Talk:Howie Hawkins/Archive 1

reverting partisan POV
User_talk:69.86.105.193's contribution to the Howie Hawkins page have been reverted for unsourced POV that constitutes original research. As per the NOR policy, articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material (such as arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements) that serves to advance a position. Please cite your arguments and justify their inclusion on this page. DJ Silverfish 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced claims in first paragraph
These may very well be true but we do not have any sources to support them and I don't have enough time beyond the searching I have already done to verify them. If someone else can find a news article or other source, please repost this.


 * "He co-founded the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976 and the Green Party in the United States in 1984."

Thanks GreenIn2010 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Howie Hawkins. 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/20100524020740/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/05/green-partys-howie-hawkins-wei.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/05/green-partys-howie-hawkins-wei.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Too long
This article is a good deal longer than this person's accomplishments really merit, and contains a good deal of biographical fluff (such as his reason for not graduating from college). It needs a forceful trimming. Wasted Time R 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

By looking at Howie Hawkins's biography pages on his websites, it appears that much of this article was written by him or one of his representatives; a lot of the language in this article, particularly about his accomplishments, is very similar and occasionally identical to that of his personal websites. I think we should try to build this article with more reliable sources to try to bring it back to a NPOV and make it a more quality article. EdOByrne (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I put a COI on this article. Chisme (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it is a significant fact that he didn't graduate from college. Also that he writes for the Socialist Worker. As a voter, I would like to know this. Mballen (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Perennial candidate
Including the term perennial candidate in the lead is pushing a not a neutral point of view. His activism, particularly his candidacy for President, are what make Hawkins notable. His status as a perennial candidate is noted lower in the article, which is in accordance with the WP:WEIGHT of the claim.--TM 19:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Namiba, do not accuse others of editing in bad faith the moment you get to a talk page. Lets be clear: This fact you insist on removing, repeatedly, is only non-neutral if one personally views it as positive or negative, and not simply as a fact about the subject. Not including the fact is not following WP:NPOV. You have not given any reason thus far as to its non-inclusion, only given your personal opinion that you don't think it's weighty enough. On the other hand, this fact is literally in the title of an article about him in The New York Times. That is much more notable than your personal opinion of its weight. 2604:2000:718E:7200:8530:D586:378:BA3E (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (Uninvolved comment from a "recent changes" page reviewer): (1) it does not seem to me to be a loaded phrase, or undue for the lead; (2) on the basis that it's an acceptable term to use at least somewhere in the article, I looked at others to see if there is any kind of community consensus - of 33 articles that that linked to perennial candidate and looked like they were biographies - but otherwise chosen randomly - I found: 19 had the term in the lead, 3 had the link in the lead but it was behind another phrase (such as "never won") and 9 did not feature it in the lead at all (the remaining one of the 33 was a stub so was "all lead"). So it does not look to me like it is regarded generally as a loaded phrase. Of course, each case is different but I see no evidence it pushes a non-neutral point of view. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Safire's Political Dictionary describes perennial candidate as an "attack phrase on someone who has tried and failed before". It's a common attack on candidates from smaller parties like Hawkins.--TM 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bit irrelevant whether Safire (or anyone, for that matter) finds it to be a possible pejorative or not. Safire was a known and open libertarian, a category in which many a "perennial candidate" falls. Any pejorative sense one gets from it is personal, though - it's simply two words with a literal meaning. If one finds it pejorative, that only says something about the reader, not the subject of the article. Quite literally, all it says about the subject is that one of the things they are known for is running for office repeatedly. It's an interesting parallel with this very discussion, in which we have an editor who keeps changing the reasons for its exclusion from the lede, in what may become a perennial argument. First claiming weight, then later abandoning that, and jumping on the idea of it being a pejorative (after someone else had used the term, which was never said editor's case for its exclusion to begin with.) That argument also falls a bit flat given said editor's willingness to have it elsewhere in the article. Finally I will also note, Namiba, that looking over your edit history it appears the Green Party and related tangents are subjects you are very passionate about. That's fine, we all have our passions, but wikipedia must remain dispassionate, and you ought to question whether, given your personal attachment, you are in the best position to make dispassionate judgement calls on the matter. This is a problem many pages for minor political candidates have, where the primary people editing them are also followers / supporters. UniNoUta (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors are expected to assume good faith while editing on Wikipedia. Accusing another editor of bias is a serious charge. I've been editing on Wikipedia for over 14 years and have created thousands of articles on topics from all over the world; I will not tolerate being accused of bias because I won't tolerate possible perjoratives from being included in the lead of a presidential candidate. As for your argument, WP:BLP dictates that articles be written in a dispassionate tone. Including a possible pejorative in the introduction without context is irresponsible. Moreover, NPR, hardly a libertarian or pro-third party source, profiled the book in question quite positively here. If you wish to argue that it is not a reliable source, I would like to read that argument. Until then, it is clear that the term is a possible pejorative and should not be included in the lead, if at all.--TM 16:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Namiba, literally the first thing you posted on this talk page was an unwarranted accusation against another editor of bias. If you are going to open the door to such a discussion, you need to be prepared for others to examine your editing history and with warrant analyze it. I suggested, based on the actual evidence of your past edits, that you perhaps might hold some bias. Your perception of the term in question as pejorative appears to only exist for this one candidate. It's not as though you've gone through every page in the category and removed it. Your only concern was this subject, and how it might reflect on this particular person. That in itself displays a bias for the subject. Yes, we assume good faith at first, but that assumption does not last forever if valid reason arise to question an editor's motives. You have a history of posting only positive things about Green Parties and affiliated candidates, and deleting things you personally think are pejorative. That is a more than valid reason reason to question if you might - even unconsciously - harbor some bias.
 * Regarding NPR writing a review or excerpts from Safire's book, that doesn't suddenly make the opinions in his book objective facts. NPR has also ran rather gentle articles regarding perennial candidates, which were not attacks in the slightest. Can "perennial candidate" be used in a mocking manner? I suppose, but that's also irrelevant since it has a rather simple literal meaning as well. It is not relevant that you think it is a possible pejorative. There are no maybes or possibles on wikipedia. What is relevant is that it is not an inherent pejorative. Again, it says more about the reader who sees it that way than it does about the editor who simply posts a point of fact.
 * Additionally, you never said a word about the term being pejorative the many times you removed it. You have stated you are just fine with it being elsewhere in the article. So, you do not actually believe it is pejorative then, I assume? If you truly felt it was, you would not be having it anywhere, and moreso you would have gone around wikipedia removing it from every other page that it's on. But you did not do that, and you were okay with it as part of this article, and in other articles (even in the ledes!) regarding candidates you do not support. You did not make the pejorative argument when you first removed it, or at all until someone else brought it up. Moving the goalposts suggests you are starting with an end result you want and shifting arguments as necessary to achieve it. UniNoUta (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't lead off with such a loaded term and claim this is neutral or fair Generaluser11 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
 * it’s not a loaded term, though. It’s in the lead section of dozens of pages. No one else on any other page has taken issue, that I can tell. 24.193.234.96 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those pages are made (and continue to stay up instead of being deleted) when their notability comes from them being a perennial candidate. Howie has a significant political history outside of electoral politics, being the founder of the Greens Party. I feel the electoral history section should be shortened since it's taking up 80% of the page. Catiline52 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Russiagate
This entire paragraph added by a new IP editor is basically original research using inadequate sources:
 * In an interview with Primo Nutmeg published on May 31, 2019, Hawkins stated "So, you know the media is... you know they're following this Russiagate thing - which I think is serious. I think Trump ought to be impeached I think it's obvious he sought collusion. He did collude." Subsequently, Hawkins' campaign issued a statement on Jun. 16, 2019 declaring Russiagate to be a "mass distraction" and a "brawl between factions of the ruling elites." Former Green Party Presidential nominee, Jill Stein, weighed in on Hawkins' Russiagate statements in a subsequent Primo Nutmeg interview stating, "It makes me very sad that people in the Green Party who should know better are vulnerable to this kind of warmongering and propaganda."

It is original research, because it is trying to demonstrate a contradiction in statements about Russiagate that is not found in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Primo Nutmeg is an non-notable source. The interviews in question only received 2.2k and 2.5k views. The campaign statement is found on Hawkins' website, which is WP:PRIMARY. I have reverted. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * : There's a similar occurrence of a new IP user using Primo Nutmeg at Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign using inadequate sources. There is original research labelling the article subject transphobic (linking the page transphobia) due to the article subject accidentally saying the wrong name in a Primo Nutmeg interview. I cannot find any independent reputable sources which back up this rather serious claim, but any attempt removing the content in line with Wikipedia's policies seems to always be reverted. Catiline52 (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I put it on my watchlist. It looks like someone already deleted the section you are concerned about.  If it comes up again, can you please put a section on the talk page?  You can then do what I did and refer to it in the edit summary. Often the new editors don't know the rules of WP:BRD, and more established editors like us should teach by example.  It also provides more evidence of good faith efforts to address a persistent problem--if it becomes one.
 * Adding WP:diffs of what is going on and what actions you have made to try to address it will also make it easier for you or another editor to create an action if if admin action is to be requested. Page protection might also be requested if necessary. It appears manageable at this point that I don't see sufficient evidence that admin intervention or posting at a noticeboard is necessary.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "Twitter acound suspention" section
In the comment of the edit that removed the section about the suspension of the campaign's Twitter, the section was called "completely irrelevant" to the article. I would argue that the section is completely relevant to the section, given that the suspension was of the campaign's official account. I'm going to revert the edit, but I would urge discussion to avoid an edit war. Jwarlock (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to disagree with you that the Twitter suspension of Hawkins' campaign is relevant to the man himself. A minor two-week period in which the campaign's Twitter was suspended might be relevant to the campaign's article itself (of which there is no mention at all of the suspension - perhaps that might be a better place to move the sentences), but I don't believe that the two-week period is an important aspect of the article on Hawkins himself, and it is especially undeserving of getting a subsection in the article on the same scale of his campaign itself. I am unopposed to moving this section to the campaign article, but I don't think it's relevant enough for this article. — Chevvin 17:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the sourcing for this entire incident is weak, at best. The Washington Times is notorious for its ideological bias; and the other "reference" just removed by an anonymous editor was to a blog. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Founder
What is this group you are a founder of? You are proud I’m sure, les share all your voters. 2600:1005:B059:1BA7:B513:8076:93AF:4A99 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)