Talk:Karen Bass/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

California State Assembly vs. U.S. House of Representatives
There is an error in displaying the California State Assembly on the infobox to the right. Instead it shows the U.S. House of Representatives, which is wrong. Looking over the article you can clearly see which is the CSA tenure and which is the USHOR tenure. If someone with familiarity with this particular infobox could fix it that would be ideal.-Toyz1988 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Karen Bass. 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/20131004214059/http://bass.house.gov/about-me/full-biography to http://bass.house.gov/about-me/full-biography
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202174247/http://www.karenbass.com/about-karen to http://karenbass.com/about-karen
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222061749/http://www.cocosouthla.org/about/ourmission to http://www.cocosouthla.org/about/ourmission
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171022024104/https://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71 to https://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71

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) 08:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Advertisement - promotional tone
For example, a phrase that caught my eye was: Under her direction, the Select Committee brought together bipartisan and broad-based community support, together with the voices of youth and families, to pass legislation designed to improve the lives of California’s most vulnerable children. That is not encyclopedic, that is a campaign brochure. The article is replete with this kind of promotional tone, and I'd wager there's been more than one WP:COI editor busy at work on maintenance and expansion here. Elizium23 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Doubletalk?
This article is outside of my usual interest area -- I just happened to stumble across this recent edit. The change in the article assertion looked pretty major, so I looked at the cited supporting source, which says that the proposed legislation is "asking voters to decide whether the state government can again address discrimination against women and people of color in contracting, public employment, and education". I looked at proposed legislation, which says that the California constitution "prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting", and goes on to say, "This measure would repeal these provisions." It goes on to say, after a lot of whereases, "Resolved [...] That Section 31 of Article I thereof is repealed." In the California Constitution, Article 1 § 31, which the bill would repeal, says in part, "(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." and "(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

As far as I can figure all that out, the bill would remove prohibition of discrimination on a number of grounds in specified areas from the California constitution, including removal of an exception which currently allows discrimination on the basis of "bona fide qualifications based on sex" in those areas, and the article, and the cited supporting source, say that Karen Bass supports passage of the bill.

It seems to me that passage of the bill would remove a restriction of racial discrimination. I'm guessing that the thinking behind that is that allowing more freedom to discriminate provides freedom of discrimination which can be used for the purpose of combating discrimination.

I think I've got that right, and just thought I would mention that here. I think that the article could possibly be a bit clearer about all of this. Perhaps there is another source out there somewhere which explains it more clearly. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Political position: Immigration
Is visiting children that were separated from their parents at the border considered a “political position”? Nothing about the entire paragraph explains what her position is on immigration. It would be like if under her gun law positions section it said that she visited a gun range filled with victims of families of gun violence.

I have no changes in mind that need to be added because I don’t know what her position is on immigration. Maybe somebody could actually research it give us that information. WhowinsIwins (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * She only went to the illegal alien detention facilities in order to make a political statement. Her view is that parents who commit crimes should not be separated from their children no matter where they are. The problem with her and her party's position is that there was no guarantee those children were actually not children being trafficked--- so it makes sense to keep them separated from adults until such time as it can be arranged fro them to be someplace else and safe/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:97D3:EC24:196C:31C4:AA8A (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Fidel Castro
Let's talk about this, because Fox News is.

When Fidel Castro died in 2016, amid a time that the White House was trying to improve relations with Cuba, Bass put out the following statement: "As Cuba begins nine days of mourning, I wish to express my condolences to the Cuban people and the family of Fidel Castro. The passing of the Comandante en Jefe is a great loss to the people of Cuba. I hope together, our two nations will continue on the new path of support and collaboration with one another, and continue in the new direction of diplomacy." Fox News published this article in late June, claiming that two Florida Democrats are speaking out against Bass’s apparent admiration, by which they mean Donna Shalala saying she "disagrees" with the comments and Javier Fernandez calling them "troubling".

has attempted to add this to the article as a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. In this edit and this edit, the wording included is Bass has garnered substantial controversy and criticism in recent months due to scrutiny of her past quotes, revealing strong support of controversial communist regimes with poor human right records such as Cuba and it’s previous ruler Fidel Castro.

I think it's clear that wording from Sirsentence violates WP:NPOV. "Strong support of controversial communist regimes" is WP:OR and not at all supported by the facts. What was left out is that Bass responded to this the other day, saying that she regrets using the phrase "Comandante en Jefe", which should be included with the initial remark if we are to include anything at all. The question is, should we include this in this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the strong support angle is OR, and Fox News is not enough to establish whether criticism in general is WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that Bass now regrets her praise of Fidel Castro and his regime now that she is on the short list for Biden's VP pick is a good reason to leave that in the article. Those were her words, and even if she regrets them now, she said them with a clear mind and fully sober. It would have required much more from Bass in terms of correcting her views on Castro and his oppressive regime over more time for her apology to be worth anything now in this current political season, so her prior comments must now stand in my view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:97D3:EC24:196C:31C4:AA8A (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Expressing condolences is not a signal of broad support or an endorsement of political policies. KidAd (💬💬) 22:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu. These are clearly undue POV edits. RedHotPear (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I find this disscussion on Cuba insane, Cuba has the best free healt care service in the world and in USA it is common knowlege that if you dont have money for treatment you die. I blame Fox news for the worst propaganda hence why I'm glad it will no lomger be used as a source for politics and science. Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Cuba's healthcare system is very relevant to her statement, and besides Cuba's healthcare system is terrible, you can go move to your Socialist paradise if you love it so much. Nice try at deflecting but you failed, sorry. Simple facts are sometimes insane but it's nothing you can change, keep crying. Also stop sprouting false information while you're at it, Wikipedia would benefit greatly if you stopped editing. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Scientology
How is there no mention of Bass' praise of Scientology? It was covered by numerous RSs. ,, , Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the BLP vio you mentioned in your edit summary? PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Been there a while, seems well sourced and documented. No idea what the BLP vio that mention on their revert. PackMecEng (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Covered by a wide variety of sources and it's very due. But I'm open to move it to a different section. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree. None of those sources even mention Scientology as a political position, just statements regarding her private personal religious beliefs. It's clearly inappropriate to include it, as it would be akin to as if we mentioned Catholicism as a political position on JFK's page or Mormonism as a political position on Mitt Romney's page. Dosafrog (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do "private personal religious beliefs." She publicly spoke at a Scientology event in her official capacity as a California politician. It is very due, but, as I mentioned above, it doesn't have to go under Political Positions. Since you brought up Mitt Romney as an example, we can make 'Scientology' a standalone section since that's what we did with his page concerning Mormonism. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell she gave a speech as a house member for the church. As far as I can tell she is not a member of the church of Scientology? So nothing about personal religious beliefs seems accurate either. If the only issue is that you don't think it belongs in Political positions then it can be moved. Undue is clearly not a thing with this given the sources. PackMecEng (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Politicians speak at churches all the time. Speaking at church events does not make them policy positions. That Mitt Romney section wasn't even about opinions on Mormonism; it was about his volunteer service with the church which is completely different from what this section entails. If it's not her personal belief or a policy position, then it obviously does not belong in the article. Clear WP:UNDUE. I understand that the two of you (most likely just one WP:SOCK) are angsty to smear Ms. Bass, as she was recently under the spotlight for being a potential VP pick, but sadly you are a couple months behind the program. Dosafrog (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If this was just a politician speaking at a "church" then it would not have received so much coverage by the media. The reality is that she was not speaking at some random church--she spoke to and praised a dangerous cult. Who exactly is the Sock? I suggest you tone down the rhetoric before you get blocked again. No one is trying to smear her, we're just reporting the facts. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh oh am I a sock of Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d or are they a sock of mine? I wanna see where this goes. But anyhow, with that it basically shows that you have no argument. Well that and the accusations that we are just trying to smear her. PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't mention every speaking engagement a public person has. They do dozens of these. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if this was just a "speaking engagement" no one would care, and no one would report on it. But it was a lot more than that. She attended a Scientology opening and openly praised the cult and it's leader. It's very notable and it should be included. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We do when its controversial and has several high quality RS behind it. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion of the "scientology" talk, and it was "controversial" in the sense that people were using slanted descriptions of it as a weapon when she was being mentioned as VP. I feel it benefits readers if Wikipedia explains the facts behind it in a clear way, based on RS. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * HouseOfChange very true. It would obviously be improper to label her as a scientologist in Wiki's voice. I think the material is pretty NPOV as it stands, but do you have any suggestions to improve it? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The justification for removing the material was not that the wording was bad, it was that "scientology" is not a political position. I agree with that the "scientology" claim was used as a smear of Bass, but I disagree that we improve matters by leaving our readers in the dark about this controversy. The outlets telling people she praised Scientology do not include the context of her remarks or the explanations that she gave afterward. If Wikipedia is silent on this, then we leave the story entirely in the hands of people whose goal is to smear Karen Bass. Although "scientology" is not a political position, this story was used against Bass in a political way, and her clarification afterward made clear her political position that scientology's support of equality was what she praised. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said many times before, I'm fine if we move it to a different section. Where do you want to move it? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. That section was NOT presented in a neutral way at all and dishonestly snipped her speech to make it appear as if she was endorsing the religion, and I'm glad Muboshgu gave a warning about it when Swag Lord was trying to insert it. I agree that it's WP:UNDUE but if it has to be included it has to be VERY clear that she never endorsed the religion. It's also important to review the sources carefully as while I agree with Axios's status as generally reliable, this particular coverage links as its source for the remarks a video edited by the church of scientology that has all the hallmarks of a snip-and-cut job designed to make her appear as if she endorsed the church, for purposes of cult propaganda. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What would your suggested wording be? PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * IHateAccounts doesn't have any suggested wording. And now, they are baselessly accusing the sources of misrepresenting Bass's statements. The removed material quotes Bass's own words in full context. I have no clue on how to make it more neutral. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the real context is not her word-choice in a few flattering sentences in a short speech she made a decade ago. The real context is that these few sentences were dug up and framed OUT of context by political oppo researchers, creating a few news cycles around the explanations Bass gave in 2020. I would be curious to know who dug up and dropped this oppo. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure who dug it up. But, clearly, since outlets like NBC, Politico, and The Hill picked it up, they probably verified the video in some way. This is the longest version of her speech I could find: . It seems pretty well in-context. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If she made the speech as a private indiviudal, I would probably put it under "Personal Life." But, since she made it while she was she was apart of the California Assembly, I think it should go under that section. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So it has been a bit, has anyone come up with alternative language that they would be happy with? PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have any suggested wording at the moment but I agree that her remarks at the Scientology dedication deserves a brief mention. As PackMecEng pointed out, there is no evidence that she is or has ever been a Scientologist, and the comment ten years ago appears to have been an instance of poor judgment when appearing at the dedication ceremony. Accordingly, this is nothing like Kennedy and Catholicism or Romney and Mormonism. I find her 2020 explanation for her 2010 remarks perplexing because she says that new information had come out in the past decade revealing previously unknown facts about Scientology. Actually, Scientology has been highly controversial and widely regarded by most independent observers as a dangerous cult for decades, and it is difficult to imagine Bass not knowing that as an experienced politician in the city where the cult is headquartered and remains somewhat influential in Hollywood. However, this seems to be a "one off" incident and is much less significant, in my view, than her long term friendship with Castro's Cuba, starting with the Venceremos Brigade and including eight trips to Cuba, and a longtime mentoring relationship with a CPUSA functionary. In the spirit of full disclosure, I visited Cuba with the VB when I was 19 and have very affectionate feelings for the Cuban people, but I always kept the Communist Party members at arms length. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * On a related note, how do you feel about describing VB as a "pro-Cuban group that organized trips by Americans to Cuba," as we do in this article? I always thought VB was more of a socialist pro-Castro group. "Pro-Cuban" sounds a little vague and disingenuous. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a complicated question, . Bases on my reading and personal experience, VB started as an SDS/New Left group but that the CPUSA had greater and greater influence on VB as the years went by. Functionally, the VB was little more than a left wing travel agency. The group was/is indisputably "pro-Cuban" but I am not sure that "socialist" is the right term because that word has such broad connotations that it can be applied to mainstream politicians wearing business suits in Scandinavia as well as to Marxist-Leninist guerillas operating underground with an infinitely more radical ideology. As for "pro-Castro", my perception was that the group's support was for the Cuban revolution more so than for its leader at that time. My perception was that if anyone was looked up to as a "hero", it was the long dead Che Guevara rather than Fidel Castro. Obviously, my personal experience cannot be included in any article but it certainly informs how I go about searching for and evaluating sources. The problem is that there is relatively little in-depth coverage of the Venceremos Brigade in reliable sources written by academic historians rather than pro and con advocacy journalists. There is enough to consider the group notable but not enough to write a truly balanced NPOV article with a detached historical perspective. At least not yet. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Housing
The article lists a citation needed for the housing information provided. Her bass.house.gov provides information on her key housing initiative. https://bass.house.gov/issues/housing I think that information should be included in the article. I didn't see a reference to the 2016 plan - which has a citation needed bracket next to it - on her official .gov website Akiva100 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed re-framing of "controversies" in an expanded section about her VP consideration
As others have pointed out, Karen Bass does not have "political positions" related to Fidel Castro or Scientology. Those were two oppo attacks aimed at her in the context of her being mentioned as a potential VP candidate.

A better way to frame this would be to expand the very short section about her VP candidacy, including what RS said about who was supporting her (Pelosi and other house Dems as well as people who wanted a "nice" woman that everybody liked instead of Kamala Harris) and who dropped the oppo when her name was floated as Biden's VP--supporters of other Veep candidates or of Donald Trump?

Her favorable remarks about Castro got tied to Biden and later had impact on the votes of Cuban-Americans. So this article should say more about the VP aspect of Bass's career, and that is a fine place to give context to the two sections that do NOT belong with her political positions. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable enough. Here are some good sources relating to the Castro comments: Politico, Tampa Bay Times, AP, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Independent. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)