WP:CIVIL. Humanengr (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

no biggie. done. Samp4ngeles (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: Now remove your speculative disparagement of Tulsi Gabbard. As I indicated, that violates WP:BLP. Humanengr (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Typo

Please change "After launching her presidential campaign in 2019, she apologizing again." to "After launching her presidential campaign in 2019, she apologized again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.192.10 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation?

There is no consensus to include this material. Supporters of inclusion argue that the Honolulu Civil Beat is a respected source and that its reporting does not conflict with more recent sources, while opposers argue that the reporting conflicts with more recent sources and the material is undue weight.

Cunard (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Should the article's coverage of Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation include material about forum postings referenced to a 2015 article in Honolulu Civil Beat? - MrX 🖋 13:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sample text:

In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".
— Honolulu Civil Beat

Previous discussions:

• #v.1
• #Workshop for SIF material
• RS/N thread on Honolulu Civil Beat as of 8/1/2020 (permalink added by 🌿 SashiRolls)

---

comment: I will vote later, but I just want to be clear that I don't think anything should be added about SIF until this question (present already in version 1 of the proposed text) is resolved. The two really go together. The wording and quote here is not the primary concern. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No. It's one reference in one article that is vastly incongruent with more recent reporting. To quote from WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." I think it's fine to include the article itself as a citation, though, because it provides additional context from a source published prior to Gabbard's presidential run. See my comments above for a more detailed analysis. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I’ve read the previous threads, but I’d prefer to see the references laid out here, for clarity. If it’s just civilbeat being proposed, then hell no. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see the evidence section below. I've done the work you requested. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• No - As far as I know, Honolulu Civil Beat is the only source for this information, which makes it WP:UNDUE. Searching an internet forum is not what I would consider good investigative journalism, and searching public records would not normally be expected to yield meaningful results in this case. The source is very outdated in comparison to much better sources that have thoroughly covered Gabbard's involvement with SIF, so we should stick to those and keep the material brief as proposed in previous sections.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. The content above appears to conflict with numerous recent reports by several RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The Honolulu Civil Beat is one of the most respected local news outlets, with awards, and is likely to be a stronger RS on Hawaii-specific topics than national outlets. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think we need to be careful here about deeming anything reliable for inclusion solely based on the news source. WP:NEWSORG states that, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." In this case, there multiple news stories from both Civil Beat and mainstream/national RS contradict this excerpt from the March 2015 Civil Beat story. Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Neither New York source confirms or denies the story, just as neither provides evidence contradicting it. The paper is RS as the discussion at RSN (last I looked) seemed to agree. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The proposed sentence should be expanded by adding that Civil Beat also did interviews about this topic. The Civil Beat article contains valuable information about the level of "connection" between Gabbard and Butler and about the religious bigotry fueling smears against Gabbard. Xenagoras (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Question & Comment -- Is this the same person behind Meanwhile in Hawaii? For those who want to go diving into the wreck, you could just ask Gogol: "forum Gabbard SIF?". There was also something about bringing a flashlight to look for cockroaches. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean, is the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the same person as Nick Bredimus and/or Jack Schweigert? No. This is a distraction. As is diving into WP:FRINGE discussions in forums in order to support a POV based on a single sentence in a single-source, rather than relying on WP:V sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK Samp, that you had added 76K to this talk page since October 29, 2019? That's more than one special K a day! I would be wary of those who might accuse you of badgering. Just today Snoog & MrX both publicly accused me without evidence of being obsessed with David Brock. As it happens I have never once edited their BLP talkpage. I did once add a hatnote 3.5 years ago. Since those two are both regulars on this page, I'll tell them that I think their decision to let you continue badgering here is worthy of note. Could you consider laying off the constant replies to everyone's comments, Samp? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't WP:BADGER by any definition. And I think you'll find that many of much of what I have written here to be constructive and, particularly recently, an attempt to reach consensus on the SIF material in the face of WP:STONEWALLING. It is, however, interesting to see the volume of your comments on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and someone seeing that for the first time I'm frankly sympathetic to MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' concerns. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And I'm impressed that you added 60K to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders in 10 days. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

oops. busted :p It's true that adding refs spoofs the numbers. And, that WP:TNT had recently been applied to the article. in fairness, too, you don't use ref-names and tend to spread the same ones on the TP all the time because I keep adding reflists. (I hadn't realized this was why that was happening...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added the link to RS/N about this question that you forgot to link when you opened it at on 6 January 2020 MrX 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SashiRolls. Good idea. - MrX 🖋 14:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence

New Yorker

The best way to study the New Yorker article (§) to see if it has any evidence backing up its claims is to go through the 130 occurences of the name "Gabbard". No significant evidence of any controlling relationship is presented in the article, just a number of assertions and anonymously attributed (or contradicting) statements. Around a dozen of those 130 uses of her name actually have something to do with her upbringing, and only 5-8 have anything to do with Butler (I've highlighted some of the more rhetorical parts of the prose:

1. This summer, when I asked her about the teacher who led her to Hinduism, Gabbard grew evasive. “I’ve had many different spiritual teachers, and continue to,” she said.
2. "No,” she said. But there is, in fact, a teacher who has played a central role in her life—a teacher whom Gabbard referred to, in a 2015 video, as her “guru dev,” which means, roughly, "spiritual master.”
3. Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—“perhaps, a while ago.” She says, “It’s something that we don’t agree on.”
4. Gabbard’s life would be unrecognizable without Butler’s influence.
5. Gabbard, like her predecessors, firmly rejects the idea that she is part of a political initiative tied to her spiritual leader.

There are a few other evidentiary claims? innuendi? introduced with: "some of the people who have supported Gabbard but", "One person familiar with Gabbard", "One of Gabbard’s friends describes her parents", etc.

There's even "Tulsi Gabbard’s name reflects the family’s pre-existing spiritual commitments." which is almost certainly true, but what we can be sure has to do with Butler in that claim is precisely zero.

I welcome fact-checking on the above. Would someone do the same for the Intelligencer article to see if it's got any better evidence countering the Civil Beats claim that

Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

---

NY Mag

I went ahead and did the Intelligencer article quickly too. Here is what I found searching through 28 occurrences of Gabbard & 83 occurrences of Tulsi (including a very weird tangent about a homonym). Outside of the weirdness of a journalist calling Gabbard by her first name as if they were chums, when she'd been refused an interview... after having been given a ride earlier by the campaign... this is what I found in terms of associative evidence/insinuations (I left bare assertions about relationships to the SIF community through extended family members out with the exception of #1 and #3):

1. A party chair, Bill Penaroza, is the father of Tulsi Gabbard’s current chief of staff, Kainoa Penaroza.
2. Former members of the Science of Identity say ...
3. The children of those teenagers in the Quonset hut were born into the sect, as Tulsi was
4. Tulsi Gabbard’s response to questions about the Science of Identity frequently begin with accusations of religious bigotry and “Hinduphobia.”
5. No one I spoke to with personal experience of the group, including Tulsi’s [ed. estranged] aunt, thought it possible that Tulsi Gabbard had somehow left Chris Butler’s sphere of influence
6. [A] staffer ... said Tulsi would take questions on religious matters via email [ed. after a last minute interview cancelation after review of the journalist's questions]. Tulsi replied [ed. to the journalist's written questions] with an email that declined to mention Hinduism, Butler, the Science of Identity, the gatherings or the Philippines.
7. "Now he [ed. Butler] has realized his dream through Tulsi Gabbard." Says Rama Ranson, who maintains the blog ...
8. Tulsi calls herself Hindu, the first Hindu member of Congress, in fact, though the group in which she appears to have grown up does not identify as Hindu.
9. The campaign’s position is that any serious inquiry into Tulsi’s religious background constitutes a Hinduphobic line of attack to which other candidates would not be subject, though again, Butler’s group does not identify as Hindu.
10. But, as late as 2015, in a video still up on YouTube, Tulsi publicly acknowledged her guru-dev to be Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Chris Butler.

With regard to #5, it fails as a literal truth, because she spoke to Tulsi Gabbard, her sister & her husband in the campaign car and cites none of them saying anything like what she claims (maybe Gabbard confided in her off the record on their way to the rally that she couldn't shake her "spiritual leader"?). Presumably, the journalist means after she hitched that ride...

NB: neither source links to the "smoking gun" August 2015 Hare Krsna TV ISKON Desire Tree video they "present" as Exhibit A for their case, though they both mention it is online, but give no dates. Likewise, neither mentions it is a fleeting mention in the video. Both mention she is uncomfortable dealing with discussions about her upbringing and neither mentions the 2015 story about the forum campaign Civil Beat referred to in 2015.

In fact, the NYMag author writes: "For many years in Kailua, the Gabbards’ known involvement with the Science of Identity went largely unremarked upon. It took an outsider, ... independent journalist Christine Gralow...to get curious enough to start asking questions". Unless I'm mistaken those are questions that the local "best overall online news" site in Hawaii *had* indeed investigated. The "largely" in "largely unremarked upon" may acknowledge obliquely that story's existence, or it may acknowledge the author didn't do an existing literature search but still wanted to make the claim, I don't know. In any case, I think I see why Gabbard might be uncomfortable having to talk about her upbringing with such rhetorical writers as these. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The NYMag story is a RS, and other stories predated Gralow (for whatever that's worth). Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Promotional content

I removed some material earlier today because it is mostly promotional, trivial, or self-serving. For example "Gabbard says that her politics and policies are driven by her military experience" and "the first Samoan–American voting member of Congress". Also, "She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People’s Platform: Medicare for All, transitioning to clean renewable energy, criminal justice reform, and making Wall Street pay their fair share. She has been a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy.'" I'm opposed to these being restored and expanded by Xenagoras. This material tends to make the article look like a campaign website. - MrX 🖋 02:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Gabbard's policies and politics being shaped by her military service has been very widely reported in RS and Gabbard herself cites it very often. It guides her political and military life since 2004. It is therefore WP:DUE to be included in the lede. Lack of diversity of ethnicity among the Democratic presidential candidates on the debate stage has been a big issue during the Democratic primary 2019.[18] Gabbard's ethnicity is therefore WP:DUE to be included in the lede. You deleted [19] a RS which stated that Gabbard's domestic policy platform ... is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects".[20] and you requested other quality sources saying this. I delivered several other quality sources saying this, e.g. the one you object against now: [21] It states, Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders' campaign, said "She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People's Platform: Medicare for All, transitioning to clean renewable energy, criminal justice reform, and making Wall Street pay their fair share. ... a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy." This quote is a concise description of Gabbard's policies and explains why she is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects." It does not make much sense to delete RS claiming a lack of corroborating sources and then to object to the inclusion of the requested corroborating reliable sources. It seems you just don't like it. Xenagoras (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A lot of what you added was promotional and not fitting for a WP:BLP. ContentEditman (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

ContentEditman, I disagree, because firstly I mainly restored content from other editors that MrX deleted without sufficient reason and without preceding establishing of consensus here. Secondly, the new text I added came from RS and were partially requested by MrX [22] as corroboration for existing sourced text. Thirdly, none of the material I added came from Gabbard or her campaign. Fourthly, you did not give any example of what you claim to be promotional. Therefore I assume you mean the same content that MrX claims to be "promotional, trivial, or self-serving" and will continue to discuss that content directly with MrX. Xenagoras (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Gabbard's military career is modest and we already cover it quite extensively in the article, in seven paragraphs, and obliquely in several more paragraphs. That out to be enough for someone whose relevant military career lasted about five years. It may seem that I don't like it, when in fact I'm neutral on the content itself, but I don't like the WP:UNDUE weight given it. I explained why I deleted the Vox material. It is one point of view. There are plenty of sources that would argue against her being socially progressive.[23][24] I am firmly against any flattering quote from Gabbard fans at Our Revolution. While the quote you selected is indeed concise, it is not objective. Snippets like "transitioning to clean renewable energy" and "passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy" are red flag promotional phrases to be avoided in an encyclopedia article. - MrX 🖋 22:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not describe "the first Samoan–American voting member of Congress" as promotional, trivial or self-serving. It seems notable. Regarding the effect of her military experience on her policies, if that is what has been reported then it should be included. It would be good to expand on this statement in the page body and list from reliable sources specific ways in which her military experience has effected her policies. Regarding "passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy", perhaps remove the word “passionate”. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the page content, a sentence like that is reasonable there. In the body more detail of why she is described like that should be given with appropriate attributions.::: Burrobert (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Samoan–American member of congress is already in the page, so is her military career. In fact there is a whole section just for military service and military is in the article over a dozen times. Adding more information that is already present falls under WP:BLP balance. ContentEditman (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, the text Gabbard says that her politics and policies are driven by her military experience is not supposed to emphasize her achievements during her military career but to summarize the effect of her military experience on her policies (e.g. opposition to interventionism and the military–industrial complex since she realized that war is a racket [25] [26], and the reversal in her LGBT stance because of deployment with LGBT soldiers to Iraq) and the effect on her politics (e.g. opposition to lobbyism [27] and harsh criticism of corporate media [28] [29] [30] and her motto "service above self"). Perhaps a sentence Gabbard says that her politics and policies are driven by the experiences she made in the military avoids giving the impression of praising her military career when something completely different is meant. You claim you were "neutral on the content itself", but you again deleted [31] all text about Gabbard's post 2012 stance on LGBT issues from the lede, leaving in the lede only her obsolete pre-2012 stance. This grossly misrepresents her actual LGBT policy as I have explained to you [32] when you did that deletion the previous time. [33] Do you not remember that you wrote [34] "consensus has already been established ... that we must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead." two weeks ago? Why do you edit in opposition to the consensus you claim to follow? This time you "justified" your deletion by claiming her current LGBT policy were "UNDUE for lead. It's based on her own comments!" But the text you deleted is based on the reliable source ABC News. If ABC News thought Gabbard would be dishonest, ABC would not have printed it or contrasted it with contradicting information. This also shows an old editing pattern [35] of yours: You dispute the reliability of apparently good sources. You explained you deleted [36] Gabbard's domestic policy platform ... is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects" because you felt "More than a passing mention from this one source is needed to support such a claim in Wikipedia's voice. What other quality sources say this?" I inserted several corroborating sources which describe Gabbard's progressive policies in summary and in detail.[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] You claim "There are plenty of sources that would argue against her being socially progressive", and give as source CBS which disproves your assertion by writing Gabbard ... who backed Bernie Sanders in the last Democratic primary, fuses progressive policy stances... and Guardian which also disproves your assertion by describing her socially progressive policies: She has the support of Bernie Sanders, the de facto leader of the progressive movement, and boasts of endorsements from a string of liberal-friendly groups. ... Planned Parenthood and National Nurses United have all given Gabbard their blessing. Her re-election bid drew the endorsement of Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders’ campaign. "She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People’s Platform: Medicare for All, ... criminal justice reform..." Our Revolution are not fans of Gabbard but the remainder of Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign: [45] Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders’ campaign. Of course my quote is not objective because it does not measure the length of a pencil but it describes an opinion about a person which means it is always subjective. Transitioning to clean renewable energy is not a "red flag promotional phrase" but a standard term in politics and even has two wikipedia articles about it: Energy transition and 100% renewable energy as well as a plethora of scientific and political organizations and websites dedicated to this topic. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] and of course media reports using that term: [54] [55]. Passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy is a description of Gabbard by the Sanders-NGO Our Revolution. I put the quotes from Our Revolution into the quote tag of the reference to make clear that this reference strongly supports the assertion that Gabbard is "economic and socially progressive". We can remove the "flattering" aspect of what they said. Xenagoras (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras I'm sorry, but your (very wordy) reasoning does not sway me from my previous view that the material is promotional and WP:UNDUE. You really need to seek consensus for including it and not just repeatedly force it back into the article. - MrX 🖋 13:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter lead too. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the effect of her military service on her policies here is an interesting quote from a recent NYTimes article:

"Gabbard’s signature issues

Ms. Gabbard was deployed to Iraq and currently serves as a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard. She has leaned on her background as a service member in making foreign policy her chief concern. Specifically, she is urging the United States to get out of foreign wars and focus on peacebuilding. She has also warned that a nuclear arms race could be on the horizon." Burrobert (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but you can only say that so many times in an biography before it sounds like you are beating on a drum to convince readers that she is the most militarily-experienced candidate since Eisenhower. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The first female combat veteran ever to run for president, the only woman of color in the race

I'm opposed to this material which has been added to the article (the second time, in violation of the page editing restriction):

Tulsi accused CNN for airing "Russian Puppet" remarks made by Bakari Sellers. Later CNN did not invite Gabbard to their town hall events leading into the New Hampshire primary, despite polling higher than several other attendees. Gabbard said that her campaign has reached out several times but, "I don't even think we've gotten a response to date about why they're excluding the first female combat veteran ever to run for president, the only woman of color in the race."

Sources

The material improperly elevates Gabbard's self-serving quote. It is based on questionable sources and opinions, and gives WP:UNDUE coverage to a minor recent incident. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I only made one revert, also fixed the POV to be more neutral in that revert. My earlier edit was only adding references. Should the quote be removed entirely? Paul "The Wall" (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paul "The Wall": Read your talk page and please self-revert. I wrote nothing about you making more than one revert. Your assertion that your edit fixes POV does not stand up to scrutiny. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't just object to the quote. I objected to the entire edit, including the sketchy sources. - MrX 🖋 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Political positions

Somebody wants a citation below {{main|Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard}}, so please add 3 of the 6 main references (updated):

<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/ 
|title=Tulsi Gabbard Views on 2020 Issues: A Voter's Guide 
|date=August 23, 2019 |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=February 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web 
|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right
|title=Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right 
|last=McCarthy |first=Tom |date=May 13, 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=February 10, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/06/tulsi_gabbard_ad_neoliberals_and_neocons_sing_from_the_same_songsheet_war_war_war.html 
|title=Tulsi Gabbard Ad: Neoliberals And Neocons Sing From The Same Songsheet, War War War 
|last=Hains |first=Tim |date=May 6, 2019|work=[[Real Clear Politics]] |access-date=February 10, 2020}}</ref>

PoC:

"Tulsi Gabbard Views on 2020 Issues: A Voter's Guide". Politico. August 23, 2019. Retrieved February 10, 2020.

McCarthy, Tom (May 13, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". The Guardian. Retrieved February 10, 2020.

Hains, Tim (May 6, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Ad: Neoliberals And Neocons Sing From The Same Songsheet, War War War". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved February 10, 2020.

–84.46.52.123 (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interstellarity (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Disparity of treatment between candidate's BLPs

It is outrageous and offensive that Gabbard being the first Samoan-American voting member of Congress was deleted from her BLP lead by MrX with the edit summary "rm trivia. It's easy to be the first at something minor. The combinations are almost limitless."

Kamala Harris's BLP lead states that she is "California's third female U.S. Senator, and the first of either Jamaican or Indian ancestry." See also the leads of other candidate BLPs, e.g.: Biden ("sixth-youngest senator in American history"); Buttigieg ("first openly gay person to seek the Democratic nomination"); Klobuchar ("Minnesota's first elected female United States Senator"); Warren ("the first female Senator from Massachusetts").

Are these to be deleted as well as "trivial, promotional and self-serving"? Or is Gabbard the only candidate subjected to that treatment?

Candidate BLPs must be held to one uniform standard if WP is to maintain its advertised identity as an encyclopedic, unbiased information source.

See also this comment by MrX. Humanengr (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is notable and should be included. The two references linked to this in the lead do not mention this however. I have seen other references which describe her as the first Samoan-American member of Congress. What is the function of adding the word "voting" in the description? Have there been non-voting Samoan-American members of Congress? Burrobert (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the lack of cite. The 'voting member' refers to the fact that American Samoa is represented by a non-voting delegate in Congress. The "first voting member" is how she is referenced here, so I'm adding that. Humanengr (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am not very familiar with the intricacies of the US system so wasn't aware of that. Burrobert (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Please don't emotional about what is merely good writing structure/style. Just because other articles include useless trivia in their leads doesn't mean we should adopt such an amateurish style. I have removed such trivia from other candidates articles. You are wrong that "Candidate BLPs must be held to one uniform" but you are welcome to start an RfC at WP:BLPN or WP:VPP is you think you can get the community to agree with you. Also, haven't you been repeatedly reminded that about how WP:OTHERSTUFF is a not a valid argument?

I don't find that her being the first American-Samoan voting member of congress is at all significant. When you combine multiple random attributes (office, state, voting status, heritage, gender, sexual orientation), of course just about everyone will be the first, second, or third of those combined attributes. - MrX 🖋 14:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been in the lead since December 2012, so a bit over 7 years. I think it should be kept there. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Gabbard being the first American-Samoan voting member of congress is due for inclusion, as this is a unique feature of Gabbard that RS have reported on many times. The WP:OTHERSTUFF essay concerns creation and deletion of articles and therefore does not apply here. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think a so-called "unique feature" qualifies something for the lead. The Wikipedia standard is "significance" which means impact, importance, or noteworthiness. Anyway, it looks like consensus is not on my side at the moment, so I will leave the material alone, except for my next edit. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The uniqueness of a feature defines its noteworthiness. Uniqueness separates a feature from trivial stuff. Its reporting in reliable sources defines its reliability and due weight for inclusion. Xenagoras (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be standard to mention place of birth for U.S. politicians who were born outside the United States. There is no reason why this article should be any different. TFD (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Anti-gay advocacy.

With respect to this edit [56] (yes, there was a "valid reason for changing this") it is important to not that the focus of the article (and many more like it), say that Gabbard apologized after she decided to run for President. Yes, she did apologize in 2012 (not 2011) also, but that is not what sources have highlighted. I would also note that including her previous anti-gay advocacy, lobbying, and legislating has previous consensus. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, your version describes better what the sources say, and it is important to write properly. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As the Choi article specifically mentions this 2012 apology, I have added it to wiki-text as a compromise solution. It may also be worth noting that your first source is blocked in Europe for legal reasons (presumably GDPR).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your edit [57] grossly misrepresents Gabbard's stance on LGBT issues because it removed from the article lede any mention that Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012. This violates also WP:AGE MATTERS because you made the lede present Gabbard's views from before 2012 but these have been obsolete since 2012. This problem is easily solvable as there is a trove of sources supporting her pro-LGBT record since 2012, e.g. [58]. You chose to not insert a source link (or ask other editors to insert one), instead you deleted easily fixable content. Therefore there was no valid reason for your change. Additionally, you made [59] Gabbard appear to be an opportunist by her "apologizing and changing her mind on LGBT after starting her presidential campaign in 2019". This also violates WP:V because she changed her mind in 2011 and apologized in 2012. That's another reason why there was no valid reason for your change. The current text in the LGBT section also gives undue weight to obsolete info. Additionally it violates WP:NPOV because at the time when Gabbard advocated against LGBT in Hawaii, this represented the majority view and she found majority votes in the Hawaii Referendum in 1998 and in the House of Representatives in 2004. Xenagoras (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint Xenagoras. There is no misrepresentation at all. The text from the very edit you linked is "but in 2012 Gabbard she apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"." which is almost exactly what articles on the subject say, and it certainly is not contrary to the idea that Gabbard "has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012", although that tends to overstate her recent change of heart. As I mentioned before, consensus has already been established (and is even evident in this discussion), that we must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose these changes by Xenagoras which distances Gabbard from her past anti-LGBT activism, and completely buries the fact it was not only related to same sex marriage. The previous wording is carefully balance and chronological, and was in the article for quite a while before it was polished up. - MrX 🖋 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the lead is bit off. She did not simply lobby agains same sex marriage. See was full on anti-LGBT rights. Also, her 2019 apology came shortly after her campaign announcement, a fact which has been highlighted by many sources. - MrX 🖋 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your edit [60] removed from the article lede any mention that Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012. You changed the lede to say, "She voted and lobbied against LGBT rights in Hawaii prior to her first tour of duty, but in 2012 Gabbard she apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"". But Gabbard has been a supporter of LGBT rights since 2012 [61], a fact you removed from the lede. This violates WP:AGE MATTERS because you made the lede present Gabbard's views from before 2012 but these have been obsolete since 2012. You grossly misrepresented Gabbard's stance of LGBT issues. Gabbard said in 2011 that she changed her mind on LGBT issues.[62] This was 9 years ago and is therefore certainly not "recently" as you claim. Writing in the lede that "Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012" certainly is not "overstating" the change of her stance as you claim, because Gabbard received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for her legislative efforts to support the LGBT community.[63] I did not question and I did not change whether both Gabbard's anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT activities have to be presented in the article. You wrote, "We must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead", but you are the one who removed the pro-LGBT part from the lede. How about you actually honor what you claim to honor? Besides that, regarding your claim, "consensus has already been established": consensus can change over time. You write you oppose my change [64], because it "distances Gabbard from her past anti-LGBT activism." The things that distance Gabbard from her past are the time period of 9 years that has passed since she lobbied against same sex marriage and the reversion of her stance from anti- to pro-LGBT legislation. Gabbard's actions regarding LGBT and the time passed have distanced Gabbard from her past. What you did was you erased Gabbard's present stance to emphasize the obsolete past stance. That will not stick. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We should be clear about both Gabbard's past anti-LGBT activity as well as her more recent change of heart. I believe that my edit made that sufficiently clear, but if not, it can be revised. However, let's be clear that it was not merely opposition to same sex marriage.- MrX 🖋 03:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems per 19 Jan, 2020

Lede: LGBT rights vs same-sex marriage

MrX, you wrote, my edit [65] "completely buries the fact [Gabbard's anti-LGBT activism] was not only related to same sex marriage." Unless you can name any other LGBT rights other than same-sex marriage that Gabbard voted against, the text "she lobbied and voted against LGBT rights" cannot stay and has to be replaced with "she lobbied and voted against same-sex marriage". Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2002 vow to amend constitution

MrX inserted the text: "In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, she vowed to "pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."" This is fake news from Vox.[66], because Gabbard never made such a vow. What really happened is described in the text I previously put in the article [67] and which you removed.[68]: "In 1998 she supported her father's successful campaign to amend the Constitution of Hawaii to give lawmakers the power to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples." This amendment passed with an overwhelming majority in a referendum in Hawaii in 1998.[69] In 2002, Gabbard said her work to campaign with her father to get this amendment passed qualifies her as legislator in Hawaii.[70] (a fact that ABC News and all other outlets except Vox reported correctly in 2019.[71]) "Funny" how you manage to cite the only news outlet that failed to report this fact correctly. Even "funnier", how you can insert this false statement of fact into the article although you also inserted the proof that it is false:[72] [73] Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hawaii school related text and redundant content fork vs brief summary

MrX also put into the article, "[Gabbard] disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination." This is misrepresenting the source article [74], because your text makes it appear as fact that in 2004 "anti-gay discrimination was rampant at Hawaii schools." But the article states the opposite: "Few gays report harassment at school. ... only a small number of student harassment complaints in Hawai'i public schools involve sexual orientation... 16, or 1.1 percent of the 1,435 harassment incidents [were] related to sexual orientation.". That is clearly not "rampant". The source states further, "Tulsi Gabbard ... said the figures ... contradict a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment ... and show that our schools are not rampant with anti-gay harassment." We cannot give the appearance that Gabbard disputed a fact of "rampant gay discrimination" when the source states there was no "rampant gay discrimination". This makes the sentence "She disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" a misleading "information", a nothingburger that reduces the quality of the article and should be left out if we are not gonna explain in detail what the facts are (as I did). Additionally, the Political positions section of this article is not supposed to contain everything Gabbard ever said or did, and especially because there is another article that is dedicated to Gabbard's political positions, this section of the BLP is supposed to contain a brief summary, because otherwise it would be a redundant content fork. We should shorten all sub-sections in the Political positions section so that they are indeed a brief summary of their main article. And therefore, the text "Around the same time, she opposed Hawaii undertaking research on LGBT students and disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" should be left out in this article. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

LGBT caucus membership

MrX removed [75] information that Gabbard first joined the LGBT caucus in 2013 during the 113th Congress and again in the 115th Congress and 116th Congress and changed the article to "Gabbard joined the House LGBT Equality Caucus in 2019". This grossly misrepresents the history of Gabbard's LGBT Caucus membership. I propose changing "Gabbard joined the House LGBT Equality Caucus in 2019" to "Gabbard has been member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus during her first [76], third [77] and fourth [78] terms in Congress." Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue weighting of obsolete vs current stance

The LGBT rights section weighs the obsolete stance of Gabbard from before 2012 with twice as much space in the section as her current stance and thus gives it undue weight. E.g. that section lists legislative efforts as well as minor details from before 2012 but none of Gabbard's legislative efforts from after 2012.[79] I propose using the text that I previously put into the article as basis and shorten it to follow the brief summary guideline. [80] Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I think you should not hesitate to make the changes. MrX has continually been working the LGBT section from his earliest contributions here, and you lay out very clear argumentation above showing why this really should not be permitted. How much time did you have to invest in these clear explanations? And how long did it take MrX to "do what he does"? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to use the information and arguments I provided to make changes to the article. I have no interest or plan for an edit war. What I presented here serves the community as input to improve the article. Xenagoras (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for verifying all of that and laying everything out so clearly. My apologies if I've missed anything. Maybe the template in the LGBT section, but in principle I could get dragged to wikicourt now for reverting you, so I'd better not risk it. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. You probably refer to that revert? That one does not count because you undid that revert.[81] You worked to solve the article's problems that I highligthed.[82], thank's for that. I added the undue weight template and hereby state that your changes warrant removal of the template (meaning: I would not drag you to wikicourt for removing it now) with 2 caveats: Firstly, I noted that the LGBT section lists legislative efforts ... from before 2012 but none ... from after 2012. Perhaps a couple of words from this article could balance this aspect. Secondly, we should keep that template for at least 24 hours to ensure interested parties have acknowledged its existence and the ensuing content changes, so that a new consensus gets established before removing the template. Xenagoras (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Her opposition to anti-bullying research

This removal of Gabbard's history of anti-LGBT activism in opposition to research into bullying of LGBT students seems to be an attempt to whitewash her past. The edit summary is incorrect. There is no misrepresentation at all.

"A state Board of Education member whose family has fought against gay rights said that only a small number of student harassment complaints in Hawai'i public schools involve sexual orientation."

"State Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, D-42nd (Waipahu, Honouliuli, 'Ewa), Gabbard's daughter, said the figures released by her mother contradict a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment."
— http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/18/ln/ln12a.html]

Additional sources: [83][84][85][86]. - MrX 🖋 12:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why the insistance of bringing her mom and dad in the article ? This undue and of bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: You only showed one contemporaneous reliable source for this material. The 2017 New Yorker human interest piece is not a credible source for facts on this event, being inconsistent with the tone and substance of the 2004 source. 1) The text you inserted did misrepresent the facts as reported in the one reliable source. 2) You are misusing the phrase 'statistically significant', which does not occur, substituting that characterization for the data in the source showing that "1.1% of the harassment incidents related to sexual orientation.” 3) You substituted the “aim of reducing bullying” for the actual resolution in the article, leaving out Gabbard’s understandable privacy concern and creating the false impression that she was simply opposed to reducing bullying of LGBT for no reason.

A BLP-compliant form – which would still be UNDUE, especially for the lead – would be:

“In the same year, she opposed a resolution requiring the Hawaii department of education to study the demographics and needs of LGBT students as well as how well the department’s anti-harassment rule was being implemented. She noted recent data showing 16 of 1,435 harassment incidents related to sexual orientation, while a study asking students questions about their sexuality would be a violation of student privacy.“

Humanengr (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

That's cherry-picked, and asserting it up as WP:BLP-compliant does not make the other version non-BLP complaint. Let's stick to how the most prominent source (several of which were removed from the article (!) have wrote. They did not get into the weeds to make Gabbard look like a good statistician when in fact she was simply trying to pass legislation that adversely affected LGBT people. - MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right Humanengr, the privacy concerns should be added if this is added to the Political positions page. I was only focusing on the data question when I rewrote the text. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

One remark about the sources you gave. New Yorker is a source for Gabbard's opposition to a study on LGBT research, whereas Politico, Fox and National review copy-pasted the text from the New Yorker. Even more irritating is that I could not find any corroborating source for some of the New Yorker's (2017) indirect Gabbard quotes on that study, whereas the Honolulu Advertiser article from 2004 contains several long direct quotes from the day of the event. Xenagoras (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The change by SashiRolls from:

... she opposed legislation to curtail bullying of LGBT students saying "inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth."

To:

... she opposed legislation aimed at reducing bullying of LGBT students, saying that the problem was not statistically significant and that the proposed law was being used by "homosexual-advocacy organizations [...] to promote their agenda" in Hawaii schools."

seems intended to polish her image and hide this aspect of her anti-LGBT advocacy. Removing supporting references is a move in that same direction. - MrX 🖋 13:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This gives undue weight to minor aspects and controversies in a section that has to follow summary style. As I wrote [87] before: The Political positions section of this article is not supposed to contain everything Gabbard ever said or did, and especially because there is another article that is dedicated to Gabbard's political positions, this section of the BLP is supposed to contain a brief summary, because otherwise it would be a redundant content fork. We should shorten all sub-sections in the Political positions section so that they are indeed a brief summary of their main article. And therefore, the text "Around the same time, she opposed Hawaii undertaking research on LGBT students and disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" should be left out in this article. Xenagoras (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The material is highly relevant to her career and the evolution of her political views. Activism against LGBT rights is not a "minor aspect" in my opinion. She stands out among Democrats for her views regarding same sex marriage and anti bullying legislation. She was very vocal about it in a state that was at the vanguard of the same sex marriage movement in the US. - MrX 🖋 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You should really read WP:SPINOFF and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The material you refer to is not revelant to her evolution on LGBT issues. Relevant for her evolution is her experience in the military, especially during deployment in Iraq. [88] [89] [90] She perhaps stands out among Democrats for her views regarding same sex marriage and anti bullying legislation because she received a 100% rating in her third term (improving from 88% and 92% in her previous two terms) for pro-LGBT legislation. [91] Voters in her home state Hawaii voted with 69% for the Constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage she campaigned for in 1998. [92] And the House did not approve a bill on same-sex marriage she opposed in 2004. [93] Gabbard represented the majority view in Hawaii on same-sex marriage until 2004. Xenagoras (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don' see it that way, but I don't thing back and forth reverting is resolving this issue. I will wait to see if other editors weight in on the Gabbard's anti-anti-bullying activism. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

People not named MrX would get in trouble for painting caricatures of the intentions behind contributions. In fact, I intended to more accurately represent the text. I do not know why you have been so interested in this particular question for TG's BLP (but not for her political positions page). I understand that Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard has only 2% of the pageviews of this page; however, this is not an excuse for dramatizing a political position she no longer holds in stronger terms than the single 15 year old source describing it does. Insofar as this is not on the Political positions page, it should be removed from the BLP section summarizing that page.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I can look at the history of your constant removal of the LGBT material, removing sources, and now mangling direct quotes from the subject and reasonably conclude that you don't want Gabbard's unpleasant anti-LGBT activism in the article. The reason I am focused on the LGBT aspect is because it has been extensively covered; it stands our among the otherwise sparse coverage of the subject. The approach I'm taking to this article is that it should reflect the feature articles in high quality sources that have explored her life in depth. It should not look like a campaign pamphlet that gushes about her modest military service or her zingers directed at Hillary Clinton. - MrX 🖋 02:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What prestivarications are these MrX? I don't believe I've been a great deleter, go ahead & dig, I'm curious. Again, if you want this on her biography put it in political positions entry first. Stay focused on the question at hand, don't distract us with smoke and zingers.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Further comment: it is true that to be entirely accurate the text should read: she opposed legislation aimed at reducing bullying of LGBT students, because data from the state Board of Education "contradict[ed] a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment." In fact that data showed "1.1% of the harassment incidents related to sexual orientation." -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what is said above by the two editors. This content probably belongs to "political positions" but certainly does not belong in this BLP article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I added that content to the Political positions article, reworked that section there to increase precision and chronological order, and made minor changes to the section here. Xenagoras (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I heard that this anti-gay past content is still in the lead section? Why is that? Reliable sources about this issue are literally RECENT. There are only two dates when newspapers made converge of this, one in January 2019 when apologized and two when she said that her deployment to the middle East changed her view on LGTB. I am shocked to hear that this stuff is in the lead section. This stuff should not be even in this article, its recent in this biographical article. Should definitely be removed. Do the 10 years test if it's not clear how recent is this. We don't mention that Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war in the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I am sure that mentioning stuff about a mistake that was done in the past in the lead section of a biographical article is RECENT and UNDUE, it's not neutral. We don't mention that Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war in the lead of his article because he then said it was a mistake. We don't mention that Ilhan Omar made some tweets that were viewed as anti-Semitic in lead of her article because she apologized. Why would we mention that Tulsi Gabbard lobbied against same marriage when she apologized for that? Humans make mistakes. When they apologize, their mistakes become RECENT.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a consensus to include this a long time ago. As for what goes into leads on other articles (which is not relevant to anything in this article), the criticism that Omar engages in Anti-Semitic discourse should obviously be in her lead (just as it would be for Republicans who do it), and I do not particularly object to mentioning that Biden voted for the Iraq War in his lead, but it depends on whether that's prominent enough to mention in the lead of someone who was a Senator for nearly 40 years, VP for 8 years, and is currently the Democratic front-runner for the 2020 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

One's past doesn't disappear because they describe it as a mistake after deciding to run for president. I've already show numerous sources to show that the material is WP:DUE, including two feature length source articles. Regarding Omar: I could care less what happens at articles that I'm not interested in editing. There is also a vast difference between tweeting, and legislating/lobbying. I shouldn't even have to point that out.- MrX 🖋 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the pre-existing consensus that this misrepresentation of a story about privacy and 1.1% self-reported school harassment data and 2004 state legislation should be included in the entry. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I took the time to fact-check the two links provided in edit summaries to previous TP discussions here and here. When Snoogans says, There was a consensus to include this a long time ago. this should absolutely not be understood as being related to the story about legislation encouraging asking public school students about their sexual preferences. There is no pre-existing consensus about including this content in the entry or in the lede and it is misleading to suggest that this has been previously discussed. (likely just another "mistake") -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly object to Humanengr's edits to the LGBT material, per the many previous discussion about the material. - MrX 🖋 13:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing duplicate material and reordering LGBT section

@ContentEditman:: You reverted my edit. Your edit summary said: “This was discussed on the TALK page in depth. You also did not just reorganize, but changed the language as well without consensus”.

What does “This” refer to? Also, pls provide link to specific prior “discussion in depth”.

And what is the argument for starting the political positions of an actual candidate‘s bio page with any material other than their current political positions? In particular, what is the basis for starting the political positions section of their BLP with material from 21 years ago when she was a minor child that duplicates material that is included elsewhere in the bio. Humanengr Humanengr (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Please stop trying to improve her image by removing information about her anti-LGBT activism. If you look, you'll see that I commented about this upthread earlier today.- MrX 🖋 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, please stop trying to damage her image by removing information about her pro-LGBT activism and replacing it with her obsolete anti-LGBT activism as you did again. [94] Xenagoras (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As said above you removed information that has been discussed here before under the guise of a reorganization. ContentEditman (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX and ContentEditman: The 1998 material is already covered in Early life; the 2004 material is covered in both the Early life and Hawaii House of Representatives (2002–2004) sections. That material remains. Please point to where the issue of duplication of this material with that in other sections has been discussed. Also, as I asked above, where was the issue of ordering the material to -start- the political positions section of the bio with material from 21 years ago when she was a minor child discussed? Humanengr (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not duplicate material. I'm sure you are as capable as I of reading the previous discussion on this page and int he archive in which there has been strong support to including the Gabbard's entire history with regard to LGBT rights. I don't know what you are referring to when you write "she was minor child". Perhaps show some source for that? The anti-bullying material needs to be restored as well. - MrX 🖋 13:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We don't start the political positions sections of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren with what they once believed when they were conservative Republicans or Trump when he was a liberal Democrat. TFD (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read those pages? Elizabeth Warren's very first line under political positions is "In 2012,...". So yes other pages do start out with older information, not the most recent. Yet Gabbards political positions section starts with "Gabbard's political positions are broadly similar to those of other 2020...". So your example seems backwards from your statement. ContentEditman (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the complete sentence? Elizabeth Warren#Political positions begins, "In 2012, the UK magazine New Statesman named Warren among the "top 20 US progressives"." IOW, we don't start the political positions section of Elizabeth Warren with what she once believed when was a conservative Republican. We begin with what she is now, one of the leading U.S. progressives. TFD (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That section has mixed chronological order. Also, Warren didn't fight against civil rights and then support the exact opposite when she sought national office. 🍎🍊 - MrX 🖋 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

ContentEditman, you grossly misrepresent Warren's article. As TFD quoted, the begin of her political positions section explains her current position as a progressive leftist, not her obsolete previous positions as Republican. Xenagoras (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The material is not in strict chronological order. If you want to add something relevant to Warren's positions—past, present, or future—feel free. This is not the venue to debate it. - MrX 🖋 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's the WP:OTHERSTUFF that needs to be fixed. Biographies are usually written in chronological order. I see no reason to turn that upside down. Now, if I were writing a campaign brochure, I might reverse the order, especially if the more recent material was favorable to my campaign. - MrX 🖋 14:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

But we're talking about the "Political positions" section, which is not typically written in chronological order, but rather emphasizes their positions during the period of their greatest notability. A reader looking for Reagan's political positions who be primarily interested in what they were when he was president not what they were in the 1830s. Someone reading about Karl Marx would be more interested in knowing about what he believed when he was socialist rather than a liberal. People reading about Hayek and Mises are more interested in their free market theories than what they believed when they were socialists. TFD (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean like the foreign affairs section? I'm not aware that there is a Wikipedia-wide convention as you suggest, and I believe that in a biography, the content should generally be chronological because it's easier for readers to follow. In a separate political positions article, I could perhaps be convinced that content should be arranged according to some other criteria, such as WP:WEIGHT. If we did arrange the LGBT rights section in this article according the weight, the anti-LGBT activism would still be covered first anyway. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind, this is an encyclopedic article, not a tabloid. TFD (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have always been aware of that. - MrX 🖋 13:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)