Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Announcement date

I'd argue that we should consider January 11, 2019 to have been the date the campaign was announced, not January 17. That is more accurately the date of her official launch. Look at Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, we consider the April 12 video announcement to have been the date she announced her campaign not the June 13, 2015 campaign launch rally. SecretName101 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Issues

I would like to propose we add a section regarding Tulsi's stances on the issues from her campaign issue website tulsigabbard.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmontana (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Pacific Islander?

Would Tulsi Gabbard in fact be the first Pacific Islander as president, given that Barack Obama was born in Hawaiʻi?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Michael J: Gabbard is ethnically Samoan. Obama is of African and European ancestry, he may have been born in a Pacific Island but he is not of Pacific Islander ethnic origin. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Tulsi Gabbard Official Photo.jpg

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

Smear campaign

Are any of the following considered RS?

fair.org (in 595 en.wp entries) : [1]

Counterpunch (in 2057 en.wp entries): [2]

Real Clear Politics (in 1766 en.wp articles): [3]

Joe Rogan Experience (1.8 million views, posted 10 days ago): [4]:

There are a lot more, but these are a few of the more obvious ones. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You can check at Perennial sources and then search rs to see what other editors think. They are certainly reliable sources for the opinions expressed in them. I would rather avoid however posting accusations in dubious sources about Gabbard, then rebutting them with other opinion pieces. And note I am consistent with this policy based view regardless of the subject and their views. If editors could agree to rely on using sources in mainstream publications and stories and opinions that have been reported across them, then we have a chance to have a reasonable article. TFD (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this link! In fact, I had only seen your preceding post where you mention Perennial sources as an "edit conflict" at first. (sorry) It's interesting how few sources are mentioned on that page, but I guess there have only been so many discussions at RS/N. While I'm not sure I share your optimism about the mainstream/corporate media, it's true there are one or two dissident billionaires out there. ^^ Comparing this en.wp page's number of views to the number of views of the interview with TG on the Joe Rogan show, it looks like maybe a lot of people are not entirely satisfied with the corporate media echo chamber. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why a broad question about reliable sources is under the heading smear campaign. In any case, the question in unanswerable without knowing the context of the proposed content. In general though, those seem to be low-to-very-low- quality sources.- MrX 🖋 21:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

All the articles or videos cited talk in one way or another about a DNC/media campaign to marginalize Gabbard. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then no, those would not be reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

User:SashiRolls recently reverted my entire edit based on a single WikiLink. Before I get into an edit war, I'd like for him or her to explain why he or she reverted the entire edit instead of simply removing a link. The edit contained a number of improvements to the article other than the link.

To be quite frank, SashiRolls, you seem like you're biased in favor of Gabbard and trying to defend her. You seem determined to prove that it's all just a "smear campaign" against her. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your politics. I don't believe that you are editing with with the intention to truly improve the article, but rather, simply "defend" Gabbard. In my view, the article already does a good job of expressing neutrality. The word "allegations" inherently expressed that the claims are not verified, there is a mention of journalists accusing the media of a smear campaign, etc. The fact that you're trying to find all these obscure, unreliable sources that accuse the DNC of trying to sabotage Gabbard (which sounds like a blatant conspiracy theory) indicates to me that you want to try to protect her reputation. Silver181 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not need links to Russian media outlets on the page. Everyone knows what Sputnik, RT, etc. are. We do not POV-push DNC-conspiracy theories here. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL! You're accusing me of pushing a DNC narrative by adding links to news outlets, which is common practice? You are literally admitting your bias with this comment. This is Wikipedia. You have absolutely no proof that there are "DNC conspiracy theories" afoot. YOU are the one pushing conspiracy theories that the DNC is trying to sabotage Gabbard.

I can say with near certainty that you are not editing in good faith. You are editing to protect Gabbard's reputation. I do not believe that you can be trusted to edit this article further without incorporating your bias into your edits. Stop trying to politicize the article.

Also, I like how you didn't address at all the other improvements that I made to the article. Nice job at dodging my actual question and immediately jumping to accusing me of being a DNC shill. Silver181 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should link the Russia media articles as is standard practice. I dispute that everyone knows what they are. I support Silver181's version as on overall improvement to the article. I think it's unreasonable to disparage the DNC or to refer to what's reported in reliable sources as a conspiracy theory.- MrX 🖋 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave AmPol2 to the trolls. Adding big blue-links to Russian media entries is obviously not standard practice, except for folks like Cirt (and others in his cabal). It is rhetoric. Ciao. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you would assume good faith and try to work collaboratively with other editors, we could improve this article with minimal heat. It is common practice to wikilink to other articles with the exception of very common terms. I'm trying to understand why you view it as issue, or if you have an policy-based argument for why we should not link RT (which could be anything) or Sputnik (which could be a satellite).- MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces

Should we include the Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces here? I've removed the Daily Beast article from her BLP as it is more concerned with her campaign, but has not yet been deemed sufficiently notable to add here. The text was as follows:

The campaign drew attention after The Daily Beast reported that it had received contributions from several individuals sympathetic to Russia and Vladimir Putin, including Stephen F. Cohen and an RT employee. Gabbard called the story fake news.

References

I'll dig up the NBC hit piece (& rebuttal) if anyone thinks the smear campaign should be covered in an encyclopedia. Will it be relevant in 10 years? ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a section to cover the smear campaign. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things: they are not hit pieces. They are factual reporting, which you have errantly described as allegations. How is it that a report by a reputable source, picked up by other reputable sources, is a hit piece and "smear", when two opinion articles, apparently ignored by other reputable sources, is just fine?- MrX 🖋 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen contributed $1,100 dollars to TULSI NOW. In 2017-2018 he donated $10,800 to Warren campaigns, $4,000 for Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, $2,700 for FRIENDS OF SHERROD BROWN, $1,250 for Congressman Andy Kim, $1,000 for Congresswomam Nanette Barragán and $500 for Sam Jammal, a former Obama official in an unsuccessful bid for Congress.[5]

Contrary to the claim made in the Daily Beast, Cohen is not a professor at NYU but is retired. He is a contributing editor to The Nation, which is edited by his wife. It's misleading polemical writing disguised as journalism that Wikipedia was a policy of weight. One or two misleading articles are insufficient for inclusion. "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

So someone with a record of making dozens of contributions to Democratic candidates over the years made a relatively small donation to another Democratic candidate in 2019. No wonder the story has been ignored by mainstream media. And I note that even in highly polemical sources, that the information is not being used against any of the other politicians to whose campaigns he contributed.

I note that Snooganssnoogans valiantly defends Warren on her article's talk page. ("When recounting the family lore about Native American ancestry, Warren said that her "aunt Bea" remarked that they had high cheekbones like Bea believed Native Americans had. You want this trivia included in the article? With a description of Warren as someone who espouses racism?") I recommend they show consistency across articles, regardless of the party line.

TFD (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Elizabeth Warren campaign article, nor would I support suppressing unflattering information about her, but I believe the native American controversy predates her campaign. The Daily Beast erred by omitting the word "emeritus" in describing Cohen, but that's not really that important anyway. Notably, he has been vocal in his pro-Russia views and his support of Gabbard.[6]

If I understand correctly, you seem to object to this material because you think that the sources (more than just a couple) are not treating Gabbard fairly. That viewpoint is already represented by the Intercept and Rolling Stone, but it doesn't diminish the many more sources about contributions from pro-Russia sympathizers, Gabbard's stance on Syria, and the pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign. Are you suggesting that we leave this out? That would reduce this article to little more than a campaign brochure. - MrX 🖋 11:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No I do not and never have objected to material because it treats a subject unfairly. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what coverage is fair or not, but to follow policy which says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

We are discussing an article about contributions to Gabbard's campaign, not Syria.

Obviously Snooganssnoogans has a different editing history from you, but compare your treatment of this topic with Hillary Clinton. When someone wants]ed to add information about Clinton's role in mass incarceration, you wrote, "I'm suspicious of the timing of this "research" that comes out more than 15 years after the fact. I think it overstates Hillary's influence, and is largely the opinion of one person.... I never said the article was an opinion piece, however, the author makes a number of conclusions colored with her opinion." (19 Feb. 2016) We should not use different rules for different people.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that we should not use different rules for different people, I don't think the correction needs to occur here. There is not a great deal of coverage in the media about Gabbard. The Russia angle stands out in the coverage about her, so it's hard to ignore whether it's fair or not. There seem to be two main points of view: (1) she has taken positions viewed as favorable to Russia, so Russia and Russia's surrogates tend to support her, and (2) the media is unfairly smearing her with undue coverage about #1. Point two should be covered in this article (and probably the bio), but with proportionally less volume to reflect its coverage in the press. My main concern now is not so much about how the content in this article is written (although it can be improved). My objections is calling the campaign contributions and Russian propaganda "allegations", a characterization that is not in widespread use in sources, and thus should not be made in Wikipedia's voice, if at all.

I remember writing that comment about Clinton's fairly minor role in mass incarceration and I still stand by that view. By contrast, the viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant to this article. - MrX 🖋 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Are you claiming Gabbard has a role (other than being anti-interventionist) in how she is being reported? You seem to be suggesting there is a "tit for tat" (quid pro quo) relationship. Could you provide a reference for that claim? Thanks.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has articulated positions that many view as pro-Russian, so in that respect, she has a role, although it may be unwitting. Unfortunately, she probably hurt her credibility by calling it fake news.- MrX 🖋 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to limit the depth of coverage, but there's mentions from ABC, and CNN, in addition to the sources already mentioned. It's garnered enough coverage that we can also mention Gabbard's response and the criticisms of the reporting from Taibbi and Greenwald. Nblund ^talk 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me restoring your remark to level 1, since you are responding to the original question. Feel free to restore your original threading if you really feel it necessary. I would like an answer from Mr X concerning their claim of a "tit for tat" relationship with Russia. I want to know if he has evidence or if it was just gratuitous. I appreciated your edits of my copy Nblund... your text is much better. Thanks. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact there is a great deal of media coverage about Tulsi Gabbard, it's just that there is more coverage about each and every other candidate who has qualified for the debates. Google News returns 82,400 articles about her,[7] which is less than John Hickenlooper for example at 93,700 articles[8] or Kamala Harris with 7,340,000 hits. We have to decide what information to add and what to omit. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a policy called Balancing aspects, which provides assistance: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

That means that stories ignored in mainstream media should be ignored. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Daily Beast has been found to be ""largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons." The site's role is to provide positive information about people it likes and negative information about people it doesn't with very ittle regard for the fairness of its reporting. With 82 thousand articles about Gabbard, there is no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Whether the fact that 3 out of 80,000+ contributers to Gabbard had said positive things about Russia is more important than Clinton supporting mass incarceration is easy to establish by the degree of coverage. Politifact for example has an article about it.[9] Hillary campaigned for her husband in 1996 and spoke in support of the crime bill ("we have to bring them to heel.")

Sorry, but could you explain your "quid pro quo" comment or strike it out as a BLP violation.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote apparent quid pro quo, meaning that the sources imply an apparent quid pro quo. The references cited establish that perception quite clearly. For example "But Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria." and "RT began defending Gabbard as soon as she announced." - MrX 🖋 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the Legal Dictionary, quid pro quo means "The mutual consideration that passes between two parties to a contractual agreement, thereby rendering the agreement valid and binding."[10] Nowhere in the Daily Beast article is it claimed that there was an agreement between Tulsi Gabbard and the three donors. The fact the article left you with that false impression shows how effective it is. TFD (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we both know that I wasn't using the term in a legal sense. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Really? What other definition is there? It literally means in Latin "something for something," TFD (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I would probably remove the entire "Allegations of Russian support" section. If anything, this belongs to page Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, why do not we have such page already? Here is why. As the publication correctly tells, "Experts in Russian on-line propaganda say Gabbard appeals to pro-Russian sites because her positions —and her appeal as an outsider in her own party — can be used to create division among Democrats." This has little to do with the candidate who actually "had cosponsored legislation calling for an independent investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election", etc. Could be kept here too though. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is that NBC is the only major medium that his published this particular theory. TFD (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a problem, but a reason for inclusion per WP:NPOV. There is no requirement for content to be covered in all major newspapers. However, it is important that the controversy was covered in six sources currently cited on the page.My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

See also this ref. Once again, this is NOT just "Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces" as your title misleadingly tell. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: @My very best wishes: @MrX: @SashiRolls: I removed the portion sourced by The Daily Beast. You can see the explanation in my edit here. The Daily Beast has made these "donation" articles many times in the past.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it important to mention Gabbard's response? She denounced the allegations as "fake news", which was mentioned prior to your edit. I wasn't aware that Beast wasn't considered reliable until recently, so I'm not necessarily opposing the removal of info about that article, but shouldn't Gabbard's response be mentioned? Just mentioning the allegations without mentioning her response seems to give the impression that she hasn't responded to them. On the other hand, did she technically not respond to the NBC report specifically? I had thought her "fake news" statement was referring to all of the allegations, but some of the things that I'm reading indicate that it was more directed at the Beast stuff. Silver181 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLater I read your explanation, but I have been arguing that it does not matter that the Daily Beast story is unreliable, RS have reported on the controversy surrounding the story:

• Rolling Stone: "We’ve Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces"
• ABC News: "2020 candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard presses that US must not go to war with Iran" (where she calls Beast story 'fake news')
• National Review: "Should We Be Worried About Candidates Accepting Donations from ‘Russophiles’?"
• Politico: "Gabbard calls unflattering report 'fake news'"
• MSN: (same Politco story above.)
• The Hill: "Gabbard says claim her campaign is getting boost from Putin apologists is 'fake news'"
• CNN: "Tulsi Gabbard invokes Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric to push back on report of Russia-linked support"

There aren't that many stories devoted to her, so this controversy seems significant. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Google news lists 70,400 articles that mention her.[11] If people want to read highly partisan conspiracy theories, they can tune into Alex Jones or Rachel Maddow, except even they have ignored this story. I'm surprised you aren't talking about how she wasn't born in the United States. TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether or how much to give weight to the story. How does the coverage of this story compare to other stories about her campaign? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Rhetorical blue highlighting and bad faith: a primer

You asked what a rhetorical blue-link is, MrX. In the first sentence of this paragraph the brand new journalist Silver181 added a blue link to the word "support" that directs the reader to "cyberwarfare by Russia". This is a tactic eerily similar to what Cirt & the gang were using while astroturfing their dozens of book review reviews about Trump. (further examples here). This page is such a textbook example, I'll add it to my textbook. Bravo, in particular, for the "Policies" section where whoever it was managed to make the first highlighted words under policy be "legalization of recreational cannibas" and "decriminalization of sex work". According to en.wp, these are TG's most important policies. Where did that sex work bit come from? Buzzfeed. And who added that blue link?

Either you, MrX, or Silver181 has also reverted my correction of a citation error "accidentally" introduced by the latter: Greenwald has not debunked the Beast article as they rewrote the entry to say: he & Taibbi debunked the NBC News article. I also tried to fix for the second time the silly claim that we can source TG calling the NBC News article "fake news" to the NBC News article itself. Such trolling is why I think I'd be better off keeping my sanity and leaving AmPol to the regulars (like Cirt / Tarc / etc.) Cf. WP:GNAT (Give No Aid to Trolls). ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Mate, no offense, but you've got a bit of a persecution complex going on. I'd rather not discuss my personal politics here, but since you're clearly implying that I'm some sort of neoliberal troll who's out to get Gabbard, I'll just say this: I consider myself to be left-wing and a progressive. I agree with Gabbard on many issues and I do believe that the media is exaggerating the extent of Russian support for Gabbard. I have no idea who "Cirt" is, either. Regardless, I would consider the link that I added to "support" to be accurate in this instance; if the allegations are true, that would be cyberwarfare. I'm also not sure what you're getting at when you say things like "whoever it was" with the policy section. Are you implying that I'm trying to make Gabbard seem like some looney by putting cannabis and prostitution policies there? I wasn't the one who put the crime section first, nor was I the one who added the info about sex work and cannabis. Silver181 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Cf. wp:tag team

1) I am not your mate. 2) Cf. sources & methods Chapter 1 is gaslighting the opposition.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, first, let me add that I also take offense to your characterization of me as a "brand new journalist". Firstly, I'm not a journalist. I believe that my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to try to state unbiased facts, not tabloid journalism. Secondly, my account is almost six months old and has over two hundred edits. I'm not some troll that created an account yesterday just to vandalize. Also, if you're trying to suggest that I'm a sock puppet of "Cirt", then... I don't even know what to say. Why would this "Cirt" create an account six months ago and readily make edits with it just to spread "conspiracies" about Tulsi Gabbard that first started circulating, what, a week ago? That would be some incredible foresight on Cirt's part.

Secondly, I'm just using "mate" in the same way that one would use "dude" or "man".

Thirdly, you're... accusing me of gaslighting now? That just proves my point about the persecution complex. You're assuming that I'm "out to get you" for some reason. If you want proof that I'm left-wing, look at my edit history. Notice how almost all, if not all, of the political pages that I've edited have been about Democrats? Silver181 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say I thought you were the CIRT.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this needs such an inflammatory heading, but let me attempt to respond to your concerns. The link to cyberwarfare by Russia is not unreasonable, but not ideal per WP:EGG. I don't know Cirt, but if you have concerns about sock puppetry, SPI is the place you oughta be.

Concerning the material under crime, I don't see a major issue, but I do think the content I wrote under 'Marijuana' was more informative. Silver181 can you explain why you removed the detail about the bill?

The word "debunk/debunked" is not the article, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Gabbard did dismiss the reporting about pro-Russia contributions as fake news, which is accurately reflected in the article. Am I missing something?- MrX 🖋 20:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote: I don't know Cirt, which is just really funny since you worked so closely with them on so many articles: (interaction analyzer).~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Sagecandor! Yes, he was a good editor. I wonder why I haven't seen him around lately.- MrX 🖋 20:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think you have seen the latest instance of the CIRT, I know I have. The individual behind that username hasn't participated on this page yet, but some members of the "computer incident response team" have been summoned to the page. (What follows TFD's comment below is entirely off-topic distraction, but Calton insists using attack-dog language in their edit summary that we must not collapse it). For information, see their most recent block. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought that the marijuana thing was just leftover from an old edit. Didn't realize that you just added it. I can merge it with the "Crime" section. Silver181 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems odd that you agree with retaining negative information from the Daily Beast, which is rated as "no consensus" under Perennial sources, yet you removed reliably sourced information that Kamala Harris's "has been met with opposition by fellow members of the African American community...."[12] You wrote, "It does not matter if it was sourced, it is highly biased and the person who originally made the edits appears to have an agenda against Harris. Some random singer opposing Harris is not relevant information." Is there any reason why we should apply a different standard to Gabbard than to Harris? TFD (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No, they should be held to the same standards, but I don't consider the scenarios to be the same. The person who added the edits to Harris' page legitimately had an agenda against Harris. He had made numerous edits that were thinly-veiled insults on her main page and her campaign page (for example, he added a comment saying something akin to "she only supported legalizing marijuana after it became popular", which is clearly meant as an insult). I also did not feel as though the "criticism" that the user added is on the same level as the info about Gabbard. He literally said that a single musician opposed Harris. Like... so what? That isn't enough to make a sweeping claim that she's unpopular amongst many black people. The accusations against Gabbard are actual news stories that are being pushed by the media, and I'd consider them an important chapter of her campaign, especially since so little has occured. With Harris, the editor made some comment about Harris' actions as attorney general of Cali, not as a presidential candidate. I feel that those comments would better fit her main page, where her tenure as AG is actually discussed. I'd also like to note that I gave the editor who made the edits advice on how to incorporate the info into the article in a more neutral way, but he never did so, and instead resorted to insulting me on my user talk page. Silver181 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The contributions by three "Russian sympathizers" is not being pushed by the media, it's being pushed by a highly partisan source with dubious reliability, according to Wikipedia editors,. Also, using your criteria, I don't see how three out of tens of thousands of donors are really, really important, while a named singer is not. Besides, you also removed that Harris' actions as AG had been criticized by a number of Democratic politicians and the ACLU. In any case, it does not matter what editors consider to be important but what reliable sources do, per weight. TFD (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Harris's presidential campaign has been met with opposition by fellow members of the African American community..."

That is what the editor typed. Would you not consider this to be a loaded statement, given the fact that he only cited a musician as evidence? Notice how he didn't even say some fellow members of the African-American community, he just said members. That's an incredible stretch that gives a clear implication of Harris having received widespread condemnation from African-Americans.

"In particular, her actions concerning police brutality against minorities under her tenure as Attorney General of California are of concern."

A single opinion article. A few weeks ago, the conservative (and, to some extent, neo-liberal) media was really pushing the whole "Bernie Sanders went on a honeymoon in the Soviet Union in the 80s, which proves he's a communist!" narrative. I could easily take an opinion article from, say, Fox News and add it to Bernie Sanders' page with a message like "Sanders' visit to the Soviet Union in the 1980s is a matter of concern", even though it's a mostly unimportant opinion piece being largely spread by people who are openly opposed to Sanders. I agree that most of the Gabbard controversy is overblown. However, some in the (supposedly) "neutral" media are legitimately accusing Gabbard of having Russian support, just like how some in the media accused Andrew Yang of having alt-right support. Progressives dislike Kamala Harris, sure. A non-opinion article stating something like "Progressives are pushing back against Kamala Harris" or something would be much better than an opinion piece.

"In 2015, Harris opposed a bill requiring the Attorney General's office to investigate officer-involved shootings. She then objected to enforcing California law regulating the use of body cameras by law enforcement. These moves were criticized by many left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a San Franciscan elected public defender."

Something that occurred while she was AG. This could possibly fit into a policy section, but there would have to be some relevance to her current campaign. If I recall correctly, Harris opposed weed legalization as AG, but has made support for legalization part of her 2020 platform. This situation is pretty common with 2020 candidates, but virtually all of their pages state their current position on the issue. Has she addressed the issue of body cameras again on the campaign trail, or since she even became a Senator?

"A much more accurate statement would be something like "Harris has received criticism from some progressives for her criminal justice record" or something along those lines. At the same time, if you make a statement like that, you also would need to cite examples of people or groups that have supported her. Only mentioning criticism of her (while also greatly exaggerating the extent of that criticism) without mentioning support that she has received is why I removed your edits in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place for you to vent your frustration with candidates or promote your agenda. If we're going to talk about criticism of her- which, don't get me wrong, we should, as some progressives have, indeed, already targeted her- we need to balance it out with mentions of support."

What I said to the editor on the talk page. I gave him or her advice on how to phrase it better and even encouraged him or her to add info about it. But he or she thought it would be better to vandalize my talk page. An as for the "balance it out with support" thing, that's what's been done on this article. We have articles from journalists denouncing the allegations as hit pieces/smears/etc. and Gabbard's own response. I'd say the article is currently very neutral in that regard and doesn't give more credence to either side. We could maybe add a quote or something from one of the articles that specifically addresses a part of the allegations. Silver181 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Back to the subject, which is TG, not Kamala Harris: I'm glad you appreciate the balance added to the "New Knowledge" and Larkay/Stein narratives. There was no balance in either case when they were first added to her BLP.

I notice the words "opposed to regime change" are not mentioned anywhere on this page, despite them being the centerpiece of her candidacy. Neither is the fact that TG was on the foreign affairs committee from 2013-2019 (which was deleted from her BLP with a deceptive edit summary) and on the armed services committee from 2013. Just to be clear why I think it is important to get this terminology right: anti-interventionist is not a precise synonym for opposing regime change. Many were opposed to intervening in Kuwait during the first Gulf war, though it was not a regime change war.

Now that there seems to be agreement that we are here to write an encyclopedic entry and not simply to repeat placed DNC-pieces, perhaps I'll start editing the mainspace page again and add some sources about her well-known opposition to regime change in Venezuela and Iran. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying you were wrong in your position in the Harris article, but that you appear to be applying a different standard to this one. In this arguing, you are supporting the inclusion of an article in a publication which Wikipedia has found no consensus for reliability and which mainstream media have ignored. If you applied the same standards to Kamala Harris, it would read like a National Enquirer article. TFD (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked about in on NPOVN. TFD (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Beast isn't considered a reliable source. Silver181 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the key to writing a neutral article about any person in the news is to begin with mainstream sources, by which I mean the network news channels and major broadsheets. For CBS for example you can do a search for "tulsi gabbard" and sort it by date, more or less.[13] Then you summarize what the articles say in proportion to the coverage they give. While media have their own biases, it is the standard that we follow.

The alternative is to put in whatever information we think is important. The problem is that different editors will find different things important. Typically that leads to long discussion threads, edit-warring and use of content boards and RfCs, even ANI and AE requests.

TFD (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can begin with major media sources, but that is not where we end. You have not provided any evidence that coverage of the Daily Beast story should be given no weight in this article. Seven RS report on this story. Like I asked above in #Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces, how does the coverage of this story compare to other stories about her campaign? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fox Business News story

"Gabbard has scheduled a June fundraiser with Wall Street executives." This was reported only in Fox Business News, although it was retweeted by Ana Kasparian of TYT and commented on in alternative media. As it turns out, the story was misleading. I will remove it and suggest we keep it out unless it because a campaign issue reported in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I added the content a few weeks ago. Where is your reliable source for "the story was misleading"? I don't care at all about tweets.- MrX 🖋 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Two weeks ago you wrote, "Fox News being the most watched cable news station merely confirms that The Masses Are Asses[14]....we are not here to repeat obvious falsehoods on behalf of the most watched news station. The way around it is to not use the trashy source[15]....Fox News has shown us that they cannot be relied on for accuracy, or truthfulness."[16] Can you explain why you would use it as a source?

The Fox article calls the breakfast "a fundraiser sponsored by Wall Street executives...according to an invitation reviewed by FOX Business." But the invitation says nothing about fundraising. And the term "Wall Street executives" is misleading. Wall Street is defined in Webster's as "the influential financial interests of the U.S. economy."[17] Farvahar Partners which happens to be located on Madison Avenue in Midtown Manhattan is not a major financial institution. And why not quantify the number of executives (there are only two partners at Favahar)? The problem is that once the story is properly reported, it has no more significance than any of the other meetings Gabbard holds every day.

TFD (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I added the Fox Business News-sourced content to this article before commenting about the Fox News-sourced content that you cited. My comment on May 28 reflects the revelation (to me) that Fox News could be so blatant with their misreporting. Until that point, I cited Fox News pretty much without reservation.

The Fox Business News article says "In recent weeks, Gabbard has been meeting with financial types to raise money for her campaign, and has scheduled a fundraiser sponsored by Wall Street executives to take place the first week in June, according to an invitation reviewed by FOX Business.". Your link to thecoreclub.com does not disprove that at all. If anything, it bolsters Fox News' reporting. You do realize that a Wall Street executive does not literally have to be located on Wall Street, right? Mr. Malik sure seems to be a Wall Street executive according to his bio.[18] If you dispute that the "breakfast" is not fundraising, I'm afraid your disagreement is with Fox Business News (212-601-7000). I suppose you think Mr. Malik just decided to share some hash browns and eggs with Mrs. Gabbard for the fun of it, or to throw Fox News off the scent? Sure.

If we are going to be so selective about what to include in this article, then there's little reason to keep a separate article and we should just fold it back into Tulsi Gabbard. Without capturing the little reporting being done on this candidate, there's almost nothing that is not already covered or could easily be covered in the main article. I think this material adds to the understanding of the subject and should be restored.- MrX 🖋 20:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The link I provided is the source that Fox used. As I mentioned the invitation does not say the purpose of the meeting is to raise money, but is included as part of CORE:'s cultural programming: "CORE: produces over 200 thoughtfully curated events every year, exposing our members to emerging trends in the media, the arts, cuisine, travel, commerce, and thought. By fostering shared transformative experiences, the programming at CORE: enriches the intellectual and social lives of its individual members."

I didn't say that Wall Street meant the actual street necessarily, but that it referred to major financial institutions, or at least that is what most readers would think. Institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Bank of America that paid Hillary Clinton.

It may be that there are insufficient sources to write a neutral article about the campaign.

TFD (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Webster's defines a fundraiser as "a social event (such as a cocktail party) held for the purpose of raising funds."[19] Here is a link to an invitation to what the media described as a fundraiser for Joe Biden.[20] Note that attendees were required to contribute $2,800 in order to attend. But when Biden met with voters in a restaurant and did not charge for attendance, it was called a "meet and greet."[21] TFD (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard wins [unscientific] polls after first debate

From a quick glance, this doesn't appear to have been added. petrarchan47คุก 19:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• AP/Haaretz: "Google searches during the debate, a popular metric to gauge interest in candidates, showed Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard peaked the most interest during the debate"

• *: "By the end of the debate, Gabbard had clinched 40 percent of Google searches in the U.S., compared to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 17 percent and the 19 percent claimed by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, according to Google Trends. Gabbard had somehow also managed to come out on top in Australia, where she secured 36 percent of Google searches."

• The Hill: "Drudge instant poll shows Gabbard winning first Democratic debate in landslide"

And more sources for the top Google search spot:

• USA Today

• The Hill

I think we have to be careful not to conflate Drudge saying she "won" the debate and Google search trends. The later could just be indicative of people who have never heard of her. - MrX 🖋 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should mention that the debate resulted in a spike of google searches, more than any other candidate. I would leave out the Drudge unscientific poll for now. No doubt MrX will argue to add it once his sources claim it was all caused by Russian bots and far right deplorables. TFD (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Humor? At Wikipedia? On a political article? This is a first for me. Thank you TFD. petrarchan47คุก 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't make this stuff up: Trolls target online polls following first Democratic presidential debate- MrX 🖋 21:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Internet Trolls Are Raving About Tulsi Gabbard’s Debate Performance—And They’re Calling Her “Mommy”. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED

We cannot insert allege/alleged/allegations into material to cast doubt. That violates WP:ALLEGED, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The fact that Russian media ran stories favorable to Gabbard is not an allegation. It's an easily verifiable fact. - MrX 🖋 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the insertion of "reported by NBC News" into the heading reflects a non-neutral POV.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, MrX... You've (rather subtly) gone from Russian media ran stories to the nominal (rock-like) "Russian support". I remember the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran some stories favorable to Mr. Macaron before the first round of the French election, does that mean that he had US support? Should we write up a page about US interference in the 2017 French election? Is there a helpful WP:RUSSIAGATE policy or guideline en.wp could point us to? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem to be related to the issue at hand. I'm sorry, but I have no idea how to respond to it.- MrX 🖋 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The NBC article says, "Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard." That Russian channels ran positive stories about Gabbard is a fact, that they "support" her is an opinion.

It is not helpful when editors cite WP:RANDOMPOLICIES without explaining their relevance. WP:ALLEGED in fact says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." WP:NPOV says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." No idea what relevance WP:NOR has.

Also, and it is supported in policy, when accusations are made against people, the source and weight of those accusations. should be stated. Your approach reminds me of Fox News Channel, where hosts will use weasel-wording, such as "some say Obama was born in Kenya." Their highly partisan viewers then interpret this as "Obama was born in Kenya." And I and a number of other editors spent a lot of time arguing with editors who were convinced Obama was not really the U.S. president.

TFD (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The article says a lot of things. In the lede, it says:

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.
— [22]

It then goes on to say that the experts believe it "may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard." So we have NBC making a statement of fact, and supporting it by citing experts. The very next paragraph that begins "since Gabbard announced..." explains NBC's synthesis. The word alleged or its equivalent is no where in the article, so its use is indeed OR, but more specifically WP:WEASEL and editorializing. Editorializing is a form of introducing an editor's POV into what should be an NPOV article.

There is no accusation against a person, unless you consider the Russian Propaganda Machine a person. No crime has been committed. Unless you can point out in the source where the equivalent of "alleged" appears, I intend to remove this from the article. If you feel that the wording misrepresents the article, we can work on that, or we can just use the direct quote in the green box.- MrX 🖋 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comrade! If we are going to have "Russian media support" section, we need actual examples... this op-ed compares her to Henry A. Wallace. This news story discusses her criticism of Democratic party. This squib mentions Daily Beast sources & methods. Meanwhile, this Counterpunch contributor thinks she's Democratic sheepdog. But we do tend to omit such articles, don't we? Which one would you say is best example of fine-tuna propaganda machine, MrX? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

нет, we don't actually need examples, but if you wanted a few hundred, it's not hard to find them: Gabbard >> Inslee | Warren | Booker | Buttigieg - MrX 🖋 14:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I would like to see the data that the NBC news analysts used. Adam Johnson in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for example in his article, "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours", lists all sixteen articles and provides links. And note that although the article mentions Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post it does not say "Bezos propaganda machine attacks Sanders" presumably because the author does not want to make unfounded accusations. TFD (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to put the various statements in context. The first three paragraphs read:

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

It's presented as a finding not a fact. Whether or not the Kremlin propaganda machine is promoting her is a matter of opinion, unless we have evidence of discussions by the KGB.

In an RfC on whether the article on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign should mention that the father of the Orlando murderer supported her (a story separately reported in the New York Times, CNN, The Guardian and many other news media), you wrote, "This embarrassing incident received a brief burst of coverage after it happened and then quickly faded from interest. It would violate WP:NPOV to include this because it has not enjoyed sustained media coverage; it's only tangentially relevant to the campaign; and it would tend to unfairly associate the campaign and the candidate with a mass murderer." (19:34, 28 August 2016) Obviously you understand that associated a campaign with a criminal act - however tangentially - reflects on the candidate, which takes it into BLP. Also, I would be interested if you could explain how the "brief burst of coverage rule" applies to Clinton, but not Gabbard.

TFD (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Russia propaganda machine is now promoting". That is a declared fact in NBC's voice.

Your comparison of a story about Russian news coverage of a candidate to a story about a mass murderer's father is absurd. Let's leave other stuff out of this. First, I don't think this makes Gabbard look bad at all. Maybe it makes the Russian state media look bad, but it is not criminal. They can publish as many news stories as they like about anyone without breaking any laws. I've said it before: there is very little coverage in the news about Gabbard's campaign. She's just not rising to the top. That's why this episode stands out as noteworthy. Now can we get back to the word "allege". Did you insert it because you don't think any of this material should be included at all? - MrX 🖋 14:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. What is the difference between saying Clinton was supported by a murderer's father and Gabbard was supported by the Russia propaganda machine? TFD (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I did. One is a murder and the other is a news story. That's the difference. Also, we're not talking about Clinton any more. Please let it go.- MrX 🖋 21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

s you are aware, a number of Russians have been indicted for interfering in the U.S. election. TFD (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this. Surely you must know that.- MrX 🖋 00:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that the indictments were for the 2016 presidential election campaign not the current one. And could you please point to the policy that says allegations of foreign support in an election should be mentioned, while support from a murderer should not be. TFD (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to go backwards in time to re-litigate content debates about Hillary Clinton's bio that I don't even remember. If you are against including this material in any form, I wish you would just state it plainly, rather than deflecting any attempt to reach a compromise on wording that satisfies NPOV like we did at Tulsi Gabbard. - MrX 🖋 00:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not against including it in any form, just against misrepresenting sources. That is particularly important in a BLP. TFD (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit is not supported by the source. The was an experiment, not a false flag operation agains a republican. Also, it was not done by the firm; it was done by the CEO of the firm. - MrX 🖋 20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you say the article says the opposite of what it does? Both articles cite an internal company report saying: "“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet[.]” The NYT adds: Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse “does not ring a bell,” adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report. Please self-revert in the face of this evidence or provide evidence of your claim.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Funny you omitted a quote a few lines further down: “The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.” So no, I don't think your attempt to rewrite history is going to stick. If you change it back to your version, I will revert you. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly: the guy said the report about the "false flag operation" that his company wrote "didn't ring a bell" and then says that what he didn't even know about was supposed to "have [had] almost no effect"... Also, the NYT article does not mention Tulsi Gabbard, obviously, since the first propaganda campaign was conducted and written up before NBC decided (unwisely IMO) to consult with them.

I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading that I am not the one making an "attempt to rewrite history" here, so please cut out the personal attacks / aspersions. TLDR; The text is currently massaged to be misleading. I will be changing it, if MrX does not do so now that it has been demonstrated that both articles say nearly word for word what I wrote (and we should really be basing ourselves on the article which is actually about Gabbard). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that you don't force your preferred edit into the article, when several other editors have consented to the wording currently in the article:

Greenwald also criticized NBC's use of the cybersecurity firm as an expert source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.

The New York Times wrote:

Headline: Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics
An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

“The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”

Greenwald opined:

The New York Times, when exposing the scam, quoted a New Knowledge report that boasted of its fabrications: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the [Roy] Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.'”

That fraud was overseen by New Knowledge’s CEO,

Greenwald was simply not objective in his reporting. We can't use similar language in this encyclopedia article.- MrX 🖋 11:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Greenwald used strong language (scam, fraud). As you know I did not use either word but referred to the false flag operation mentioned by the company itself, quoted in the NYT & the Intercept. Other than your pal Calton I haven't seen support for the text not taken from the article about Gabbard. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You (and Greenwald) conveniently left out that was an experiment and you embellished by adding "against a republican candidate." - MrX 🖋 12:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article does not mention Gabbard and is included only as a contextual service to the readers. You are wrong to say that I embellished by adding "against a Republican candidate", but you know that, as the second sentence of the NYT article says:

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy Moore.

Please stop casting aspersions which are easily disproven (come to think of it just stop casting them altogether...) It is unlikely that the smear directed at Tulsi is likely to affect the race (unless a lot of people get fed up with the manipulations on every platform, as may well have happened in 2016).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what casting aspersions means. Here's an example for you.- MrX 🖋 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment above has nothing to do with this page, where we should strive to have exceptionally high quality sourcing for claims such as those you've made (wasn't it you who I had to call out for talking about a quid pro quo going on concerning TG earlier on this page and on her BLP?) If you have something to say about a comment on JimboTalk or FramTalk or Community Health Initiative or WP:HARASSMENT, feel free to make it there. Here I'd appreciate that you don't change the subject when you're out of reasoned argument. For info asperger (at least in French) means to spray (whether pesticide or invective). So yes, unfounded accusations of "embellishment" are kind of not much more than foaming at the mouth, especially when they are so easily shown not to be fact-based. So, you've said that I misrepresented the source, I provided evidence showing that I was not, then you said I was embellishing on the source, I provided evidence showing that was false too... do you have any other objections to the faithful reporting of what sources say? Because at the end of the day, that seems to be the problem. I want to faithfully represent the sources... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The solution is to quote or paraphrase what Greenwald said, rather than argue about whether his characterization was fair. Greewald distrusts New Knowledge because they spread misleading information in order to influence an election, according to at least one reliable sources.[23] Perhaps Greenawald is wrong to suppose that this was reason to believe they are unreliable, but it is his opinion. TFD (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. I've incorporated your focus on opinion into the compromise edit, which also represents the New Knowledge claim that they engage in digital experimentation. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

TFD, we're not obligated to print his misinformation. He can wrap it in opinion and tie it with a bow, but when it's obvious that he has embellished the facts, we should defer to the Gray Lady. - MrX 🖋 20:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you should appreciate that different people see things differently without necessarily being wrong. Not every opinion that digresses from the party line at ThinkProgress should be rejected on that basis. TFD (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"silence debate and dissent"

@Nblund, next one — re this edit. The full quote this comes from is:

“Our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine,” she said. “When journalism is deployed as a weapon against those who call for peace, it threatens our democracy as it seeks to silence debate and dissent, creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war.”[24]

I'm ok w most of your edits, but think her point re "to silence debate and dissent" should be included along with the "stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war". Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Are you ok w that? Humanengr (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the earlier ping. I'm not strongly opposed here, but I think the "silencing debate and dissent" stuff has more to do with her views on the media rather than her views on foreign policy issues. I won't object if you really think that's essential, but I liked your previous suggestion (related to other content) of including a full quote in a footnote while paraphrasing in the text. Nblund ^talk 15:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

To explain — this is another aspect of the foreign-domestic coupling; it is silencing debate and dissent -about- foreign intervention per the boldface:

“Our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine,” she said. “When journalism is deployed as a weapon against those who call for peace, it threatens our democracy as it seeks to silence debate and dissent, creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war.”[25]

Edited and also put quote in fn. Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

to add (after condensation) from her PR

published by Politico:

“… only four of the DNC’s list of sixteen qualifying polling organizations - Monmouth, Fox, Quinnipiac and CNN/SRSS - have released any new polls following the second July 30-31 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit.

 In the two weeks after the first Democratic primary debate in Miami, the period between June 28 and July 13, six DNC-certified polls were released.
 After the second debate in Detroit, when Rep. Gabbard had one of the strongest performances on the stage, only two certified polls were released in the two weeks following her break-out appearance in the second debate.

	# polls released in first week	# polls released in second week	# polls released in third week	Total to date
Debate One	4	2	5	14
Debate Two	1	1	2	4

 No major news source released a national poll in the two week period following the second debate, compared to five polls released by seven major news organizations after the first debate. For example, CNN released DNC-certified polls on a regular monthly basis since March until after the Detroit debate (which CNN co-hosted) when they inexplicably stopped releasing polls. 
 Following the first debate in Miami, eleven of the DNC’s qualified polling organizations released numbers, and four of these organizations released multiple polls. This contrasts starkly with the almost dormant activity of these same polling organizations following the second debate.  
 The delayed release of polls so long after the debates is particularly harmful to candidates with lower name-recognition. Delayed poll releases are an advantage for high-name recognition candidates such as Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.”

Humanengr (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we can include stuff directly based on her press releases. Nblund ^talk 01:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not presented for the truth of the matter. So, yes, it can be included as Politico is a professional organization that published it as a claim made by the Gabbard campaign. Humanengr (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But Politico just repeated the press release. It's not a matter of the number of links in the chain. A press release from the Gabbard campaign is still just a press release from the Gabbard campaign no matter who decided to reprint it. It's a question of WP:DUE weight. Nblund ^talk 02:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s not links in a chain for the truth of the matter — which I would agree with you on — but only for validation that the campaign made the statement. Humanengr (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But its a question of WP:DUE weight. This poses the same problem that is posed by taking stuff from her website. If secondary sources aren't covering it, then it probably isn't worthy of inclusion. Nblund ^talk 12:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

What we have is a 2ary source which has, in fact, covered publication of and therefore validated the original source. That validation is not contested and is all it is being cited for. That suffices to include a statement that "the campaign said x". As for the claims themselves, they are verifiable — which I have now accomplished. Humanengr (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the paragraph beginning "Realclearpolitics columnist Michael Tracey argued...." It's not specific to Gabbard and belongs in the Debates article. TFD (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to that idea, but Tracey is mostly framing his complaints in terms of the perceived unfairness to Gabbard. Nblund ^talk 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thx, @Nblund — I hadn't seen the updated coverage of the press release. All seems resolved. Humanengr (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

All of these changes seem to be mostly one sided. It's understandable that we would give a bit more coverage of Gabbard's response here than we might at a general page on the DNC debates, but we're heading toward a one-sided WP:QUOTEFARM. Nblund ^talk 22:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What you call "quote" is in the first part of my edit the explanation of the DNC's polling ruleset as written by Vox. I could not find a better, more concise way to describe these rules as Vox did. Please feel free to rephrase (maybe reorder sentences?) it if you worry about copyright. The second part is a link to the list of Gabbard's 24 non-qualifying polls above 2%. If you can find another link to that list of polls, please replace it. I have not found another list except combing through Wikipedia's own poll list. Xenagoras (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was a little vague there. I linked a series of diffs, and most of it wasn't stuff you added. That said, there was some copy pasting here. We need to restate stuff in our own words. It can be a fine line, but there were several passages where there are more that 10 words in a row that are identical to the source. Nblund ^talk 00:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the problem is that the placement of the quote gives the impression that Wikipedia is taking sides. The implication is that DNC should have changed their polling criteria in the run-up to the third debate. Tracey and Gabbard make that argument, but Wikipedia doesn't need to make it for them. Nblund ^talk 00:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear how the placement of the quotes creates a problem. Do you imply that not having the statement in full quote is making it unclear that it is an exact DNC quote? I began the sentence with as much attribution as appropriate to indicate that the following statement is a DNC quote. Please make a proposal on how to change the quotes for that DNC statement. Would you prefer a full quote? I avoided a full quote because firstly it's easier to find the begin and end of shorter quotes, secondly I use quotes only for judgmental phrases (like newspapers do), and thirdly because you seem to be keen on the copyright issue (although I don't know if the DNC's ruleset may be copied freely from their website). The DNC's 2018 announcement is important to know because it invalidates the claim of several others (e.g. Vox) who say that changing the polling rules during the debate cycle would be inappropriate because of "interference". The DNC foresaw a possibly upcoming requirement to change the rules during the process and stated this publicly. We are not arguing on behalf on Gabbard or Tracey, but stating the facts / quoting the DNC. If a full quote makes it better, so be it. Xenagoras (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The DNC's 2018 announcement is important to know because it invalidates the claim of several others (e.g. Vox) who say that changing the polling rules during the debate cycle would be inappropriate because of "interference". This is the problem. The length of the quote doesn't really matter, the problem is that you're trying to arrange things in a way that advances your own interpretation of the situation. WP:NPOV doesn't allow this. Nblund ^talk 01:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Prefacing it with “The Gabbard campaign reminded the DNC that …” or some such should resolve this. Humanengr (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Did the Gabbard campaign do that? The source was the RCP op-ed. The goal is to document the dispute, not persuade readers of who is right. We can say "the Gabbard campaign complained" and provide some specifics, but we don't need to transcribe their views onto this page. Nblund ^talk 14:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The DNC “Given the fluid nature…” text from their framework was quoted in both the RCP commentary and the Gabbard campaign press release (para 7). RCP followed the quote with “Now would likely be an ‘appropriate’ time for such a reassessment.”; the press release followed with “The Gabbard campaign is calling on the DNC to hold true to their promise and make adjustments to the process now to ensure transparency and fairness.“ Humanengr (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but the other problem still remains. We're dedicating an excessive amount of space to the Gabbard campaign's characterization of the issue. Surely we can get the main idea across without beating readers over the head with every argument the campaign made. Nblund ^talk 15:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Will try to look at later today.Humanengr (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, the Gabbard campaign did quote the DNC in their press release (also quoted by Politico): "In a 2018 memo laying out their proposed framework for the debates, the DNC wrote, “Given the fluid nature of the presidential nominating process, the DNC will continuously assess the state of the race and make adjustments to this process as appropriate.” The Gabbard campaign is calling on the DNC to hold true to their promise and make adjustments to the process now to ensure transparency and fairness."

Adding facts to an article is never a WP:NPOV problem, because WP:NPOV applies only to views = opinions, but not to facts. The source is not an op-ed, but the DNC's statement on their debate qualification process. Do you really want to suggest that readers cannot recognize the quotation marks encapsulating the DNC's text in Tracey's op-ed? You once threw the WP:LINKSINACHAIN at me to justify your removal of sources from an article, and now I hand it back at you: WP:LINKSINACHAIN defines that the text you dispute is sourced by the DNC, stating a fact about the DNC's rules and intentions because it is exactly and completely quoting the relevant text from the DNC.

WP:WIKIVOICE requests to avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested ... factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. (It is uncontested that the article text you dispute is a written statement by the DNC about the qualification rules and intent of the DNC.) WP:BESTSOURCES states, good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states that sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

Since Rupar disagrees with Tracey and Gabbard on whether changing the DNC's qualification rules is good (promised by DNC) or bad (interference), the best source is the original text of the DNC about their own intent for changing their qualification rules. Therefore, a full quote of the relevant text in the DNC source is a correct edit to make, but it can also be said in WP:WIKIVOICE since it is undisputed fact.

Besides that, Rupar writes, "the true “interference” would have been changing the rules late in the process." The DNC refutes that by stating, "Given the fluid nature of the presidential nominating process, the DNC will continuously assess the state of the race and make adjustments to this process as appropriate, and always transparently." This DNC statement does not imply that the DNC wants to or should make exactly the adjustments that Gabbard or Tracey propose. This DNC statement only refutes Rupar's claim that "changing the rules late in the process would be interference." This is exactly what I wrote previously. I am not "trying to arrange things in a way that advances" my "own interpretation of the situation", but I am adding important facts. If you prefer, we can explicitly or implicitly state that this DNC statement does not imply or endorse the explicit wishes of Tracey or Gabbard. We could alternatively include the Gabbard campaign statement quoting and reminding the DNC to stay true to their written promise given in 2018.

Hiding the facts about the situation between Tracey/Gabbard and Rupar so that the WP:POV of Rupar seems to be balanced to the WP:POV of Tracey/Gabbard is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Facts always have priority over opinions. The DNC's "side" - the "side" of the facts - has not been mentioned yet. You are trying to delete facts from articles via spurious usage of Wikipedia policy like WP:NPOV and WP:LINKSINACHAIN (and others) which you apply only when it furthers your WP:POV but don't apply when it goes against your WP:POV. Your POV is visible where you write, "The problem is that the placement of the quote gives the impression that Wikipedia is taking sides. The implication is that DNC should have changed their polling criteria in the run-up to the third debate. Tracey and Gabbard make that argument, but Wikipedia doesn't need to make it for them." You recognize that the DNC statement refutes Rupar's view but you insist on hiding this but pushing the POV that Wikipedia must not present facts that refute Rupar's view. Xenagoras (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Xenagoras: please stop posting walls of text. We've already established that WP:DUE applies to facts, and editing Wikipedia with the goal of trying to "refute" one side and advance another is obviously not neutral. Nblund ^talk 20:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, abide the Wiki policies and we don't have to discuss at all. Read the policies before you lean on them. I do not want to quote Wiki policies, but this is unfortunately necessary, because you always keep cyclically coming back at me with another non sequitur Wiki policy. Therefore I have here pre-emptively refuted all comebacks you might possibly have brought in all these cycles. But you again brought another unexpected non sequitur. WP:DUE does not apply to facts as we established there (search text in project page: "21:44, 29 August 2019"). WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies to facts. I am not editing Wikipedia with the goal of "refuting one side". I add facts, prioritized by importance. You want to suppress facts, therefore I explained why these facts are important to include in the article. This whole discussion was easily avoidable if you had abode the Wiki policies and not deleted perfectly appropriate content. Stop using non sequiturs and I don't have to refute you by quoting the policy text. And stop attempting to justify your deletions by naming non applicable policies. Xenagoras (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Again: cite whatever policy you'd like, but its abundantly clear that saying "this information is factual" is not a justification for inclusion. You justified the edit by saying that "This DNC statement only refutes Rupar's claim...". That's not what we do here. Nblund ^talk 22:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I rearranged a shortened a bit in the first part; and added for context in the latter (forgot to note the last of that in the edit summary). Humanengr (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I only cite the policy that applies best in the given context. You are right that stating "this information is factual" alone is not a justification for inclusion of a fact. Inclusion is warranted if the fact has enough enduring importance. The debates segment currently contains the opinions on the "changeability" of the DNC's rules from Rupar, Tracey and Gabbard, but zero facts from the DNC itself about this issue. Therefore the importance threshold for adding facts is currently very low because facts always have priority over opinions. Xenagoras (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Defamation suit

SashiRolls, the citation lists one lawyer who argued that Gabbard's lawsuit was legitimate. Experts are not divided; there is just one with a fringe view. Please either revert or edit. --WMSR (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

fact-check says this is false (quotations from the Time article by Madeleine Carlisle WMSR didn't link):

1. Rodney Smolla, the Dean of the Delaware Law School of Widener University and a defamation expert, [...] added that Gabard's suit has "a solid fighting chance of succeeding."
2. Joseph Cammarata, an attorney [...] described Gabbard's case as strong.

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A "solid fighting chance" implies that he believes Gabbard to be the underdog here. --WMSR (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

And so when she says that opinions are "split" on her chances of winning the case? Weird how you object to saying what the Time journalist herself says: feel free to add her name in wikitext if you feel her statement paraphrased from the quote tag in the reference (source) needs attribution. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This is about undue weight. There are three sources cited, yet Time gets all the weight. --WMSR (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

13/53 words at the moment (not counting the expository topic sentence: 13/81 if you do). That's not all the weight, WSMR, it's a bit more than 25% or 15% depending if you count the topic sentence or not. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No, because the way the text is written, it sounds like experts are divided except the two people from the other articles. The point of WP articles is not listing each individual notable person's opinion on things. One sentence noting that most experts dismiss the basis of the suit, with sources, will suffice. --WMSR (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

fine, find something saying noting that and trump Time, then. Go ahead! I'm pretty sure the science of stoppering Time has moved forward since Hotspur's days. You can do it. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? --WMSR (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Aw sorry wm, just trying to say in a nice way that you need a reference noting what you want to note, and neither Merica nor the Intelligencer article with the grammatical mistake in the first paragraph (petty, petty, i know) do that. This latter, unless I'm mistaken is an op-ed? (vision 2020) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This entire debate is about what people's opinions are. Time did not survey every lawyer. --WMSR (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Should not cover any of this beyond lawsuit filed. No lawyers or pundits opinion is worth anything. Only a Judge and/or Jury will have an opinion worthy of inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)