Talk:Kshama Sawant

collectivizing Amazon.com

The claim that she supports collectivizing Amazon.com has shown up here and in a few blog posts and a Forbes article. Each of these claims cite a single Stranger article, Goldy's "The Case for Kshama Sawant," as their primary source. Problem is, that article doesn't really support the claim. The relevant text of the article is

"Sure, if you really push her on the subject, she'll make a cogent economic argument for, say, collectivizing Amazon, so I guess there's that."

This is pretty ambiguous. He doesn't name a specific time, place, or context. It sounds like he's just making up an example of some hypothetical argument. I can't find any other mention of or reference to her speaking about wanting to collectivize Amazon. I suspect that the reporter may have confused 'collectivize' with 'unionize', since unions are also called 'collective bargaining' and she does explicitly discuss unionizing Amazon.com on her web site. I suggest this claim doesn't belong on wikipedia until we get corroboration.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Goldstein was discussing which of her beliefs where outside the mainstream of Seattle politics and then gave an example of one such belief he prompted out of her. This is much more probable than Goldstein making a contextual hypothetical about a particular corporation without identifying it as being a hypothetical and just leaving it up to the reader to infer it. As you've said, it's been knocking around for some time and the Sawant campaign has made no comment or correction, something that's happened with several other things rather briskly. GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

She clearly states on her website that she supports collective bargaining (unions) for Amazon but doesn't say a thing about collectivizing anything. Collectivizing a major corporation is a radical position, wildly so in comparison to her other, stated positions. The cited source is extremely ambiguous: I read Goldy's rather off-the-cuff remark as stating that she could, 'when pressed', explain the socialist argument for a more radical agenda, for example collectiving Amazon. That's not the same as supporting it herself. There exists no reference to her support of collectivizing Amazon other than Goldy's remark. I think you're doing her a disservice by claiming she supports collectivizing Amazon without a more definitive reference: can you provide any? 71.37.7.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the context of the article that was Goldstein's point, that she wasn't campaigning on radical positions but, as a Marxist, she holds some. Sawant has been very open in her criticism of privately held corporations and has advocated for the dismantling of capitalism. Barring any evidence that the specific example of the collectivization of Amazon was a fabrication or him putting words in her mouth I don't see why it should be treated as such. GraniteSand (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a good point, but the page detailing her positions that is being used as a source here doesn't say she is in favor of collectivization (a pretty specific social concept). The text actually says, "Unionize Amazon, Starbucks & low-paid service workers." A very different prospect. The Strangler article, while explicitly mentioning collectivization, seems (in my opinion) to be offering a hypothetical, especially when, in the paragraph before, the author says, "there is nothing particularly radical when it comes to the core of Sawant's councilmanic agenda." I think the line should be struck from the article until a better, more explicitly-stated source is found.Ljpernic (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I can only reiterate that it was Goldstein's entire point that the positions she were taking in her Council campaign were not inherently radical but that she holds views that are. He then provided a specific example (her making the economic argument for collectivizing Amazon) that falls in line with the positions she taken on the record, criticizing the private investor ownership of corporations. I'm unsure a more logical way to read the passage. The passage in the article is a verbatim reflection of that portion of the article. To project hypothetical hypotheticals onto the passage doesn't make sense to me. GraniteSand (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Since she just won, she'll be getting more attention, and her wikipedia page will be the first line of information about her. This 'collectivizing Amazon' line is getting her a lot of negative attention. That's fine if it's unambiguously her position, but in this case it's clear that rational people can disagree about the reading of the Goldy sentence. Given the contentious nature of the claim and the fact that rational people disagree with your reading, isn't it better in an encyclopedia article to err on the side of caution and wait for additional sources? (My earlier comment unsigned, sorry) Bencmcclain (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, of course, but the grammar of the sentence, it seems to me, is pretty clearly hypothetical: "Sure, if you really push her on the subject, she'll make a cogent economic argument for, say, collectivizing Amazon, so I guess there's that." If you push her on the subject, she will argue for collectivizing Amazon. Not to get all grammatical on you, but it's a first conditional sentence (type 1 if-conditional, if you are more familiar with that terminology). Its purpose is to express a likely hypothetical. Like a presidential candidate saying, "If you elect me, I will lower taxes," or a parent saying, "If you do not go to bed, I will feed you to a bear." These things haven't happened, but the second case will follow from the first, so long as the first is met. He doesn't say, "When I pressed her on the subject, she argued for collectivizing Amazon." He says that in the hypothetical case that you (a word also used hypothetically) push her to talk about it, she will argue in favor of it. Definitely not a declaration that she has argued in favor of it, though. Seems like a pretty scant source to include such a radical statement. In my opinion it fails the requirements regarding biographies of living people. What do you think of this line of reasoning? Ljpernic (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to GraniteSand. I think you are correct, though, Bencmcclain. Better to err on the side of caution in this case.Ljpernic (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Ha. Accidentally said "air on the side of caution." In my defense, it is almost 4 am.

That still hinges on the idea that Goldstein is creating a fictitious scenario which requires, if I may say so, some rather tortured revision of intent. There's also nothing radical about a Marixist advocating such and I very much doubt it could be considered libelous in this context, the general rule for incontestable removal of such BLP material. Maybe a third, outside opinion? Most people here seem displeased with its inclusion but there's also seems to be a selection bias. I've stated me case as well as I can so I'll just let it run its course unless solicited. GraniteSand (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with 3rd opinion, though I'm not sure this discussion quite qualifies (since there are three of us who have weighed in already!). Probably that is okay, though. In my personal opinion, I don't find it too outside the realm of possibility that someone writing about a Marxist candidate would posit that the person would support collectivization without the person coming out and saying it. That being said, the single source also makes mention that none of her policies are particularly radical (in the grand scheme of things -- not just for a Marxist), so the inclusion of her advocating the collectivization of one of the largest companies in the country, which in mainstream politics would be rather radical, seems suspect to me. Do modern Trotskyists in general favor collectivization? I'm no Marxist, so I can't be sure.Ljpernic (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/DRN would be a more appropriate place? Not that we are in too big of a dispute. I just thought since three people have already weighed in?Ljpernic (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to let the tenor of the reception of something in some circles determine whether or not it should be included here. I can assure you, there are quite a few people in widely divergent communities who have responded quite positively as well, a fact equally irrelevant. It should stay or go based on it's contextual validity and veracity. I've stood by both and I'd disagree with its removal. I'm sure the issue will be raised again with her at which point we can change or update the entry, depending on the result. GraniteSand (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the issue will undoubtedly come up again (I've emailed Goldy and posted on his article for clarification) but it's important to be accurate now. Again I think that if rational people disagree that's sufficient cause to temporarily remove it from the article, but I admire your staunch defense of your reading. I'm about to make a change to that line, I hope you think it's fair. Bencmcclain (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a form of hedging which I don't care for; it attracts doubt and conflict. It also seems out of place, which it is. I'd rather it be provisionally removed until a reasonable time has passed or the author responds. I appreciate your initiative in emailing the author. Maybe it will be the impetus for more references to candid conversations, who knows? If he doesn't post the response on the web would you host the email somewhere? GraniteSand (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post when he replies. Kshama supporters appreciate all your hard work on this article! Bencmcclain (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to eat some crow now. I still think that Stranger article was equivocating and misleading, but after some searching I found much more substantial corroboration. The Internet Archive captured her website on July 27 2012. At that time, her platform explicitly stated that she wanted to collectivize not just Amazon but also Boeing and Microsoft:

"Break the power of Wall Street and Corporate America! Take the giant corporations that dominate Washington state such as Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon, into democratic public ownership to be run for public good, not private profit."

— Vote Sawant: What Our Campaign Stands For at the Wayback Machine (archived July 27, 2012)

I'll revert to GraniteSand's version and add a citation to the archived version of her website. Bencmcclain (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a really astute find, I'll work it in. I do hope that Goldstein gets back to you either way, I'm interested to know. Either way I'm happy we could get it from the source. GraniteSand (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, good job, guys. This is how wikipedia should work. Good find, Bencmcclain, and thank you both for being civil. I wonder if she would still support democratic public ownership of these groups? It will be interesting to see if she makes another statement about it. Thanks again for the hard work -- Ljpernic (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight and attribution

To add to my comments below, we should consider WP:UNDUE in relation to the collectivization issue. Sawant campaigned heavily on a simple 3-point platform, not on this. She stated clearly that she was not campaigning on a takeover of any corporations; it is only an opinion that she holds. This should be mentioned in the article because multiple sources discuss it, but again, it is mostly focused on by critics. We should explicitly attribute the emphasis on collectivization to her critics. The actual agenda she campaigned on should be given the greatest weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by this sentiment. All of the mentioned assertions are categorized into their individual categories. You are correct that her campaign for City Council had a very streamlined policy platform, the section on that campaign reflects that platform. Her advocacy of nationalizing corporations is given a single sentence in the section treating her overall past political advocacy. As for it being the potion of her campaign platform for the Washington State House and part of her overall political philosophy which attracts the most negative attention from her critics is entirely irrelevant in regard to whether or not it is included here. As far as I am aware it's not something she shrinks from nor is it something she's ever made any effort to distance herself from. I suspect you may be viewing this article as a biography of a generic, contemporary American progressive instead of a proud and unabashed Marxist economist who ran and won office as a socialist. GraniteSand (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm viewing this article as a BLP that must be in compliance with Wikipedia policy. The source say one thing, this article says something else. The article must hew closely to the sources, and not contain any original research. It must not give undue weight to anything not given proportionate coverage in good sources. Any potentially negative or controversial information must be well sourced, in secondary sources, not primary sources. Primary sources must be used with great caution. There's nothing new here: this is the most fundamental fact about the way Wikipedia writes about living persons. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sawant clearly identifies herself, without ambiguity, as a Marxist in the sources used. Marxism is a specific sub-sect of socialism. Her previous campaign platform included nationalization and is briefly mentioned in the appropriate section. I remain unconvinced by your argument. GraniteSand (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder, User:Dennis Bratland, when you say that the source says one thing and the article says another, could you be more specific? I don't think anyone here needs a review of "the most fundamental fact" of biographies on wikipedia. I agree with what you are saying about giving weight to the agenda on which she campaigned, but after an intensive discussion yesterday, we agreed to include the single line about collectivization, given that her old campaign page mentioned it. It is, of course, a primary source, but a pretty unambiguous one. Hardly seems like original research. Ljpernic (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that her position on collectivizing Amazon has generated a great deal of negative attention which all cited a single source, which was why I initially called into question the reliability of the original Stranger article. But we then found corroborating evidence that showed it was explicitly part of her public campaign platform just a year and a half ago. You want an encyclopedia article to only emphasize a politician's most recent campaign positions, and de-emphasize more contentious positions that they have unambiguously campaigned on in the past, haven't retracted, and which have received a lot of attention? That would be unreasonable. Bencmcclain (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the nationalizations mention and the housing stuff here. There's no actual independent secondary sources, just in order, (1) her campaign page; (2) her own campaign page; (3) an interview with her and (4) another interview with her. There is zero evidence that independent secondary sources actually care about this issue, just that she's brought it up. This is especially important for a politician so that the page isn't just parroting her campaign. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I undid you edit with a summary stating I didn't see the rationale on the talk page. Obviously I found it now. For future reference, please put new sections at the bottom of the page or properly format them. You could have also simply added your comments to the existing relevant section. The material in question was brought up in a secondary source. The question became what was the context of the attributed statements, which was resolved by Ben when he found the primary source. Googling would have easily produced additional examples.[1][2][3][4] GraniteSand (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This should have been a subheader of above. Those sources don't mention Amazon at all, and no mention of nationalization beyond the Boeing rally. And I'd hardly call this a reliable source. It's an issue of WP:UNDUE weight on which actual issues are relevant in a biography about her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing and using the word choice of critics

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons takes a very strong view that we should error on the side of caution when including criticism or negative information about living persons. So when I go to see if any sources support the use of the words "Marxist" and "Trotskyist" to describe Sawant, what I find is that the vast majority of reputable sources use the word "socialist", not Marxist. None of the mainstream, reputable sources mention Trotsky, or if they do only rarely. On the other hand, I do see many references to Marx and Trotsky in attack pages, and the use of Marxist or communist in lieu of socialist. I can understand the point of view that these words are synonyms, or at least mean very close to the same thing. But sometimes these words mean distinct things. And it's clear from the way the sources use them that one set of word choices is used by critics and another by neutral sources.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia must conform to the tone and attitude of the most neutral sources, and when there is any doubt, negative information must be avoided unless it is very well sourced. I checked four cited sources which supposedly supported calling Sawant a Marxist, and not one used the word. It appears likely that there is a negative slant at work in some of these word choices, and therefore we should be certain we cite high quality sources before echoing the critics of a living person. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

All references to Trotsky(ism) and Sawant being a Marxist are referenced by primary sources in inline citations. Sawant is a Marxist. She is a member of a Trotskyist political party and she frequently references both her Marxist politics and Trotsky. I'm sure she would be amused to see your characterization of those positions as being critical or negative. She ran on a ticket as a generic socialist, as documented and referenced in the article, but not all socialists are Marxists and not all Marxists are Trotskyist. GraniteSand (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please actually review the sources before deleting the material they source. Also, I'd appreciate if you don't template bomb my talk page. Thanks. GraniteSand (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you have to go digging into primary sources is our first clue that this is original research. The BLP policy takes special note of this problem at WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. The version you've created violates the principle of least astonishment and it suprises readers with it's tone and language. The public looks at the news and reads story after story about this socialist in Seattle, and they come to Wikipedia and find socialist changed to Marxist. That is original research and POV pushing, and it violates the policy that BLP's must use extreme care with any controversial or potentially negative information. The bar is set much lower than libel.

The only reason this article can even meet notability is that Sawant has received national attention for being a third party socialist. Look at the news headlines: 100+ news stories in a day, and the headines say Richard Conlin Concedes: Seattle Elects Sawant As First Socialist Councilmember, Socialist Sawant wins City Council seat. Etc. Etc. But Marxist? Barely five hits and they're all blogs, and opinion pieces, and the reason you even get hits for "Marxist" is because Google News is including reader comments.

Responsible, mainstream, neutral sources all say "socialist". They don't drag Trotsky into it. Why? Because these terms evoke turn of the century, Soviet authoritarian communism. And even if we didn't know that, we do know it's our job to faithfully relay what our sources say, not embroider, enhance, or spin what we find in the sources.

I think it would be fine to cite reputable critics who are saying "Sawant calls herself a socialist but she's really a Trotskite Marxist and she's hiding it..." Such editorials exist, but we must attribute them as opinions.

Please explain why it's so necessary to deviate so far from what the vast majority of quality sources say. Why do you want to change "socialist" to "Marxist"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that you're projecting your own emotional response to the language here onto her and her entry. There is nothing about citing primary sources where Sawant says "I'm a Marxist" to make the claim that she is a Marxist which could be construed as original research. I almost feel that your trying to strip Sawant's own identity as a Marixist from her because you feel that some might respond negatively, which is troubling understanding of BLP. As for Google, I'm not at all surprised that the media is slow on the uptake here, they've deliberately ignored her and now that she has won an election they, and many others, are scrambling to figure out who this person is. That's what's being done here with reliable secondary sources and using primary sources of her own words. I hope you can help instead of attempt to scrub material people could find to be shocking. GraniteSand (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to stick closely to what reliable sources have said is clear evidence of POV pushing. You think the media got it wrong, and you're using Wikipedia to set the record straight. We don't do that here. We humbly relay what we find in good sources and let others uncover the "truth". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how my direct quoting of her can't possibly be construed as POV and I regret your accusation. Everything here reflects the sources and I've made my case. I hate errands to run so I'll retire for now. Cheers. GraniteSand (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You guys need to deescalate a little bit. Take a breather. The article as it stands now clearly identifies her as a socialist. It only uses the term Marxist once, with two citations to speeches. She self-identifies as a Marxist at 0:47 into the video (so, the very beginning). Primary sources can be problematic, but in this case, there is no room for misinterpretation, so per Wikipedia:PRIMARY, I would favor including the term. (Relevant text from WP: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.") She's pretty clearly a Marxist. As for her being a Trotskyist, she is a member of the Socialist Alternative, which, to my understanding, is a Trotskyist political organization. My opinion is that these labels are appropriate and not over-used.Ljpernic (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's less than convincing that you have to find YouTube videos where you find one brief sentence where she sometimes uses an off-the cuff phrase like, "socialist or Marxist" in passing, loosely using the terms as equivalent, while on the other side you have dozens and dozens of instances of her using socialist, not Marxist. And 135 or so news stories that only say socialist. GraniteSand agrees that Marxists are a subset of socialists; so saying socialist is accurate. The fact that the overwhelming majority of sources, including Sawant's own words and publications, prefer socialists is evidence that there is a nuanced difference and socialist is preferred. All of these are reasons why the least controversial term is socialist. The most straightforward term is socialist. She was ran on the Socialist Alternative, not Marxist Alternative ticket.

If somebody thinks the most accurate term is Marxist, that somebody should be a published expert and we should attribute that opinion to them by name. Simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This helps me understand the root of your apparent confusion. Marxism and socialism are not in any way mutually exclusive. They're independent terms. It is analogous to a Republican or Democrat identifying themselves as a libertarian. To identify Republican or Democrat as a libertarian of any sort in no way undercuts their status as a Republican or Democrat. Sawant is a Marxist. Sawant is also socialist. GraniteSand (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, of course, but it isn't really an off the cuff phrase. She says, "And so I'm an economics teacher at Seattle Central Community College, which is a very odd profession for a Marxist to be an economist in today's world." I can't really speak to her preferences, of course, but it's funny -- I would have honestly said that Marxist is the less controversial term. Generally in the US, the only time I hear someone call someone else a socialist, it is as an insult! (Of course, I'm also from the South, so it could be a regional thing?). Also, I'm not sure I agree with your point that she "ran on the Socialist Alternative, not Marxist Alternative ticket." The Socialist Alternative is a Trotskist organization (I believe, any way), and Trotskyism is a form of Marxism... So she did indeed run on a Marxist ticket. You might be able to make the argument that it is redundant to include both Marxist and Trotskyist, but honestly, it seems like we should use the most specific term (which in this case, I guess, would be Trotskist). Using the generic term "socialist" is less specific, and therefore less accurate. For the purposes of the article, though, it seems to me that Marxist and socialist are equally valid here. Ljpernic (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the term "Marxist" from the intro because it wasn't supported by the listed references. I think that the best way to address this issue is to somehow cite the speech inline and note that shes happens to identify specifically as a Marxist and leave it at that. This allows for the inclusion of the statement without putting it at the forefront of the article which simply cannot justify with the given sources. John Reaves 21:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I support your change to the lead but don't feel there's any need for changes to the body of the article. Her references to being a Marxist are not confined to a single instance and it's instructive to the reader. I don't generally like the sort of hedging that comes with in-text extrapolation on the nature of sources. It makes for tortured reading and I feel that it's either good enough to cite or not and anyone who wishes to review the source may do so in the notes. GraniteSand (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

First you tried to claim that all the other editors were happy with this page, and that I was the only one with complaints. Then somebody else comes along, and you edit war with them too. Please stop. Seek consensus and proceed after that.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• An analogy that might help explain why the Marxist label is a problem is if you consider a Republican whose statements indicate they are in agreement with the agenda of the Tea Party subset of the GOP. If an article about that politician places too much emphasis on that, repeatedly calling them a "Tea Party Republican", the indication is that they are a rigid ideologue who will not compromise, even with other Republicans. Some Republicans are explicitly members of the Tea Party and all that implies, but others balance their beliefs with the "big tent" strategy.

  Sawant clearly is positioning herself as a socialist, not strictly a Marxist, so that we can't infer that she is unwilling to compromise with non-Marxist socialists. Going beyond what the mainstream sources say and changing "socialist" to "Marxist" is misleading because it leads the reader to think she rejects other forms of socialism.

  Perhaps she does -- some critics have accused her of being a rigid ideologue who will attempt to impose a one-sided agenda. Or that she is doomed to being ineffective because she won't compromise with anyone. But those criticisms must be attributed by name to the critic in question, because the mainstream, objective sources don't label her that way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

She calls herself a Marxist. She literally says that she is a Marxist. That doesn't have anything to do with her willingness/unwillingness to deal with other forms of socialism. Why would her ascribing to Marxist ideology mean that she would be unwilling to compromise with other socialists? And why would that be relevant when she literally calls herself a Marxist?Ljpernic (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly? She is identified as a Marxist once, in the section covering her political advocacy. I'm unsure what you mean by "positioning herself". Could you elaborate on what this means and why it should affect the way we edit her article? You've made several references to how things could come off and now you're talking about how she politically positions herself in elections. This all very much sounds like your concerned with the optics of her politics to readers instead of fidelity to her and her politics. GraniteSand (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

She literally calls herself socialist about 100 times more often than Marxist, and our best sources go with that. We follow sources. We don't "correct" our sources with our own opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why you'll see the term socialist often in this article. This is not a reason to forgoe identification of her specific political philosophy, especially one in which she has repeatedly identified and campaigned on. Your insistence on excluding her overt identity as a Marxist is trending toward the bizarre. GraniteSand (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

John Reaves removed references to Marxism because the citations failed to support them. C.J. Griffin added a quote showing Sawant supports Democratic socialism, a much broader, more flexible system than Trotskyism or Marxism. Are we all so bizarre? Are are we just following the general sense of best sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one who is advocating the removal of the descriptive from the article. And, again, Marxism and socialism and not mutually exclusive. GraniteSand (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Marxist is a less accurate label than Socialist and should not be highlighted in the same way. She belongs to the Socialist Alternative party and clearly prefers to self-identify as a Socialist rather than a Marxist. (Not that they are mutually exclusive, but both terms are floating signifiers anyway.) Unlike the collectivizing Amazon issue which had received a lot of attention and needed to be included and resolved, there's very little sources that discuss her Marxism. It would be really bad if new secondary sources start referencing her Marxism solely because of its inclusion in this article, since that would make Wikipedia a primary source. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that GraniteSand over-emphasized the Marxist label enough to constitute POV-pushing, so that was unfair, and burying the term she herself used solely because it evokes "turn of the century" negative connotations is highly inappropriate. It's not like it's a false claim. How about create a subsection for her economic policies and reference Marxism with appropriate emphasis there? Bencmcclain (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious how that would look. Could you provide a draft or example? Forgive my presumption but if you need help setting up a draft page let me know. GraniteSand (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)he

I'd like to see this implemented, it sounds like a good solution here. John Reaves 04:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is already mostly about various opinions expressed at different times which have nothing to do with her City Council campaign. The only reason she is notable is that she was elected to the Seattle City Council. Why so much time spent on things that are totally outside the scope of her office? She's spent the last several months campaigning on city issues related to her actual office. The press has reported on city issues. She has endorsement questionnaires where she discusses zoning, transit, the Seattle Police department, schools, etc. Local Seattle issues, not how we should abolish borders and institute a world government or some other far off dream.

It would be fine to include this other content, but only after giving due weight to the more important things: city council business, and the campaign she ran which defeated a scandal-free, well-liked, well-funded incumbent. That's the real story: how did this third party socialist succeed where so many others failed? WP:UNDUE requires expanding that first and these ancillary background details later.

Until the relevant content is expanded to proper proportion, the less pertinent material should be left out or kept on a workpage or this talk page until a properly balanced article can be written. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a biography, not an article about her City Council Campaign. GraniteSand (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "BLPs should not have trivia sections ... Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all ... The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times ... Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject..." I could go on and on and on. From beginning to end in the BLP policy it makes clear that balance is paramount. You are not allowed to just dig up every random fact and stitch them together and call it a biography. It must be on topic, relevant, and balanced. The live article must be in this state, not some future version that may take months or years. This policy is not optional. Remove the ancillary material, expand the relevant parts to their full proportions, then put her opinions about non-Seattle issues back at that time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Sawant is a academic and activist, what some would call a public intellectual. She's also a recently elected public official. Correspondingly, her biography centers on her political and academic beliefs in addition to her positions on public policy. GraniteSand (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a place for all her political beliefs, However, the primary reason for her notability is her election to the Seattle City Council, and that is where most of our source material is found. Our sources tell us the main reason they think she's worth writing about is the City Council. We should organize this article in proportion to that.

The Seattle Times has emphasized that they think 2 of the 3 points in her platform, the millionaire's tax and rent control, require changes in state law, so are above the office of City Council. Others disagree. But the criticism is that she lacks an effective agenda for how she will use her office, and will instead focus on telling other lawmakers what they should be doing. An activist, not a city council member. When you write an article that disproportionately focuses on ancillary issues and ignores the greater weight the press has given to her City Council agenda, then you surreptitiously spin the article in support of that criticism.

This is why undue weight is so central to the BLP policy. What we choose to emphasizes colors the way the person is perceived. The structure of the article should be balanced, and the criticism that she is an activist working above her office should be stated openly and attributed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Her election to the Council alone would make her notable enough for an article but it's not the sole pillar of her notability. Much of her notability and coverage is driven by her politics in conjunction with her election to the Council which makes those politics central, not ancillary, to her biography. It's an historic set of circumstances in the United States. Additionally she was a central figure in Occupy Seattle, was a notable candidate for the House with a notable platform, and been an advocate in Seattle on education, environmental and financial issues, come of which she has been arrested for. Which reminds me, I need to dig up that source. GraniteSand (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you back up that assertion? I see zero Google news hits for "Kshama Sawant" prior to January 1, 2012. I see a few hundred after. HighBeam has zero before 1/1/2012, and 48 after. General OneFile, same thing. Counting news hits is not a perfect instrument, but in this case the difference between zero and some makes it glaringly obvous that as an Occupy activist and community college teacher, nobody was writing news articles about her. Virtually all coverage is about her city council run. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure her name wasn't popping up on search results in 2010/11 but we don't use Google results to determine notability, we use reliable sources. We also don't create chronology of notability by the publishing dates of secondary sources. By that metric Ted Kaczynski didn't do anything biographically notable before April of 1996 (sorry, poor association). We both know that's not how notability works, I would think. GraniteSand (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. We do sometimes use Wikipedia:Search engine test to make broad generalizations, as I have done. "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. ". In this case "crude" is fine because the results are so lopsided. The biggest problem with Google is that it may overstate Sawant's notability. I mentioned two other news databases that give exactly the same result. Zero news coverage about her for Occupy, or anything else. Your assertion that she was notable for Occupy is demonstrably false. Not one news story means no notability whatsoever. Out of 38 footnotes in the article right now, 35 are in response to her city council run, all from 2012 and later. Two earlier ones are academic papers by the subject, and one is a non-notable, non-reliable local blog post with an itinerary that includes her name and zero attention. The evidence is overwhelming.

Kaczynski is a terrible example. At least compare Sawant to other local politicians.

Other editors are doing good work in making this article somewhat better. Please do not undo their work as you have done up to now. The next step is to expand the City Council positions section to get it into proportion to the actual coverage. Right now there is 5 to 10 times as much content about other things than about her City Council positions, which deviates too far from our sources.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Well, there's a NPOV tag on the article now. User:Dennis Bratland has been a moving target of criticism for the past couple days now. He's tried and failed to get the article locked on his preferred version. He's tried and failed to undermine the legitimacy of uncontroversial primary sources, tried and failed to argue that Marxist and socialist are mutually exclusive terms, tried and failed to strip the article's subject of an identity she actively promotes, tried and failed to confine her biography to her City Council election and tried and failed to remove language from the article which he thinks might provoke a negative emotional response from some people. The other half dozen editors here have not support any of this so he seems to be concluding his lone dissension with tactic of muddying the waters with an NPOV tag.

I'm sure he'll have a different recollection but the history of the article seems pretty clearly laid out to me. If interested editors could weigh in here on this so as to quickly resolve this issue and remove the unilateral tagging of the article I would appreciate it. I've made my case on most of the respective issues. GraniteSand (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it quite that way. Dennis has made some valuable points (though threatening on GraniteSand's talk page to revoke his ability to edit was unnecessarily aggressive). I agree with him that the political positions section is disproportionately long (right now it reads like a campaign questionnaire; subsections 3.4 and 3.5 should probably be dropped entirely), that more specific facts about the City Council race and why it's historically important are needed for balance, and that 'socialist' is a much more appropriate label than the weakly sourced 'marxist.' I also think that all parties may have been a little too quick with the reverts. But I disagree with Dennis that only Sawant's most recent campaign is relevant, since back in 2012 it seemed noteworthy to me at least that a socialist was on the same general election ballot as the president, even if she lost. I also disagree with Dennis's attempts to get the page locked. This discussion is vibrant and the article is progressing quickly, in large part due to GraniteSand's hard work. I think the NPOV tag should be removed if it has a chilling effect on new contributions to the article, but otherwise I'm fine with leaving it until a majority consensus emerges. Bencmcclain (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Since WP:BLP requires this article be balanced now, not some indeterminate time in the future, I have moved the excessive details about non-city council issues to Talk:Kshama Sawant/Workpage, a complete copy of the article with the categories commented out. I consolidated the positions related to the city council campaign section (something that should have been done regardless) and temporarily removed the other opinions and positions. Anyone who would like to keep expanding that material can do so on the workpage. Once the city council positions section has been fully expanded to give it due weight, in proportion to the vastly greater press coverage of the city council race over everything else she has said and done, all the rest can be put right back in the article.

This keeps us on the right side of the BLP policy and doesn't cause any serious harm. It is really not that hard to work up 3 or 4 more paragraphs about her positions in the campaign. In particular the 3 main points should be expanded, with some of the reaction from critics of her 3 points and her replies. See her Reddit AMA, for example, and various editorials. We've already established that the sources are there.

If you want to revert, then put the POV tag back, and here we are. I think my compromise is a better way out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• A recent example of a mainstream, straight news story (from a paper with a rightward editorial slant) that makes no mention of Marxism, Trotskism, nationalizing corporations, or any of these other hotbutton issues. Instead, it focuses on the minimum wage, and it takes at face value Socialist Alternative's stated approach of working with others to build a coalition, rather than being ideologically rigid. A neutral article would have a similar tone and similar emphasis as mainstream straight news articles, while only giving brief mention of sources that take a more sensationalistic approach. Sorry I haven't fixed this myself yet, but the NPOV tag needs to stay until someone does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You immediately bring into question the comparability of your paradigm with the NPOV policy by labeling the editorial position of the Seattle Times as "rightward" and then attempting to tie that editorial board's supposed ideological inclinations to their news department. I very much hope I wouldn't need to reiterate basic tenets of this encyclopedia, such as the fact that we don't draw an article's content from a single source, with an editor as experienced as you. The idea that I'd even have to suggest such casts a lot of doubts. I also think you've very much misinterpreted the tone of that article. GraniteSand (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Marxism and Trotskyism problem

The article fails to explain that she is not a "classical" Marxist (the original thought of Marx and Engels), but a Trotskyist.. The difference is really this, Trotskyism is a development (or officially, the continuation of) Leninist interpretation, and what many consider, development of Classical Marxist thought. Secondly, the word Trotskyist should be used instead of socialist. To take one example, a social democratic politician is a socialist, but you refer to him as a social democrat.. A communist politician is a socialist, but you call him a communist politician. Sawant is a socialist, but more specifically she is a Trotskyist politician. Why so precise? Because Trotskyism is a socialist ideology which some people consider the correct interpretation of Lenin's thought and its continuation... I haven't made these changes since there seems to be a discussion going on here. What am I saying? It would be factually more correct, and more neutral to call here a Trotskyist. --TIAYN (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally aware of all of this and I sympathize with your points. The thing is that, while we have cites for Marxist and socialist, we don't for Trotskyist. She never actually made the declaration and no reliable secondary source identifies her, specifically, as such. She very deliberately ran as a generic socialist in a Trotskyist party with a generic name so that's what most of the secondary sources and campaign material have to say. As time goes on I have little doubt she'll get more specific and secondary sources will take greater interest. Until then we have to work with what we have. GraniteSand (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually you have an overwhelming majority of sources that don't say Marxist at all. They just say socialist. You really have to dig into primary sources to find the word Marxist mentioned, and then only in passing. We need to conform to what the almost all the best sources say: "socialist" and nothing more.

And we do not "have to work with what we have". We can -- and should -- remain silent when we have uncertainty like this in a BLP. Read WP:BLP; it's very clear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

She is a member of a Trotskyist organization that operates under democratic centralism. She simply wouldn't be allowed membership if she wasn't a Trotskyist. 2.30.152.82 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can join Socialist Alternative. The sources that Wikipedia relies on don't call her a Trotskyist. It's something that is kept alive mostly in Internet forums and other open media -- like Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can join. But as a Leninist organization, the CWI would not permit its members to break from its agreed theoretical position without a debate and vote on the issue. 2.30.152.82 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Source? And how come you know this but virtually every other media source we have doesn't? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

'In Defence of Leon Trotsky', by their leader Peter Taaffe - http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4097 2.30.152.82 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What connection is there between Peter Taaffe of the Socialist Party of England and Wales and Socialist Alternative (United States)? This is becoming strained. Wikipedia is not here to dig out buried secrets. Wikipedia reports well-established facts. Particularly about living persons. The conspiracy stuff goes on other web sites. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Taaffe is the founder of the CWI and a member of its International Secretariat. [5] 2.30.152.82 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. Stick to what the sources say about Kshama Sawant. It's that easy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

She's a member of the CWI, are you denying that? 2.30.152.82 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dennis is correct, this is original research in the form of synthesis. Everyone here understands your train of logic but the rules we operate under here say that assertions cannot be backed my putting two or more sources together to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in those sources. Until such time that a reliable third party or the subject herself identifies as being a Trotskyist we simply cannot, by our own rules, label her as such. GraniteSand (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First elected socialist in US?

Today's The Times of India headline states that Sawant is the "first elected socialist in the US".[6] This appears at odds with the article lede. Incidentally, the last two paragraphs of the Times story appear to be lifted word-for-word from this article. — Brianhe (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, she's not. There have been many socialists elected to office in the US. The lede doesn't explicitly say first in the US and headlines are often written by non-journos. Regardless, much of that article seems to be a poorly translated plagiarization of several various internet sources, including this one. The Times published it, the actual author of the article is PTI which is similar top the Associated Press in the United States. I'm going to review PTI sources and removed potentially controversially assertions backed only by them. GraniteSand (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ToI's "Indian activist poised to be first ever elected socialist in US", currently the article's reference #1, seems to have the same headline truthiness problem. But I can't tell if the author is reliable. — Brianhe (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, headlines and articles are seldom written by the same person to the same standard. The only assertion I see that backing is her place of birth in Pune. It seems non-controversial and from what I can recall something I never saw anywhere before finding it there, making it likely to be an original piece of information. I think it was subsequently mentioned in another non-TOI source but I'll have to look. I'm comfortable leaving it in but if you're not I won't object to its removal. GraniteSand (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a better source. It actually predates the TOI piece by some time so if the rest of the PTI articles are an indication it was probably Subject Zero. GraniteSand (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this "first socialist" thing seems to be getting spread around, e.g. yesterday's New York Daily News: "...the first socialist to be elected to a public office in the US..." in the article body. This is from IANS and the biographical details are also suspiciously close to the wording in this article. I guess we'll just have to be vigilant about sources on this. — Brianhe (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, NY Daily didn't write that article, their website just published it off the IANS wire service, a competitor of PTI. Basically one of them fires something off, the other parrots it and then various internet publications publish both because nobody has international bureaus or actual staff writers anymore. Hoo-ray internet. GraniteSand (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lame. First Rand Paul, now the Times of Inida? Whats the world coming to? I think they were trying to say first socialist + Indian-born to be elected in the US, but could never find the phrasing they needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hugh De Lacy

This edit removed the citation for the reference to Hugh De Lacy (politician), and the explanation for what it's about. So instead of saying, "The last socialist on the city council was A. W. Piper, who served 1877–1879, notwithstanding Representative Hugh De Lacy, said by historian Harvey Klehr to have been secretly a member of the Communist Party USA when elected to the city council in 1937" it only says "...notwithstanding Representative Hugh De Lacy."

If we're going to mention De Lacy we have to say why -- which is that he was secretly a communist, not a Democrat, which is what he was elected as. And we need to keep the citation no matter what. If we can't explain what his name is doing in this article, then we should delete him altogether. Making readers click through to try to figure out why we mention him is an WP:EASTEREGG.

I think it sort of does sound like red baiting but it's unavoidable. If we want to describe accurately the history of socialists on the City Council, we have to mention him, if only to clarify that the voters didn't pick a socialist in 1937. Only in 1877 and 2013. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, I just tried a different wording. One way to avoid red baiting would be to frame the issue as related to the persecution of communists or socialists for much of the 20th century, as a barrier people like Sawant had to overcome. I agree the "secret communist" stuff smacks of red baiting, but it's also relevant so we should try to find a way to bring it in.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why mention Hugh De Lacy at all? It seems to me to be a sneaky way to inject the right-wing viewpoints of anti-communist historians like Harvey Klehr into the article. The following should be removed: "notwithstanding Representative Hugh De Lacy, a Democrat whom historian Harvey Klehr said was secretly a communist when elected to the city council in 1937."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So if it's true then we can cite sources other than Klehr, and if it's not true then we'll remove it completely. We don't need to mention Klehr at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Klehr's personal feelings on the practicality of communism (which I'm not knowledgeable of) aren't relevant. He's either a reliable source or he's not and if he is then there is no reason to qualify the statement in the text of this article. De Lacy's article goes into greater detail and includes notes. If anyone is curious as to know more about de Lacy (or Klehr) they can follow the link. Having reliable sources establishing de Lacy as a very small group of Washington State politicians that Sawant is now a part of is contextually relevant and I see no reason not to include it here. As for red-baiting, we should be careful not to prescribe negative connotations to certain left-wing politics and then use that subjective standard to exclude information. What is red-baiting to one person is affirming historical precedent to another. GraniteSand (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be persuaded either way: show me independent sources that show Klehr is unreliable and De Lacy was not a communist in 1937, then we should remove it. Or show me sources that say De Lacy was a member of CPUSA in 1937 and it should stay. There were a couple stores in the NYT that seemed to take Klehr at his word, though they were discussing De Lacy later in the House, not in the city council years. But surely there are other historians who can clear this up? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed it for now, because doubt exists, so might as well leave it out. If sources other than Klehr are cited saying he was a communist in 1937, it might be put back. What's important anyway is that in the cases of Piper, Strong, and Sawant, the public voted in a socialist, indicating the direction of electoral sentiment. Secreet allegiances are mere curiosities unless they are directly connected to some policy enacted while in office. De Lacy walked like a Democrat, talked like a Democrat, so what's the point? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Separation

The whole question of separation and living apart from her husband had nearly zero attention in reputable media, and nobody had even thought to ask about her marital situation until it was made an issue in this source: Erica C. Barnett. "Isn't It Weird That...A weird thing we noticed about "99 percenter" and socialist city council candidate Kshama Sawant". SeattleMet.. Barnett is one of Seattle's most erratic reporters even when she is attempting straight news, and the source here is purely editorial, not straight news. Everything else Barnett wrote at seattlemet.com throughout the campaign was pretty clearly pro-Conlin and the marriage story is basically op-research for the Conlin campaign. The point being, I don't think we have objective, non-partisan sources saying the subject's family status is relevant. We have hostile editorialists prying into private family affairs, but that doesn't meet the WP:BLP standards for respect of privacy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Privacy in the realm of BLPs is largely confined to the sort of information that could be exploited for the purposes of things like identity theft, personal safety concerns, or things which could unfairly impugn a persons reputation, the latter being something already laboriously covered in other areas of BLP. There has been no assertion in the article as to the legal status of Sawant's separation from her husband. Barnett at Seattle Met did bring it up that her husband is a wealthy tech worker and questioned how this contextualized in her political platform. The Sawant campaign subsequently took up the topic and made several clarifying statements as to her marital status and its affects on her financial situation. These facts make it pertinent to the biography but benign to her actual person. I see no reason not to include her marital status in the article. I see no conflict with policy and it's in the interest to the reader, as made clear by the fact it is sourced as both a political and biographical issue. GraniteSand (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The first reason it is private is that Sawant stated that she preferred the issue not be public. The second reason is that only Barnett made it an issue. No reputable media agreed with her accusation that her husband's income was relevant, and therefore the question of separation is irrelevant. The fact that Sawant replied to the smears is not a free pass to treat the issue as encyclopedic. It never was in the first place. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sawant's desire for her private life to remain private is irrelevant, Wikipedia deals with facts. And as a public official, her personal details are entirely relevant to the article. Jbottero (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia deals with facts" is a highly misleading thing to say in this context. It's basically false, if you're implying that just because something is a fact, we must put it into an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. It is more correct to say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". As an encyclopedia, there are many things Wikipedia is not, which is to say, there are many facts that don't belong. Please read the Biographies of living persons policy, in particular the section WP:BLPNAME emphasizes that non-notable family members should have their privacy respected. Wikipedia does not go out of its way to shine a spotlight on anyone's private life, no matter who they are. If we had sources which published intelligent reasons why Sawant's private life deserves more attention, then we could be convinced by those arguments. But "because it's there" or "because it's a fact" is not an argument, and the presumption is against throwing it in there without a purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NYT profile and socialist mayor Edwin J. Brown (1922)

Sawant was profiled in the NYT today, which mentions that Seattle had a socialist mayor in 1922. That would be Dr. Edwin J. Brown, a lawyer and dentist, elected in 1922, and re-elected in 1924. Brown was involved in a split of the Washington Socialist party in 1909, leading the right wing of the party to try to form a separate faction. [7][8] The City Clerks records don't list Brown as a socialist.[9]. Here is a think piece on Brown's career and election in 1922, attributing it to reaction against the incumbent rather than support of Brown, noting that Brown had as many enemies among the left as the right, and had a reputation as a gadfly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. E.J. Brown should be added at List of elected socialist mayors in the United States. Also found a 1911 election banner for some Brown who ran as a socialist but I can't read the first name: [10] Here's another source for Dr. Brown as a socialist; he was involved in a Seattle paper called Socialist Voice [11] — Brianhe (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the links above calls Brown a "sometime socialist" and Mill Town says in 1915, prior to the Everett massacre, "During an uproarios evening, Dr. Edwin Brown of Seattle, a dentist and a prominent moderate whom the state's radicals had excommunicated a few years before, came to Everett and told a large audience about the 'corruption' and 'trickery' oof the 'reds', including James Salter..." So I'm not entirely sure Brown was strictly a Socialist by 1922. The essay above also says the Seattle Union Record did not endorse him, but rather was silent. It also mentions that his dentistry advertisements were filled with (I presume hilarious) attacks on his many enemies, so we must write an article on this guy and get copies of his screeds. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand this says the Union Record did endorse him, and that he asserted his views in 1922 were unchanged from previous years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think if University of Washington Professor James Gregory and the New York Times staff writers want to call the guy a socialist, there would have to be pretty strong countervailing evidence not go go with it. — Brianhe (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Labor historian Harvey O'Connor too: [12] — Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely he was a socialist for most of his career. But possibly by 1922 he had moved to the center and was a Democrat, maybe driven away by personal conflict with other socialists. Bertha Knight Landes became acting mayor when Brown left to attend the Democratic National Convention.[13] Why did he attend? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SOTU rebuttal

I think the SOTU rebuttal is worth including because it is evidence that Sawant is the most prominent Socialist in the US. The event received mention in several local media outlets, plus the HuffPo and various politics blogs. I wouldn't use this stuff in a notability discussion, but for purposes of whether it belongs in an article it seems sufficient (see WP:NNC). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Most prominent Registered Socialist would be more of an apt way to describe it, Bernie Sanders is a socialist and he is far more prominent than her. - SantiLak (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not up in arms about it or anything but my edit summary pretty much covers my position. I see it as having no inherent biographical value so unless there is something demonstrably notable about the responses themselves I see no reason to include them. It feels like we're just advertising her speeches on the article at this point. GraniteSand (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I second GraniteSand argument. - SantiLak (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As I'm the one who added the content I of course agree with Dennis Bratland argument. It was notable enough for the Huffington Post, among other media outlets, so why should it be completely excluded here? HP is where I first read about it in fact. I would suggest restoring the content but removing the link to the speech on the Socialist Alternative website.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I recognize that it's been mentioned by someone writing at HuffPo but, as HuffPo is nearly user-driven content, that's a really low bar and even the provided reference doesn't actually make any assertion of notability. It simply mentioned that it happened and promotes a streaming embed. Maybe there's another ref out there which makes a case for why it matters and, if that's the case, I can live with a mention of the rebuttals in the "X did Y which Z" type format, where Z is the assertion of notability. GraniteSand (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to repeat, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article makes it very clear that the notability criteria don't apply here. Nobody is proposing writing a separate article on the SOTU rebuttal. The criteria are, Is it reliably sourced? Can we verify she gave the rebuttal? And is this something a reader ought to be aware of to get a complete picture of who Kshama Sawant is? If you had no idea that she has given these annual SOTU rebuttals, would you be ignorant of something important about Sawant? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep linking to NNC as if you believe I'm not familiar with our notability guideline, something, after all our previous interaction, I'd have thought impossible by now. Just because something can be verified as being true does not inoculate it from having to be contextually appropriate or discernibly notable. You misapplied this exact argument about her marital status a year ago. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, we don't exist to aggregate rhetoric. GraniteSand (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think when you use the word "notable" in this context you should expect to reminded that this isn't a notability discussion. We don't add or remove any content from articles based on whether it's notable or not. A valid argument to delete content would be either that it's unverifiable, or that it's undue weight, or unencyclopeic (like a how-to manual, or directory) none of which I've heard here as reasons to remove the SOTU rebuttal. You said it has no biographical value because it's not "demonstrably notable", an irrelevant criteria for an article's content. Your edit summary asked if it's "independently notable". What is independently notable? Worthy of an independent article? Or what?

By the way, Bernie Sanders has been a registered Independent since 1979. Sawant is the most prominent Socialist in the US. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suspect that you can adequately use "meaningful" or even "relevant" as synonyms without any undue burden to my point. As I'm sure you're aware, this is one of the multitude of ways in which our notability guideline is infuriatingly parsed. By "independently notable" I mean as a uniquely discernible event, outside an overarching narrative, as it was prosaically treated as such. I'm not going to delve into the finer points of Sanders' political positioning as it doesn't much matter what we have to say on the subject, especially with so little to be had from sources in relation to the subject at hand. GraniteSand (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources with links

On Wikipedia, sources don't have to have Internet links; they're nice, but it's not required in any way that a source be available on the Internet. It's bad practice to remove sources with broken links, rather than either removing the links, noting that they're broken or searching for a new link to the given material.

As a further note, the link for Sawant's graduate thesis is not actually broken - this works fine for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you for the correction. As for her dissertaion, it also worked for me but it did not mention her family life. Raggz (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps but that's a clear primary source. I'm not seeing any evidence why that matters. Was it ever cited anywhere? Why is the Clark paper there as well? Is it important other than it exists? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing citations inappropriately

Raggz, you need to slow way, way down on your removal of citations claiming they don't support the material in the article, because in at least one case that's clearly incorrect. In this edit, you claim the LA Times article cited does not support the statements about her family history, when it most certainly does. The linked source states When pressed to divulge more than just vote counts and policy planks, the reticent councilwoman-elect said her entire family still lives in India. Her mother, a high school history and geography teacher who retired as a school principal, lives in Bangalore, the capital of India's Karnataka state. Her civil engineer father was killed by a drunk driver when she was 13. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If you say this is true then I accept your claim Raggz (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideological identification in the lead

I object to the ideological identification of Sawant in the lead sentence; as per Wikipedia style, it appears to be deprecated to include detailed discussion of a politician's particular ideology in the lead sentence of their biographies. See, for example, Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz, all of whom are simply described as an "American politician" in the lead sentence of their biography. They are not called "conservative," "radical," "libertarian," "leftist," etc. Detailed discussion of ideological positions should be left to the body text of the article, and I object to its inclusion in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree after some searching. Raggz (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I hacked at it a bit. The lede doesn't need her teaching history (and nowhere else!). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Arrest section

Why is the 2014 arrest put in the Kshama_Sawant#Arrest section while the 2012 arrest is in Kshama_Sawant#Involvement_with_Occupy? The Occupy at least provides context to it while the 2014 one doesn't. Also this article is severely lacking in actual dates which is pretty typical when the sources are largely primary sourced interviews by her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Self published sources and Sawant's positions

It's incorrect to delete sections about Sawant's positions merely because they are sourced to Sawant's own website and other self-published sources. The guidelines at WP:BLPSELFPUB proscribe a list of areas where we shouldn't cite material Sawant published about herself, but this is not one of them. The best source for Sawant's political goals, positions, talking points, agenda and so on is Sawant. Reputable criticism and comment is of course welcome (not rando bloggers, Tweets and YouTube though!).

Also, what's wrong with filling in the yawning whitespace next to the table with a map showing what parts of Seattle she represents? The districts are brand new, and lots of people aren't used to them yet. Sawant is often mistaken the "Capitol Hill council member", but her district is more complex than that. All the new districts span the traditional neighborhoods of Seattle in non-intuitive ways. I'd put the same map on any article for the rest of the Seattle city council district representatives. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think this language should be removed. WP:SELFSOURCE is fine but this material is clearly self-serving (unduly self-serving I'd say). It's literally saying that a politician supports "expanding public transit and bikeways, ending corporate welfare, ending racial profiling, reducing taxes on small businesses and homeowners, protecting public sector unions from layoffs, living wage union jobs, and social services" directly from her campaign website. It's over the top to me and doesn't add anything but puffery. Why a map? I've looked at a number of politicial bios and I've never seen "here's a map of her district". It's helpful for the district itself, not for her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In politics, it's the counterpoint to other, more conservative, Council members who say they support "Families, economic growth, free enterprise, public safety, the American Flag, neighborhood autonomy and golden retrievers". Yes, these all sound like good things but which good things you put on your wish list and which you leave off is what sets a candidate apart.

Of course her district map is important -- who her constituents are and aren't is vital to a politician's career. I'll tell you why you don't see many of these maps: they're hard to draw, if you don't own an expensive copy of GIS software. With free tools, you have to go through an awkward conversion process to plot the boundaries accurately and overlay them on a map correctly. I'm getting the hang of it though, and with any luck I'll carpetbomb Wikipedia bios with electoral district maps. And why not? It fills in a big empty hole, especially since somebody nuked all the other illustrations for some bizarre reason. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You really think saying that supports a end to corporate welfare quoting directly from her own campaign page isn't unduly self-serving? It's literally the most bland campaign issues commentary you can have. The issue is one of WP:UNDUE, what her campaign says is the issues she's fighting on is nice and all but I'd rather know what reliable sources say her campaign is about. The map I won't fight on, put all pictures of the entire district if you want, it's just odd to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So it's self-serving because it's bland? If you want to reword the section I don't have any inherent objection but the signaling involved in both the language and the position is relevant. GraniteSand (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not so simple. What corporate welfare comes from the Seattle city government? It's primarily a state and federal issue tax and subsidy issue. One of the most frequent knocks against Sawant, and one of the main points of attack from her last opponent, was that she was a super star, a national figure who was distracted from the pedestrian meat and potatoes tasks of being a city council member. Stop signs, snow removal, condo development. There's pretty much nothing on the Council agenda that would end corporate welfare, and so the fact that she is spending time on that sends the message to her critics that she is neglecting her real job -- a less visionary council member would do a better job of serving her district's needs. If she wants to end corporate welfare, she ought to run for Congress. It's worse because Sawant already has been taking heat for other issues, like rent control or nationalizing Microsoft, or SeaTac's minimum wage, that are outside of the scope of her office. To others it sends the message that she's on the right side. It's not self-serving; it's just a fact whose meaning is in the eye of the beholder. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Strange how none of that is in the article. There's literally no comment from a critic of hers. Fine, we're going to keep arguing in circles. Would you both consider WP:DRN on the subject? It's pretty straightforwad I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So what's stopping you from adding the missing material to the article? The Seattle Times covered it in detail, and it's all online. DRN is a waste of time when the real solution is staring you in the face: expand the article with the missing balance. The snowball clause is about not wasting time going through the motions of the process when that process it moot. Start with quoting all the things Pameala Banks had to say about Sawant's off-topic agenda. Or the Seattle Times endorsement of Banks. I googled "Pamela Banks Sawant" and the top hit was this headline Kshama Sawant vs. Pamela Banks: Grandiose designs vs. local grounding. Bam! It's all right there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that some due diligence is in order, before Death By DRN. GraniteSand (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think we should remove this content. Dennis is the one saying it's necessary because of her campaign critics. If so, we can discuss the exact same thing by citing her critics, not her campaign. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It makes me so sad because the amount of time you spent writing these arguments could have been spent writing an equal number of words from Sawant's critics and the article would be better, and Wikipedia's readers would be better off. Instead, it's all words words words on the talk page, and more words at DRN, and still nothing gets written into the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Necessary" is not the litmus we use for inclusion of material. If you're saying you like to follow Dennis' advice and add additional resources with a reword I'd say that's a great place to start. I see no mandate to remove the material as it exists now and the work you'd go through at DRN is comparable to what you could put in to make the article better. You'll get to where you want with less work by contributing. GraniteSand (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it sad that there's literally no bending here. It's all "her campaign is the best source for what she supports" while you acknowledge that she's been criticized on numerous issues but don't suggest including the wording from her opponents. For example this page which you mentioned alleges that she abstained from the actual $15 an hour vote. You've never thought to include that in the article but have no issue with parroting her campaign language that she supports a living wage? Instead I get "fine we're going to keep her campaign lines in there but you should go and find opposing information even though we could but we don't think it's necessary" (which is fine). I'm not putting up a giant POV tag here, I just say how about we don't literally quote her campaign on what her issues as that is unduly self-serving. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel like you're not only not listening, but now putting words in other people's mouths. The material doesn't need to be removed, but if you'd like to improve the material with additional sourcing and context that would be great. GraniteSand (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody told you you can't reword it. GraniteSand invited you to do so. Every single omission on this article is not my personal responsibility. I didn't write most of it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If this were in some way libeling Sawant, then WP:NOCONSENSUS would support the removal. But since it's not really defamatory, there isn't an urgent need to nuke it, and the policy says that generally we should keep it in its old stable form until consensus is reached. I guess you could try to somehow argue that the presence of this is harming somebody and so WP:NOCONSENSUS supports removal post haste, but really? Who? The election ended two months back. We have time.

Take a look at a Featured Article like Barack Obama. You see whole long sections listing Obama's agenda and his accomplishments, and hardly a word of the criticism he faced for literally every single thing he ever did or didn't do. Wikipedia biographies are not attack pages. We go easy on people, even politicians. We just present who they are and what they're about. We aren't here to right great wrongs or take them down a peg.

That said, we should all work together to expand the article and this whole thing would be a non-issue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Positions etc. should be verified by reference to secondary sources, to prove they're worth mentioning in the first place. If we allow a subject's own works to dictate what we should put in an article, there is hardly a rationale to decide on inclusion or exclusion. One could look at a subject's Facebook page and pluck content that the subject has "like"d to include in here. If a strong secondary source mentions someone's position, it's worth mentioning; otherwise, not. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting Facebook page! I could fill an entire article with it. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reorganize sections

We need to place a separate Campaign issues section under both the 2013 Campaign and 2015 Campaign sections. Currently there's circa 2013 quotes where Sawant is taking shots at Richard Conlin under the 2015 campaign; it makes it look like she doesn't remember who her 2015 opponent was. Also, politicians change their platforms from one campaign to the next, so we need to be clear about which issues they ran on in each campaign. In 2013 the minimum wage was as much pie-in-the-sky as rent control or income tax, but after it passed, and spread nationally, Sawant pivoted to run as a successful reformer, not a mere dreamer. In 2013 she was attacked as someone whose whole agenda was impossible. In 2015 the main line of attack was that she was too busy campaigning for minimum wage increases across the US to serve Seattle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, you put the campaign issues under one of the campaigns. It's too lengthy to go into issues that came from the 2013 campaign since it seems like more of those things ultimately faded. I eliminated the endorsements and split the endorsements up into the two separate sections to distinguish between them. I was thinking there would be a "2013 campaign", "work she did her first term" (tenure is terrible title but I couldn't think of a better one), "2015 campaign" and then current tenure. Political positions may still be there but it would gutted and moved up in a more complete timeline. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://votesawant.org/?q=node/3
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120805201048/http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1882 to http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1882

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples’ Day

A couple notes on Indigenous Peoples' Day in Seattle:

• The Seattle Times gets the story right[14] in 2014 when they point out that Washington never had any observance of Columbus Day[15] on a state level, and the City of Seattle never had an observance on the books. It's a Federal holiday. Several sources say Seattle "renamed" or changed the name of or "replaced" Columbus Day.[16] Seattle ordinances have no effect on Federal holidays. Seattle added a symbolic proclamation observing Indigenous Peoples' Day on the same day as Columbus Day.[17] The Seattle proclamation doesn't close any city offices or otherwise create a "holiday", such as allowing free parking.[18]
• A similar unanimous vote by the Seattle School Board to observe Indigenous People's on the same day is also purely symbolic.[19]
• All 8 Democrats on the council voted for the measure, and it was signed by Democratic Mayor Ed Murray. Sawant, the lone Socialist, has little "force" to make the majority bend to her will. It's true she used her outspoken style and habit of inviting supporters to Council chambers to push for this measure, but the Native American activist groups working for this existed years before Sawant came along. There's no evidence this wasn't going to happen anyway, with or without Sawant. She was quoted in some national news stories,[20] perhaps misleadingly amplifying her role, but many stories also quoted Murray, or Council President Bruce Harrell. Journalists seem to like Sawant quotes because they are spicy, rather than the duller words of the much more powerful Council President, or Mayor.
• It's true Tony Anderson from the Order Sons of Italy in America said they were offended, but they did not single out Sawant, but rather said Councilmember Nick Licata is "not a very good Italian" for voting for the proclamation.

Sawant can probably claim some credit for her promotional efforts, but keep in mind this same thing passed the school board, and had recently been proclaimed in several other cities and states in 2014.

This thing could belong on some other Seattle article, but it has very little to do with Kshama Sawant, except perhaps as one example of the ways that Sawant's views conform with every other council member and the Mayor, with whom she often clashes. I wish I could have back the time I wasted researching this. Nothing here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo

We might want to switch to this photo. I think it looks better than the current one. - Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kshama Sawant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131118094733/http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Conlin-concedes-Sawant-wins--232133551.html to http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Conlin-concedes-Sawant-wins--232133551.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-inclusion of Qwest Field/Washington Income Tax Initiative information

I am requesting the re-inclusion of some or all of the text below, which was removed by JesseRafe ("Not particularly relevent [sic] to an article about her, per balance and wp:notnews"). I believe it is relevant because it discusses specific economic policy positions, namely her opposition to the Qwest Field ballot initiative and her support for the Washington Income Tax Initiative.

Sawant criticized Paul Allen's reputation as a philanthropist shortly after his death, including for his involvement in Qwest Field and his opposition to the Washington Income Tax Initiative.

We could remove the references to Paul Allen if need be, but I believe the policy position are worthy of inclusion, neither of which are clearly articulated in the article as it stands. PvOberstein (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(I refactored your comment to put the refs (which don't belong on the Talk page) in situ, rather than moving to the bottom of the page with each additional comment.) A plain reading of that edit suggests you didn't even try to make it about "specific economic policy positions" but to sensationalize the audacity she must have to criticize someone who had died, at which point all human beings automatically become saints, it is to be understood. If what you say in the this first paragraph here is your intention (contrary to what you added to the article and quoted here), then there are, I am sure, dozens of good sources that expound on the economic policy for her position, none of which have anything to do with Paul Allen living or dead. JesseRafe (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: I don't spent much time on Talk pages, alas, so I'm not entirely sure what refactoring the comments does. re: Paul Allen - I genuinely have no real care one way or another whether she criticized him (I personally don't give a shit about criticizing dead people and have no strong feelings one way or the other on Mr. Allen), I was merely intending to situate her position in the context in which she articulated it. Would:

 Sawant opposed the ballot initiative to fund Qwest Field, and supported the 2010 Washington Income Tax Initiative

be acceptable? PvOberstein (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I overused the term to basically mean I edited your comment (usually something that is not done) to make the whole conversation easier to understand for other readers (and I did it again on this one too, adjusting the indent. Yes, I think a sentence like that would be a welcome and relevant addition, properly sourced. For context, do look at the other additions made to the page at around the same time as your edit for explaining what I perceived to be your intent, apologies. JesseRafe (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sawant was sued for defamation for calling police officers "murderers". How is that not mentioned anywhere on this page?

Has this also been scrubbed from this historical record, just like the other pages for Seattle City Council members?

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-has-spent-258752-78-so-far-gets-partial-win-in-1-sawant-suit/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/judge-dismisses-defamation-lawsuit-against-kshama-sawant-filed-by-2-police-officers-over-brutal-murder-comments/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

I recently removed this section and its list of news articles. Some of these sources seem like useful independent reliable sources that may could provide content and be included in the article as references.

• Socialist: No longer such a dirty word. MSNBC, November 15, 2013.
• A Rare Elected Voice for Socialism Pledges to Be Heard in Seattle. The New York Times, December 28, 2013.
• A Socialist Elected in Seattle: Kshama Sawant on Occupy, Fight for 15, Boeing’s "Economic Blackmail". Democracy Now! January 6, 2014.
• I Wear the Badge of Socialist With Honor. The full text of the new Seattle city council member’s inauguration speech. The Nation, January 8, 2014.
• Learning from a Socialist in Seattle. Al Jazeera America. May 21, 2014.
• Pune-born socialist Kshama Sawant scores for Seattle: Record $15 an hour minimum wage for workers. The Times of India. June 3, 2014.
• Meet The Socialist Who Championed Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage. The Huffington Post. June 4, 2014.
• Socialist City Councilmember on Nobel Prize Winner Malala Yousafzai: "Socialism is the Only Answer" Democracy Now! October 13, 2014.
• The Most Dangerous Woman in America. Chris Hedges for Truthdig. March 15, 2015.
• The Seattle Socialist. Jacobin. March 24, 2015.
• Meet The Fist-Shaking Socialist Behind America's Highest Minimum Wage. The Huffington Post. May 6, 2015.
• Can Kshama Sawant Build an Actual Socialist City in America? The Nation. June 17, 2015.
• The Empire Files: Fighting Hillary is How Progressives Win - Kshama Sawant. The Real News. May 29, 2016.

– wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitol Hill Seattle / Socialist Alternative as BLP "Blog" sourced

An editor recently took issue with Capitol Hill Seattle, the blog that has been reporting local news from the main neighborhood in Kshama's district of Seattle since 2006, for being a blog. The BLP comments about sourcing from a blog WP:BLPSPS but Capitol_Hill_Seattle_Blog even has a wiki entry and seems more to fall under using "blog" to denote independent. I'd suggest the CHS website has existed for long enough with a stable editor that it's local news site and not a self-published blog in a fly-by-night/anyone can post light. If CHS fails the blog test, then the majority of material sourced to the publication Socialist Alternative, which is heavily influenced by Sawant and relatives, would also fail the "blog" test. --Jwfowble (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A blog cannot be used as a source for most information, and certainly not personal BLP information. One person hosting a blog is not reliable just because that one person has been doing it for a while. I see no evidence that the posts on the blog have any editorial oversight or factchecking process, and most look to be self-published by the founder. Also, the site clearly says on its about page, "On CHS, anybody can add to the site. You just need to login and start posting." The Socialist Alternative publication would not be blog, although I have no opinion on its reliability. Two wrongs obviously don't make a right. However, a quick look at the article, and I do not see any inappropriate BLP material being sourced to Socialist Alternative. Some of the material is likely not WP:DUE because it is not found in independent reliable sources, but limited information about an entity is allowed to be used even when published by that entity. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Durkan/Sawant clash

I have added, with some additional content, a few lines about the clash between Durkan and Sawant, which appears to me to be well-sourced and noteworthy. The text includes both the gist of the mayor's statements and the gist of the councilmember's response. I do not think this will be controversial but am bringing the matter for here for discussion in the event anyone objects. Neutrality^talk 14:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Support additions, with thanks. This is an important development that should not go unnoticed in Wikipedia's BLP of a contentious figure. NedFausa (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Recall

A judge has ruled that a recall effort against Sawant can proceed, stating "the following accusations are justification: Sawant relinquished her duties of office to an outside political organization; misused city resources; misused her position by letting protesters into City Hall; led a protest to the mayor's house despite her address being protected by a state program due to threats stemming from her time as a U.S. Attorney." Dropping this here in case anyone is interested in determining what's WP:DUE to add to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Complained about police doing too little when she was a crime victim

In this edit, User:JesseRafe removed the following content:

In October 2022, the Councilor discovered times where feces had been thrown or spread on her home. When she requested extra steps in an ongoing investigation and the posting of a direct police guard for her home, it raised concerns of why she would need more than the average citizen's allotment from a police force with drindling manpower to cover a mere case of vandalism from someone who has repeatedly asked for a dwindling police force.

and commented, “Rv, non-npov.”

I think it's notable that a politican who supports defunding the police is acting the exact opposite when she herself is the vicim of criminal activity. I propose rewriting and resoring info on this. This is my proposal:

In October 2022, Sawant sent a letter to the Seattle police where she criticized them for "failing to investigate" six recent incidents where someone had thrown human feces into her yard. In her letter, she stated, "Needless to say, it is disturbing that right-wing media, including a police-run website named [Law Officer], portrays these attacks on my home as justified against an elected representative who has the temerity to criticize the police or attempt to hold them accountable. That is certainly a dangerous direction, especially if it is embraced by police and de facto supported by SPD leadership and the city’s Democratic Party establishment.”

What do others here think of this?

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References