Talk:Pete Buttigieg/Archive 2

Douglass Plan rollout
This is in reference to this edit, specifically the removal of the information that I added about the Douglass Plan rollout. I was wondering if you could explain why you think that the material is undue. You said in your edit summary that it had been challenged as undue, but I couldn't find anything about that on the talk page (sorry if I missed it), and it's frequently mentioned in mainstream sources:. If material about the presidential campaign all belongs on the campaign page, that makes sense, but in that case, shouldn't the other minutiae about what exactly the Douglass Plan would do, how much money it would disburse, where it was announced, etc., be moved there as well? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can elaborate. The whole paragraph is undue because it is day-to-day campaign coverage inserted in a biography. The whole paragraph is about the clumsy "rollout" of the plan (campaign errors such as the "stock photo" and the wrong names on the press release), not critiques about the plan itself. Because there's little evidence of enduring noteworthiness to Buttigieg's biography, my view is that these things belong, if anywhere, at Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign.
 * I distinguish these from the substance of the plan (its cost, provisions, etc.), which seem to me to be at least somewhat more relevant. I would be OK with dropping procedural details like the specific location where plan was announced. If desired, I would also be OK with adding a sentence under "2020 presidential election" that says essentially that Buttigieg has struggled to gain support from black and Hispanic voters (with appropriate cites, of course). Neutralitytalk 18:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. That makes sense to me. I went ahead and took out the overly specific location information. I think your other proposal about Buttigieg struggling to gain support from black/Hispanic voters is a good idea as well, it's received a lot of media coverage. I can add that in in the next couple days unless someone beats me to it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The public reaction to the Douglass plan's as important as the plan itself, since that's who it will affect. Packaging the plan with endorsements that don't exist, especially given the large number of sources that acknowledge this happened, is really noteworthy. 116.84.110.175 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hate to agree with 116 because his tone's abhorrent. However, failure to mention the problems of the Douglass Plan, such as fabricated support, makes the section non neutral. Powerrranger (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd editing by admin who should retire
Both this edit and this edit present really serious problems in terms of a neutral portrayal of this article's content. The Douglass plan rollout was very controversial yet the article pretends it wasn't. And it's literally a mayor's responsibility to tell his police chief which types of crimes to primarily prosecute, which means Buttigieg's record as Mayor's far more important than flowery rhetoric. I see 2 NPOV tags are now appropriately displayed, and though I'm willing to make those edits myself so that those tags may be removed, I am unable to for reasons not clearly explained here (topic: Pete Buttigieg Page Requires Autoconfirmed Users Only). Q death hoax?? 2 month "protection"? How about the rationale for the previous 2 protections? 116.84.110.175 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That you disagree with an edit does not mean that anyone should "retire". This page is for discussing disagreements, which you are free to do. I don't see how the article is nonneutral and it should not be rewritten to embarrass the Mayor, which would be nonneutral. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The current article has the appropriate tags. Pretending the Douglass plan wasn't criticized by a large number of sources and that Buttigieg's record with regard to Marijuana arrests is less important than his record as mayor are both nonneutral. Both deletions are inappropriate edits User:Neutrality did 116.84.110.175 (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edits in question. This is not a WP:COATRACK.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You consider a person's actions to be less important than their words? Please actually read and understand the principle of WP:COATRACK 116.84.110.175 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * deletion of Buttigieg's record on marijuana arrests has been overturned. However, your condescending tone 's bad for the community. We always assume good faith in our edits. Consider this a warning Powerrranger (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous to call it "Buttigieg's record on marijuana arrests", As though he's the one going around arresting people. This is a systemic problem throughout the entire country, which existed long before his mayoralty. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * who to arrest falls on the mayor. His record's worse than national and state averages. It's nonneutral to claim is record's less relevant than his rhetoric Powerrranger (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , since when does a mayor decide who to arrest? That's what police do. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Police Chiefs report to mayors, not the other way around Powerrranger (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

News article about the Buttigieg article
Just thought that editors would be interested in an article that was just published about this page in particular. Catiline52 (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Gotta love the degree of enwiki policy knowledge in that article. BTW, I feel like we should hang on to an archive link, although it's unlikely we'll need it. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy knowledge was definitely good, albeit not perfect. She states that COI editing is "strictly prohibited" on WP, when actually our policy merely "strongly discourages" it, and only outright prohibits undisclosed paid COI. But that's a minor quibble. Sdkb (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Slate Magazine in its detailed investigation says that some editors who edit this article have a conflict of interest to say the least. As there are wiki rules on WP:OUTING etc, we have to be cautious how we discuss this, nonetheless this news report has other details and whole matter might be needed to be brought to the attention of administrators at one of the noticeboards. If editors have a conflict of interest and they edit this article, editing bias and (lack of) neutrality are issues of concern for the page.Resnjari (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are definitely multiple admins editing this article who have a conflict of interest. I did some digging and an edit was suppressed on 23:21 12 November on false grounds it was identical to the suppressed copyright violation edit on 22:30 6 November. However, whereas the 12 November edit had 549 characters, the 6 November edit had 890 characters. Edit appears to have been about an increase in South Bend crime as a result of policies implemented by the South Bend Police who reported to Buttigieg. 116.84.110.175 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I stuck a bit about this under Personal life, seems pertinent to include *somewhere* in the article. Battleofalma (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That content is WP:UNDUE, and unrelated to Buttigieg's personal life. - MrX 🖋 13:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, undue unless it gets more coverage, like say the Warsaw concentration camp-WP thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We may be getting there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the WaPo piece on it and Feinberg's work does shore this up a bit. Battleofalma (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment - Are politically-charged editors (either from the campaign or for intentions of attacking another candidate) invading Wikipedia? I've seen a few contentious articles be put up to AfD, usually being bombarded by those in support of the person in question. Weird stuff, I guess this is my 1st time seeing something fishy like this Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * See the article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. People with WP-articles are often interested in what those articles say, which is unsurprising. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editor who was apparently outed by Ashley Feinberg, the writer of the Slate article, has edited the Pete Buttigieg Wikipedia article a total of one time since 13 July 2012. That makes the subtitle of the Slate article, "Tracking down the editor who tracks every move the South Bend mayor makes", absolutely false. Unless, of course, Ashley has a different data source covering the period July 2012 to the present that she failed to disclose. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Feinberg is a genius at this kind of thing. The fact that Buttigieg didn't just own up and say it was him or a staffer is a bit ridiculous. It's a violation of Wikipedia policy, sure, but anyone who does NPP will confirm that nobody can be bothered to properly disclose a COI unless you spend a lot of time shouting at them (and that goes even in cases where they're prepared to disclose it informally). And it's not like it's been active recently. Blythwood (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The most likely scenario seems to be that the person who did the edits was a volunteer staffer on Buttigieg's campaign. It's quite possible that they took the initiative to create the article, and do other, related edits, without the knowledge of Buttigieg or the campaign manager. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this is being talked about in the media, we need to be careful to get things right. AFAIK, no clear violation of Wikipedia policy has ever been shown, or even suggested. The original story which reported this, got this wrong, which IMO did it a great disservice. Sadly a lot of editors seem to also get it wrong. There is not, and has never been any mandatory requirement to disclose a COI. Nor has editing with a COI ever been forbidden, as the story suggested. You are very strongly encouraged to disclose a COI. You are also very strongly discouraged from directly editing an article when you have a COI. (Our policy has always be careful to use words like should etc rather than must.) But failing to do either, is not an explicit policy violation and an editor is not normally blocked simply for such a failing. They will be blocked if their COI editing starts to cause problems, as it often does because editors with a COI lack the necessary perspective for neutral editing. Therefore, any editing of a person on themselves is not a clear cut violation. The staffer thing is actually an interesting point. If it is a volunteer staffer, then things do not change. If it was a paid staffer, then since our ToU changed [//foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use/en&diff=98138&oldid=90463], any edits which could be considered paid would be in violation of the ToU, and en policy WP:PAID without disclosure. This is indeed something which is blockable even technically a single edit. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know why the edit by User:Battleofalma on 11:59, 21 December 2019 was suppressed? I checked the logs and no rationale's provided.. 172.58.230.130 (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the logs from that date. - MrX 🖋 14:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Languages
While not fluent, isn't Buttigieg proficient in ASL (American Sign Language)? RickKirkland (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg spoke Norwegian with a reporter from the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK on Dec. 15th 2019. The reporter (and myself) were impressed with his ability, especially considering he claims to be self taught and hasn't spent any significant amount of time in Norway. I wouldn't say he was fluent, but definitely proficient. Video is here but may not be available outside Norway: https://www.nrk.no/video/16552272-85ba-4333-9576-1de7ae0b6ee3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.110.239 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I recall in his book, Shortest Way Home, "[Arabic] was harder - much harder than the French and Spanish I had studied in highschool, or even the Maltese (also a Semetic langugaae) that I had picked up from my father." (p. 45). Maybe this should be added (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireSparkling (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020
Change 2019 to 2020 in the last sentence of the paragraph titled 'Succession as Mayor'. It should read "Mueller took office on New Year's Day 2020 (not New Year's Day 2019). Maryhatchbailey (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Since Buttigieg is an active political figure, I figure I should justify my change to the pronunciation of his name here on the talk page.

First, the Maltese pronunciation is interesting but irrelevant -- we're not discussing him in Maltese. I moved that down to the discussion of the origin of his name. Second, the English pronunciation BOOT-i-jij was an attempt to render the Maltese pronunciation, not the English pronunciation. It's contradicted by all sources of Pete Buttigieg himself. Those sources say it's either BOOT-a-judge or Buddha-judge, which isn't clear on whether the 'u' is the vowel of 'foot' or of 'food'.

I found a CNN interview where someone asked him, and he pronounced it with the 'u' of 'foot' -- that is, like Buddha-judge for some people, but not really like BOOT-a-judge. So that's /ˈbʊtədʒʌdʒ/. (Or /ˈbʊdədʒʌdʒ/, since for Americans who pronounce 'ladder' and 'latter' the same, there's no difference between the two -- but since Brits and others will presumably pronounce it with a 't', let's not mess with that, and stick with a /t/.)

... — kwami (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to this, it's hard to tell with the recording and his accent if he's saying /uː/ or /ʊ/. And probably most Americans have the same vowel in 'Buddha' as they do in 'boot', so the descriptions are reasonably consistent if the vowel is /uː/. It's probably best to take that as the pronunciation, so I changed the IPA to match what people kept putting in for the respelling. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate as a Millennial
The is a major generational development, all other candidates are Gen X or Boomers.

We should also mention that Pete is the first Millennial to win delegates or even run for president as a major party candidate. Millennials: born between 1981 to 1996. Buttigieg: born 1982. NewsManJustin (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Link citation:

https://time.com/5770140/millennials-change-american-politics/ NewsManJustin (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Need separate page for Political positions of Pete Buttigieg
Same as Political positions of Bernie Sanders. I and many others want more detailed info on Buttigieg's political and economic positions. The political positions article is the topmost link in the Bernie Sanders sidebar navbox: Bernie Sanders series.

If you look at the pageviews timeline graph in the show/hide box at the top of this talk page, you will see that the Buttigieg article is now beginning to get a massive amount of hits daily. So people want more info. This need for more info can only be done adequately by creating more articles in the Buttigieg series of articles: Pete Buttigieg series

Politico has a detailed site on the political and economic positions of all the Democratic candidates:
 * 2020 Candidates Views on the Issues: A Voter’s Guide - POLITICO. Click on any candidate, and then click on the dropdown menus to choose the topic. -- Timeshifter (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, a lot of Pete's policy isn't here. I just added a bit but there's a lot more to add. Also, Chasten might need his own page pretty soon. -  Nablais (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't object to creating a policy page, but I do object to the wholesale removal of the policy content from this page. Once the new article is created, then we can begin paring the policy material on this page. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ... aaaand, here's the new page: Political positions of Pete Buttigieg. - MrX 🖋 21:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation
Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"＃MayorCheat" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ＃MayorCheat. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Pete Buttplug" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pete Buttplug. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Mayor Cheat" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mayor Cheat. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Propose changing and expanding description of impact of "1,000 Properties in 1,000 Days" project on communities of color
The last sentence of this paragraph has significant factual issues:

"One of Buttigieg's signature programs has been the "Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative"; known locally as "1,000 Properties in 1,000 Days", it is a project to repair or demolish blighted properties across South Bend.[89][90] The program reached its goal two months before its scheduled end date in November 2015.[91] By the thousandth day of the program, before Buttigieg's first term ended, nearly 40% of the targeted houses were repaired, and 679 were demolished or under contract for demolition.[92] Buttigieg took note of the fact that many homes within communities of color were the ones demolished, leading to early distrust between the city and these communities.[93]"

A careful reading surfaces serious issues with this sentence misinterpreting the cited source:
 * While Buttigieg has acknowledged the disparate impact of the demolitions included in his plan, this acknowledgement came after the plan had been executed on.
 * In addition, his acknowledgement couldn't have "lead to an early distrust", because his acknowledgement came after the fact.
 * Furthermore, it wasn't his acknowledgement that lead to the distrust, it was the project.

I tried just rewording the sentence, but I was having trouble unpacking a complex issue in a way that didn't seem out of place in the paragraph

I would like to build consensus to expand this section, or perhaps rework the entire paragraph. Here are some potential bullet points:


 * "But there were suspicions early on, especially among people of color, that the city would use code enforcement powers to apply fines and civil penalties as a form of pressure to chase away even well-meaning property owners."
 * "The homes that were destroyed were primarily in black and Latinx neighborhoods."
 * Clarification of when he acknowledged the disparate impact of the plan -- it looks like those acknowledgements came in 2019, but I'm looking for a clear citation

This is my first time looking to make improvements to a page in semi-protected status, so apologies if I'm not doing something according to protocol.

Jaronheard (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In your second bullet list, the first bullet is not noteworthy in my opinion. If you can produce a fe more cites to solid sources, I'll reconsider. The second bullet would imply that the program had a racial component. At the same time, it ignores other factors such as homeowners abandoning property and ignoring notices from the city. I will wait for you to flesh out the third bullet before commenting on it.


 * Regarding the sentence "Buttigieg took note of the fact that many homes within communities of color were the ones demolished, leading to early distrust between the city and these communities.", we could change it to "Buttigieg acknowledged that early distrust between the city and communities of color resulted from many homes within those communities being demolished."- MrX 🖋 12:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am wondering if this should be merged with the above NPOV discussion, the entire article flagged NPOV and a conversation should be started about the page as a whole since it is clear it is riddled with WP:NPOV issues. (It is not unexpected, since it is known from the articles referred to in the top of the page that at least at some time in the past Buttigieg operatives, or maybe buttigieg himself, has had a hand in the content and management of this article). GGLLFFP (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction needed to description of Buttigieg as potentially "the second youngest... president."
The sentence in question currently reads:

Buttigieg is seeking the Democratic nomination. If nominated, he would be the second youngest and the first openly gay American president.

I suggest correcting it in either of the following ways (the currently embedded footnotes need not change):

Buttigieg is seeking the Democratic Party nomination for president. If nominated, he would be the second-youngest and first openly gay presidential nominee from an American major political party.

or

Buttigieg is seeking the Democratic Party nomination for president. If elected, he would be the youngest and first openly gay American president.

(Note on the above: William Jennings Bryan was the youngest, also from the Democratic Party.)


 * ✅ - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋 19:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Combat Veteran?
Identifying a former member of the Armed Service is simply done by calling them a Veteran. When you add the word "combat" to the front of it, that is implying Infantry service and an actual combat engagement for which they received a C.A.R. (Combat Action Ribbon). It is considered deeply disingenuous, to the point of Stolen Valor, to pose as a "Combat" Veteran when all you did was drive a truck. Not trying diminish a fellow Veteran's service, but I think even Pete would agree, his description is really Reaching and may end up getting criticized. The main wiki description has him as a "combat veteran." Just saying, that is gonna get pushback. Im a former Infantry Marine who didnt receive a C.A.R. so I wouldnt dream of ever calling myself a "Combat Vet" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.25.199 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact Buttigieg seemingly avoided boot camp, training, etc. and did cubicle work for a couple weeks, took a LOT of uniform-wearing-gun-toting pictures, and buggered off. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/buttigiegs-war-and-the-shortest-way-home-11578355312?emailToken=a90ce838e23f7048292783e67b052539E3ozrhpkbkJ05bNLPDhveqRjxfFAQFSdYHXojf4lMteV4iJo1vH9KWic7baY+V/+L5JFSewdnf8ORQ8cwVdeWqDm6Rp5iWoCEsg8zdkSIOA%3D GGLLFFP (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur also as retired naval officer. Pete Buttigieg did not receive hostile fire pay or serve in a designated combat zone so this descriptor as a combat veteran is incorrect. However, from all accounts he did serve honorably and has a solid military record. (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that he even has a substantial military record at all. He got in using direct commission thanks to his elite connections so did not go through the regular rigorous training, did clerical work for a matter of weeks, and left with a lot of photos. See the WSJ link I have posted above... GGLLFFP (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that bit is now omitted. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020
–Strike-In 2012, after a federal investigation ruled that South Bend police had illegally recorded telephone calls of several officers-Strike

Shortly after taking office Buttigieg Strike-demoted-Strike requested the resignation of police chief Darryl Boykins, who is African-American.[69] Buttigieg also dismissed the department's African-American communications director, the one who had actually "discovered the recordings but continued to record the line at Boykins' command" 70.103.136.38 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020
Add "Pete Edits his own wikipedia entry" 70.103.136.38 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Per the Talk:Pete_Buttigieg/Archive_2 discussion, I'm still at "meh". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Keyword here being "reliable". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

He has not released his medical record
Hi, I stopped by to add this to the candidacy section but it was deleted twice as not important enough. Buttigieg certainly seems to think that medical records are important. Here is the text in case you are interested:  Buttigieg has not yet released his medical records. WebMaven2000 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, I cant think of any reason to remove that highly notable information from the 2020 campaign section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the Klobuchar talk page, medical records have only really been an issue for older candidates. There's very little coverage in reliable sources about the medical records of Buttigieg, and the few that exist are in the context of all the candidates. At best, these are campaign-specific matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scjessey. Also, this is not highly notable. It is one of thousands of news stories that are forgotten within a few days. I doubt that it has enduring encyclopedic value. Finally, I'm puzzled why anyone would think it's a good idea to create a new paragraph with only eight words?- MrX 🖋 12:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Scjessy et al. - Young people CAN get/have serious illnesses and/or injuries that are not visible but could affect their ability to perform their duties as President. Aside from Trump, ALL candidates have released their medical records when running for President, regardless of age, since about the early 1990s.(https://time.com/4472265/clinton-trump-health-reports-history/). A big deal was made about Trump not releasing his. Buttigieg himself has defined this as a major issue. He has been highly critical of other candidates for not releasing MORE information even though he has not released any medical information yet. He is recommending that all candidates should submit to a physical exam. From the Washington Post article, "Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, 38, has yet to release any medical records — though Buttigieg argued during last week’s debate that the candidates should undergo physical exams and disclose the results." WebMaven2000 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any indication that he won't release his medical records as some point soon. This is just an ephemeral bit of news. - MrX 🖋 16:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He is the only one of the front runners who has not released his medical records at this point. He has not said he will release his. I don't think this is going away. (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the fact that he is the only one who has not released his medical record shows why that is a notable thing. Also, in Bernie Sanders article there is a big fat section dedicated to the medical thing, although Sanders has submitted medical records more than any candidate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is based in Wikipedia policy. If this has, or gets, substantial news coverage, it would be appropriate for the campaign article. One passing mention in a single article does not establish WP:DUEWIGHT. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it is important but whether news media have found it important enough to give it significant coverage, which they haven't. Articles should not give undue importance to issues that mainstream sources ignore, because to do that would be to influence the election. TFD (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic HAS gotten significant coverage. There are several articles reporting Buttigieg's erroneous claims that Sanders has not released his medical records and Buttigieg suggesting that everyone submit to a physical exam. So, BUTTIGIEG RAISED the issue for all candidates, falsely accusing Sanders of not releasing his records.
 * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483773-buttigieg-says-sanders-needs-to-release-full-medical-records
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-a-historically-old-presidential-field-candidates-refuse-to-release-health-records/2020/02/23/a39045f8-5407-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html
 * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/19/pete-buttigieg-blasts-bernie-sanders-medical-recor/
 * https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/buttigieg-says-sanders-needs-to-release-full-medical-records/ar-BB10b7RT
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/us/politics/bernie-sanders-health.html
 * Then there are now TWO articles from major news outlets correcting Buttigieg's claims about Sanders. They also report that Buttigieg has NOT released his own medical records. He is the ONLY candidate who has not at this point.
 * https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/democratic-debate-infighting-highlights-lack-of-transparency-in-presidential-medical-records
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-a-historically-old-presidential-field-candidates-refuse-to-release-health-records/2020/02/23/a39045f8-5407-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html

It's notable and has received coverage. WebMaven2000 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the assertion above that Buttigieg has falsely accused Sanders of not releasing his records: These source articles do not say that.  They say that Sanders has not released ALL of his medical records, and that in reaction to that, Buttigieg called for Sanders to release his FULL record after Sanders refused to do so during a debate.  So how is that a "false accusation" or an "erroneous claim"?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All medical records would presumably include everything from his mother's obstetrician, his pediatrician, and annual checkups over most of the past century. Since Sanders has released results of recent checkups and of his heart condition, Buttigeig is being disingenuous, especially as he has not released his records and has only promised to release recent ones. But it has not become a campaign issue, hence lacks weight for inclusion here. Mind you, it's pretty typical of Buttigeig's political style and probably will receive comment once the history books are written. But we can't put something in on that basis, per CRYSTALBALL. TFD (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion
It seems this section does not have a neutral point of view. Instead, statements and promises have been taken nearly in verbatim from his campaign and not much else is given, calling for some context. It also seems like some of his lesser populist schemes have been omitted.

Some instances where these issues particularly shine are highlighted below.

In the economic policy section, there is the text

"As a self-proclaimed democratic capitalist, Buttigieg rejects crony capitalism and supports a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics. He is receptive to the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies but more focused on privacy and data security concerns."

This reads rather like a campaign pamphlet instead of a reporting of his political views.

It must be changed, and it must also emphasize that these are STATEMENTS from Buttigieg and not gospel (this is an issue throughout the entire section). It must also be mentioned that he seeks out wealthy, corporate donors to his campaign in contrast to his claim of wanting big money out of politics (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/19/wine-cave-pete-buttigieg-democratic-debate, https://twitter.com/amiraminimd/status/1203821639131172869?lang=en, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/18/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-the-democratic-presidential-candidates/#13fd8e2b33f7). Similarly, “he is receptive” is a silly thing to write considering only he truly knows whether he is or not notwithstanding what he has publicly said.

I suggest a revision along the lines of the following (with the relevant references and links):

"Buttigieg claims to be a “democratic capitalist”. In that vein, he has decried crony capitalism and proclaimed support for a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from what he calls the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics, although he himself seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign and is, as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires. He has entertained the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies on the basis of privacy and data security concerns."

It is simply not mentioned in the foreign policy section that Buttigieg opposses a decrease in military spending or potentially even supports increasing it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/foreign-policy/defense-budget/, https://peteforamerica.com/videos/national-security-new-era/, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/pete-buttigieg/). This is especially important as this is a point he splits on with many of his rivals.

I suggest appending this information, for example as: "Unlike many of his Democratic rivals such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Buttigieg does not support cuts in military spending, instead calling to modify the structure of spending. At a speech in June 2019 at Indiana University, he said “...in the coming decades, we are more likely than ever to face insurgencies, asymmetric attacks, and high-tech strikes with cyber weapons or drones. Yet our latest defense budget calls for spending more on 3 Virginia-class submarines—$10.2 billion—than on cyber defenses. It proposes spending more on a single frigate than on artificial intelligence and machine learning. To adequately prepare for our evolving security challenges, we need to look not only at how much we’re spending on our military but what we’re prioritizing.”"

One may also mention that he wishes to increase the budget although I am not sure he has explicitly said that.

No criticisms of his medical plan (it may be unconstitutional https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/buttigieg-health-plan-hinges-on-supercharged-version-of-unpopular-obamacare-mandate/2019/12/24/415ae876-21bb-11ea-9146-6c3a3ab1be6c_story.html) have been shown. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/483317-medicare-for-all-will-turn-into-health-care-for-none, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-02-11/pete-buttigiegs-medicare-for-all-who-want-it-will-sabotage-healthcare

Perhaps something like the following text may be appended: "Critics have derided his plan as creating a two tier medical insurance system: one with high quality health care for high earners and the low quality public option for the rest, as well as for its retroactive enrollment policy for uninsured Americans which would land them with a large overhead fee at the year’s end (a similar provision in the Affordable Care Act was ruled unconstitutional), and high bureaucratic cost."

Criticisms of both the rollout and the Douglass plan itself (especially from Black activists) have not been mentioned. Also his widely criticized racial justice record as mayor should also be mentioned. I suggest something similar to the following appendages:

"Buttigieg was widely criticized for the unveiling of his plan, wherein he claimed the support of “400 prominent black South Carolinians” for his campaign. Many of the listed were actually white, and many of those who were black had not in fact endorsed his campaign, or his plan for that matter. Around that time, the Buttigieg campaign was also criticized for leaking a focus study which accused undecided black voters of homophobia, claiming that was the reason Buttigieg was unable to gain their support." https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/pete-buttigieg-campaign-black-voters/,

"Buttigieg has been also criticized for his treatment of the African American community of South Bend, IN in his capacity as mayor. He has been accused of enabling police racism and brutality by firing the city’s first black police chief, Darryl Boykins, soon after he reported an incident, although he claims he had done so as Boykins had illegally taped said incident. He has also been charged by critics with ignoring the decay of the city’s predominantly black west side, and promoting gentrification of some black neighborhoods leading to rent increases and evictions. During the February 7, 2020 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire he was questioned on the increase in the rate of African Americans arrested on drug charges despite the overall rate going down." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/buttigieg-black-police-chief-fired.html https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/indiana/south-bend/, https://www.abc57.com/news/abc57-investigates-south-bend-eviction-rate-3-times-the-national-average-, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pete-buttigieg-faces-pressure-marijuana-arrests-black-people/story?id=68842579

In order to conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, such issues must be rectified. The section in its current state violates the second and the last point. Note that I have raised similar objections to the main article. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of this material needs to be reworded for a more dispassionate tone, and we should use secondary sources whenever available. However, your comment "it must also emphasize that these are STATEMENTS from Buttigieg and not gospel" is not something we do. Most of your proposed text seems very non-NPOV to me, and entirely unrelated to political positions. Opinion columns make bad sources for an article like this. - MrX 🖋 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My text is merely a suggestion/guideline and as a matter of fact is NPOV, considering all I have done is add context and changing the personal knowledge such that it fixes the violations of WP:YESPOV. There are only two opinion pieces (which I think is useful for context) but the proposed changes still stand without those. As for your concerns about the relevance of the material, what exactly is irrelevant? His record and personal actions are important context— in fact, they are the most important pieces of information one must use when judging what someone’s true political positions and motives are. To drown out his record and criticisms of the same is nothing short of political propaganda. GGLLFFP (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Racial equality" section is very nonneutral. Rollout of Douglas Plan was subject of much criticism --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Buttigieg&diff=935161171&oldid=935141760 is an improper deletion. AmericannIdiot (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you review the talk page archive, you will find that this has been extensively discussed before. I'm not seeing any new arguments other than bare assertions of non-WP:NPOV and presenting the same few sources to support WP:UNDUE coverage of the material. There is also original research in the above proposals. for example, The Intercept does not say that Buttigieg was widely criticized. "Critics have derided his plan..." is not found in the cited source. Finally, we rarely use opinion articles, and usually never use Twitter for BLP content. - MrX 🖋 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, that is simply grabbing at straws. All of these issues in the proposals may be fixed with slight modification. That’s not the case with the biased current state of the section. And as I mentioned in my reply to your comment, it is certainly not undue as reporting his record is paramount to reporting his political positions. Not doing so renders this article a campaign bumf or even propaganda. GGLLFFP (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. - MrX 🖋 20:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly elaborate. GGLLFFP (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's my point by point rebuttal:
 * "Again, that is simply grabbing at straws." That's your opinion. My opinion is based on having read and understood Wikipedia policy for the past 11 years, having made nearly 100,000 edits, and having written nearly 200 Wikipedia articles.
 * "All of these issues in the proposals may be fixed with slight modification." Feel free to modify and re-propose them. That's what I do when I get pushback on my proposals.
 * "That’s not the case with the biased current state of the section." If your poorly cited, non-NPOV material can be fixed with slight modification, why can't the material currently in the article?
 * "And as I mentioned in my reply to your comment, it is certainly not undue as reporting his record is paramount to reporting his political positions." Not everything you want to include is "his record", and WP:DUEWEIGHT is determined by relative amount of coverage in reliable sources.
 * "Not doing so renders this article a campaign bumf or even propaganda." Nothing currently in the article resembles propaganda, and I would wager that most of the other 759 editors would agree with me. The small amount of campaign cruft can be copy edited or trimmed. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To your first point— it’s not a matter of opinion at all. It’s not a subjective topic. If you reject a major change for some semantic issues, that is grabbing at straws and is irrelevant to your experience as a Wikipedia editor. To your second and third, my suggestions are not “poorly cited” and (at least not nearly as blatantly as the current state of affairs) non-NPOV. Still, since I am correct in this discussion, I will play by your rules and strengthen my case further. Thirdly, let’s take a look at what I suggest we change: (modify the personal tone, report as claims rather than facts, indicate his record of campaign financing as context to his supposed political position, include his position on defense spending, include his actions with the African American community in his city as mayor, include some directly related context to his Douglass plan, which is central to the racial justice section). Including context, whether it paints someone in a negative light or not, is not undue weight as I have stated repeatedly and any attempts to indicate it as such are obviously biased. It’s not a reporting issue. If it’s something he has done, it should be mentioned. Especially if it has received substantial media coverage. Lastly, I hope said editors do in fact see it for the campaign fodder that it is. But, certain characters very actively oppose edits to that. Plus, one would expect that a page like this, especially during an election that the topic is contesting, would be rife with editors who may have a conflict of interest, and since this page is known to have a history of being curated by Buttigieg’s camp, I have no trouble believing the average conflict of interest of the editors would be skewed in Buttigieg’s favor. GGLLFFP (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe start with proposing a rewrite of one small section for practice? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should have done that. Unfortunately it’s too late for that. (Perhaps you could critique my new writings, though? Thanks).GGLLFFP (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are some improved improvements. "Buttigieg claims to be a “democratic capitalist”. In that vein, he has decried crony capitalism and proclaimed support for a constitutional amendment to protect democracy from what he calls the undue and corrupting influence of money in politics, although he himself seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign and is, as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires. He has defended this phenomenon by claiming that wealthy donors would be necessary in the general election against incumbent Donald Trump, and made the assurance that there would be no conflict of interest in his campaign or administration. He has entertained the possibility of antitrust actions against large technology companies on the basis of privacy and data security concerns."
 * Economic Policy section. Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/19/wine-cave-pete-buttigieg-democratic-debate, https://twitter.com/amiraminimd/status/1203821639131172869?lang=en, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/18/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-the-democratic-presidential-candidates/#13fd8e2b33f7, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-buttigieg-defends-big-money-donors-as-necessary-to-beat-trump/


 * Addition to foreign policy section. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/foreign-policy/defense-budget/, https://peteforamerica.com/videos/national-security-new-era/, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/pete-buttigieg/

"Unlike many of his Democratic rivals such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Buttigieg does not support cuts in military spending, instead calling to modify its structure and implying that he would consider increasing it. During a speech in June 2019 at Indiana University, he said “...in the coming decades, we are more likely than ever to face insurgencies, asymmetric attacks, and high-tech strikes with cyber weapons or drones. Yet our latest defense budget calls for spending more on 3 Virginia-class submarines—$10.2 billion—than on cyber defenses. It proposes spending more on a single frigate than on artificial intelligence and machine learning. To adequately prepare for our evolving security challenges, we need to look not only at how much we’re spending on our military but what we’re prioritizing.”"


 * Addition to health care section. Note that I have removed the part about criticisms for his plan on the basis of its ineffectivity due to complaints about WP:UNDUE however I think it should certainly be discussed upon and added at a later date, along with a mention of the recent Yale study which shows Buttigieg’s plan to increase costs. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/buttigieg-health-plan-hinges-on-supercharged-version-of-unpopular-obamacare-mandate/2019/12/24/415ae876-21bb-11ea-9146-6c3a3ab1be6c_story.html, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2017/live-updates/health-care/obamacare-affordable-care-act-definitions/what-is-the-individual-mandate/?itid=lk_inline_manual_6, https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/appeals-court-rules-acas-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-lower-court-to-decide-whether-rest-of-law-can-stand-without-it/2019/12/18/3443fd3e-c03c-11e9-b873-63ace636af08_story.html

"Concerns have been raised about its inclusion of a modified version of an unconstitutional provision that was included in the Affordable Care Act, which would land uninsured but eligible Americans with a large overhead fee at the end of the year despite putting the onus of enrollment at the start of the year upon the citizen."

"In the campaign material wherein the plan was unveiled, he claimed the support of “400 prominent black South Carolinians” for his campaign. Many of those listed were revealed to be white, and many of those who were black had not in fact endorsed his campaign, and in some cases, the plan itself. Around that time, the Buttigieg campaign was also leaked a focus study which accused undecided black voters of homophobia, claiming that was the reason Buttigieg was unable to gain their support."
 * Addition to racial justice section, appended to Douglass Plan part. Sources: https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/pete-buttigieg-campaign-black-voters/. I would like to see if I can find an archived version of the tweet and website.


 * Addition to racial justice section, new bit. Sources: https://www.vox.com/2019/6/27/18759807/pete-buttigieg-town-hall-protesters-police-shooting-2020, https://www.today.com/video/biden-releases-new-ad-attacking-buttigieg-78419525697, https://apnews.com/25351a0230aa4daba8a6badd6baba13d, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/18/pete-buttigiegs-biggest-campaign-struggle-earning-support-black-voters/, https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-lying-mf-trends-writer-slams-minority-children-comments-1474160, https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/pete-buttigieg-african-american-minority-students-074153, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/buttigieg-black-police-chief-fired.html https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/indiana/south-bend/, https://www.abc57.com/news/abc57-investigates-south-bend-eviction-rate-3-times-the-national-average-, https://www.theroot.com/pete-buttigieg-is-a-lying-mf-1840038708, https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-lying-mf-trends-writer-slams-minority-children-comments-1474160, https://www.newsweek.com/after-buttigiegs-past-comments-race-education-goes-viral-mayor-phones-op-ed-author-who-called-1474281, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-the-root-michael-harriot.html, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pete-buttigieg-faces-pressure-marijuana-arrests-black-people/story?id=68842579 (hows that for well sourced?)

"Buttigieg has been also seen some scrutiny of his treatment of the African American community of South Bend, IN in his capacity as mayor. He has been accused of sustaining a culture of police racism and brutality by firing the city’s first black police chief, Darryl Boykins, soon after he reported an incident, although he claims he had done so as Boykins had illegally taped that incident. In an ad criticizing his record, the campaign of Joe Biden suggested Buttigieg had forced out the city’s black fire chief, who resigned shortly before Buttigieg took office. He has also been charged by with ignoring the decay of the city’s predominantly black west side, and promoting gentrification of some black neighborhoods leading to rent increases and evictions. Comments from Buttigieg during his 2011 run resurfaced, wherein he accused a lack of role models as a reason some minority students struggle in school. After an article written by senior editor Michael Harriot in The Root titled “Pete Buttigieg is a Lying MF”, which charged Buttigieg with being dishonest about the struggle of minorities to receive quality education and the further struggles to reap its benefits, was published, its title trended on Twitter. Later, in a phone call with Harriot, while Buttigieg admitted that inaction by people in power was also a factor in inaccessibility of education for minorities, he stuck by his original claim. On their phone conversation, Harriot said “I didn’t think that Pete Buttigieg was going to dismiss or ignore black voters. But I think that in an effort to remain moderate, some candidates don’t want to be as confrontational about these necessary issues, because it does ostracize some voters“, mentioning that Buttigieg calling him brave indicated that he was willing to engage with voters regarding the issue of their discussion. In a speech in Denison, IA, Buttigieg said “What I said in that comment before I became mayor does not reflect the totality of my understanding then, and certainly now about the obstacles that students of color face in our system today ”. During the February 7, 2020 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire he was questioned on the increase in the rate of African Americans arrested on drug charges despite, by his own claim, the overall rate going down."GGLLFFP (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's WP:Biased to not include criticism of the Douglas Plan. It has been widely criticized for it's rollout - namely the fact that it named people as supporters who had never endorsed the plan..

AmericannIdiot (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have included that. Perhaps it should not be given undue weight and the thing about the accusations of black homophobia should be removed but surely it is directly related to the plan. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What biased or opinionated sources are you referring to? Also, please show sources that say it's been "widely criticized". - MrX 🖋 21:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The “widely criticized” need not be mentioned/emphasized. I suggest we move toward consensus regarding my latest proposal. I think if we remove from that proposal the bit about the leaked study and re-word the first two lines of the last suggestion it would be WP:NPOV. GGLLFFP (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like the discussion is dying out. Time to move ahead with the results of whatever discussion we had. (WP:WNTRMT/WP:WTRMT) GGLLFFP (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First paragraph: Twitter is not a reliable source. The tone of the material is a bit non-neutral. For example "Buttigieg claims" (see WP:CLAIM). “democratic capitalist” should not be in quotes. "In that vein" is idiomatic, which is best avoided. "crony capitalism" is WP:JARGON. "... as of February 2020, amongst the leading 2020 presidential candidates in donations from billionaires." is confusing wording. "claiming" again. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph: The second and third sources have nothing to do with Buttigieg. The words "Concerns have been raised..." needs to be attributed—something like "Matt Bruenig, head of the People’s Policy Project criticized... " - MrX 🖋 12:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, and some things to note: The twitter source is not text but rather a video of Buttigieg saying he will not refuse wealthy donors. Perhaps democratic capitalist and crony capitalism (they are both currently in the article) may be linked to their Wikipedia pages. Maybe the bit about the billionaire donors could be avoided for now and considered separately later. What do you suppose about "Pete Buttigieg says he is a democratic capitalist. To that end, he has decried crony capitalism ... ...seeks wealthy and corporate donors to his campaign. He has defended... by saying.." (Although I feel the second “claiming” may be appropriate). And as for the third paragraph the other two sources are some extra context for the Obamacare mandate which is referred to. And I suppose your point about voices is valid, and we should apply it to the last paragraph also. GGLLFFP (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't use the Twitter video, but there are solid sources that verify that he will take donations from wealthy donors, so that is easily addressed. Can you tell me which of the three remaining sources you are using for the following?
 * "Buttigieg says he is a democratic capitalist"
 * "To that end, he has decried crony capitalism"
 * "although he himself seeks... corporate donors"
 * made the assurance that there would be no conflict of interest in his campaign or administration"
 * I probably missed them, but I couldn't verify these claims in any of the sources. - MrX 🖋 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * points 1 and 2 are lifted from the existing article. Here is a potential source: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-socialism-capitalism-cnntv/index.html, Points 3 and 4’s sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-buttigieg-defends-big-money-donors-as-necessary-to-beat-trump/, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/19/wine-cave-pete-buttigieg-democratic-debate IIRC has some tangent about this. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wide criticism exists in 15 sources in this very discussion.. content needs to be re-added in some form. Edit content if need be but wholesale deletion would be vandalism AmericannIdiot (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Buttigieg by Rachel's English
In a previous discussion, now archived, I explained how Rachel's English, a dialect coach and phonetic expert of American English, analysed the way Buttigieg pronounces his own name. She concluded that /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (with a flap T sound), respelt BUU-dəh-jij, is the accurate pronunciation. With a true T sound, it's /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/, respelt BUU-təh-jij.

Though her video was uploaded on her official channel, it was deemed by some editors as "what YouTube says" or something. It's not "YouTube", it's Rachel's English, her official analysis, and I strongly suggest her conclusion, /ˈbʊdədʒɪdʒ/ (or /ˈbʊtədʒɪdʒ/), be added to the lead. Israell (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Important Information?
"He is the first openly gay candidate to earn presidential primary delegates from a major American political party." It's so painfully specific - is it really that important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.146.155 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC) ✅ That was added before Iowa's results were certified. It has now been updated to show that he won the most delegates in Iowa, which is more historical importance. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Youngest mayor is incorrect
Luke Ravenstahl became mayor of Pittsburgh at age 26 in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:B00:1820:DDA7:11A3:6736:75E5 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Pete knows some ASL
I just noticed a video of Pete signing in American Sign Language, which I think is significant enough that it should be included here. I was just going to add it to the list of languages he has some familiarity with because it's just as important as the others. Something like, "Buttigieg taught himself to speak a little bit of Norwegian, and has some knowledge of Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic, Dari Persian, French, and American Sign Language in addition to his native English..." Seems a pretty uncontroversial edit, I would think, but however it's added, I do think it deserves to be here.

It seems to be at least as significant as his use of other languages. From the Newsweek link there, one person said "my spirit was fed by this exchange" in ASL and another said in regard to it that it's "rare to feel this much pride in supporting a candidate." I was kind of surprised there was no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, especially since apparently there was a little narrative and exchange involved with the creation of Pete's sign name. So in addition to including it in the list of languages, another brief mention could even be made.

--100.4.152.81 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because he signed a few words, doesn’t mean he is fluent, or understands ASL. Someone that knows ASL could have taught Pete what to sign. If Pete were fluent in ASL, everyone would know by now. I guarantee if he was fluent in ASL, he would’ve reached out to the Deaf community for support. Paige Matheson (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Youngest mayor of a city with a population of over 100,000
Maybe at the time he became mayor, but not historically. Michael Tubbs became mayor of Stockton, CA in 1990 at age 26 and Luke Ravenstahl became mayor of Pittsburgh, PA in 2006 at age 26, both of these cities have populations over 300,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.139.70 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Second openly gay from major party?
It says “Buttigieg is also the first openly gay Democratic presidential candidate, and the second overall, after Republican Fred Karger, who ran in 2012.“ But isn’t he really just the second overall from a major party specifically? Like I’m thinking of David McReynolds, Dario Hunter. 2600:1002:B027:78ED:1051:DE3:3067:8F32 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gay President
Too much emphasis on his sexuality, its semi-public knowledge that we already had a Gay president so nothing worth mentioning there. The article focuses on his sexuality more than anything else, so please clean-up one mention makes the point! Merckaware (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be more helpful if you could suggest some specific changes to the article. Is there anything in particular that you think should be deleted? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Michelangelo1992, its not real clear what changes you want to make, what suggestions do you have to improve this article?MaximusEditor (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing – Slate article
Hello all,

It seems to me to be somewhat Wikipedia-worthy to include a section on the edits to this page from Pete Buttigieg's office, from the very start of the page.

It was much discussed at the time, and it casts a light on the practise of people altering their own Wikipedia pages.

The article is very well-sourced. What section does anyone think it could be added to?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/pete-buttigieg-wikipedia-page-editor.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellotapemaskingtape (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020
"Through his father Buttigieg automatically holds dual US-Maltese citizenship."

Needs a source. Source is dead. Remove sentence. 2600:8800:2C00:3CA:6552:722C:F9FC:C4E6 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, citing Maltese law is a bit too much of a WP:SYNTH for a biography and I couldn't find any source saying that Buttigieg holds citizenship. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Chasten Buttigieg
Shouldn't there be a wikipedia article about Chasten Buttigieg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.23.90 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020
Please change the Assuming office date from "TBD" to "January 20, 2021". Farbod Poorvash (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's Senate-confirmable, so it depends on when (if) that takes place. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ric Grenell
Please note that there are WP:1RR discretionary sanctions on this article at the moment, so it would be best to resolve your dispute (Special:Diff/994892517, Special:Diff/994912470) regarding the addition of a reference to Ric Grenell in the lede. I have no opinion at present. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020
Change President-elect to President-elect [redirecting to President-elect of the United States] in the first sentence. DanCherek (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅. See Special:Diff/995948816. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Master of Arts (Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin)
Regarding Buttigieg's education, it is worth noting that the BA degree awarded during his time at Pembroke College, Oxford entitled him to the traditional MA (Oxon) degree 7 years after graduation (see Master of Arts (Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin))). According to this article, Buttigieg has received the MA (Oxon). This should be listed on the page as an honorary degree. For context, all Oxford graduates with a BA or BFA are eligible for an Oxford MA if they are in good standing with the university seven years after matriculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.213.16 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an honorary degree. Some universities award a master's or doctoral degree as an undergraduate degree. If readers are interested in this they can go to the relevant articles. TFD (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Mayo Pete" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mayo Pete. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split
Would there be interest in spinning out Pete_Buttigieg to Pete Buttigieg mayoralty or whatever the relevant naming convention is? Article is 170k at the moment and I have a hard time thinking that readers are super interested in the details of Buttigieg's support for condos in South Bend. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * However, other than his presidential run, there is not much to him BUT his mayoralty at this point. That'd be like splitting off Richard M. Daley's mayoralty from his article. Would not make sense. Not even Boris Johnson, incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has a separate article for his mayoralty of London. While articles do exist (the complete list being Mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani, Mayoralty of Dianne Feinstein, Mayoralty of Dennis Kucinich, Mayoralty of Bernie Sanders, Mayoralty of Gavin Newsom, Mayoralty of Rob Ford and Mayoralty of Sergey Sobyanin) those are the exceptions, not the rules. And even many of those could stand to merge with their main articles. SecretName101 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GA comment
Currently the article devotes much more space to Buttigieg's mayoralty than his presidential campaign. Since he is better known for the latter, I question how this article is weighted. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His presidential campaign has its own dedicated article. SecretName101 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think a separate article comparable to the Mayoralty of Bernie Sanders would help balance this article. TJMSmith (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hesitant, but done. SecretName101 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg Cabinet Selection
Apparently we have a debate over whether or not Pete Buttigieg will be the first openly gay senate-confirmed cabinet member.

First of all, I do not know if snopes.com is a credible source. When I checked the site all I saw was a fact checking piece of information. The website is not a scholarly article and is not highly credible. I do not know why we are using it as a credible reference.

Another thing to point out is that the only thing the site fact checked was an error an article made Queerty Magazine. That still does not change the historic outcome.

If you would like I have found at least six articles that proves why Pete Buttigieg will become the first openly gay Cabinet Secretary if confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Buttigieg was nominated by President Biden for Secretary of Transportation. His nomination was historic because he was the first openly gay person to be nominated for a cabinet position. Because he was nominated he has to go through senate confirmation where the senate takes a vote. He is the first openly gay person to do that.

Secondly, There has never been an openly gay person to fill a Secretary cabinet position. Buttigieg will be the first to accomplish that victory if he is confirmed by the senate.

If he gets confirmed by the senate Buttigieg will make history as the first openly gay cabinet Secretary, first openly gay Secretary of Transportation, first openly gay person to be nominated to a cabinet position, first openly gay person to be confirmed by the senate and first openly gay person to fill a permanent position. Those are not lies those are facts. You have to stick to facts. On a side note he will also be the youngest cabinet member too.

If you want sources there are multiple outlets with credible sources out there that say that. I do not think snopes.com is one of them. It only fact checked one article.

Going back to what that article was talking about I believe it was comparing Grenell's cabinet position to Buttigieg's cabinet position.

If you want to be technical both are historical first. However, Grenell was not nominated to his position he was appointed by then President Trump. He did not face senate confirmation. Because of that he filled a temporary position that was vacated by a previous member. Grenell occupied that seat for three months until a new DNI was nominated after him. He was acting Director of National Intelligence. That is a cabinet level position but that is not a Secretary Cabinet position. We have not had an openly gay Cabinet Secretary. If confirmed Buttigieg will become the first.

I vote in favor of having an article discussion over this debate. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One comment: To answer the question you posed, Snopes is a reliable source. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well AllegedlyHuman, the point I think I was making was the type of information that the cite was critiquing. I read the information about the credibility of snopes.com. I merely only questioned it's credibility and now realize that it is a credible site. Once again snopes.com only fact checked one article, Queerty Magazine. The site only pointed out an error made by the magazine. I will gladly bring up the source again that was used. . That is a fact checking site and it only fact checked one article. It only correctly pointed out an error that article made. The article repeatedly made the same error twice about citing the politicians historic victories claiming they were both the first. This article however,, correctly explains the difference between their historic victories. That article also breaks down why Buttigieg's nomination is actually a historic first. Now before we jump straight to Buttigieg's front page article and mark him as the first or second. Let's have a discussion about this and as I mentioned before numerous times. This must be discussed because clearly there isn't a clear consensus and we have many different interpretations on his historic nomination. If you feel to object Buttigieg being a historic first then feel free to comment down below.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really indifferent to this entire situation. I just saw your question about if Snopes was a reliable source, which it is. Glad I could help. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AllegedlyHuman, I am not just pointing you out. You helped me realize what is a credible source. I moved on from that. However, I am still speaking out for everyone not just you. To have all wiki users comment and open up a discussion based on this topic.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021
Add the ordinal "19th" to Buttigieg's title of office as Transportation Secretary, to denote him as the nineteenth person to hold the office - as is standard practice for all U.S. Cabinet officials across Wikipedia. 138.51.248.16 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done: looks like it's been done now. Volteer1 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021 (2)
Pete Buttigieg is the SECOND openly gay member of a cabinet. Richard Grenell was the FIRST as referenced in the NY Post article: nypost.com/2020/08/24/first-gay-cabinet-member & per Wikipedia: Grenell was named by Trump in 2020 as Acting Director of National Intelligence in the Trump administration, making him the first openly gay person to serve at a Cabinet level in the United States.[4] He was Acting DNI from February to May 2020. 173.93.21.160 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between cabinet and cabinet-level. The DNI is not a member of the cabinet. KidAd   talk  20:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per, DNI is not a cabinet position. The distinction is already made in the article. ― Tartan357  Talk 20:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation question
I'm not sure about that, so a question: isn't Buttigieg also the first Maltese American cabinet member? Cassandro (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , apparently so, but I don't think the WP:RS are publishing that factoid. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Designate
It looks like a lot of the cited sources are saying Buttigieg became the secretary once he was confirmed. However, some editors have disputed this. Does he have to take an oath of office, or is he already in office? For now, I've edited the lead to make it consistent with the infobox's "designate" label. ― Tartan357  Talk 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The DOT website still lists the secretary position as "vacant", although I suppose that might not tell us much, as they're on government time. ― Tartan357  Talk 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I used to put up a struggle against those who would immediately update the article, as though the individual assumed the post, upon Senate confirmation. But, realised it was a futile attempt & so gave up on it. Now, I just go along with the inertia. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I'll do the same. Changes have been made in too many other articles already, such as United States Secretary of Transportation. I've changed the lead of this article back. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Checking over the Janet Yellen article. The practice seems to be - correct the assumption of office date later, after the cabinet member is sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021 (3)
Change incumbent SecTrans start date to 2/2/21 as he was confirmed by a Senate vote of 86-13 12.190.236.70 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There appears to be a dispute over whether the swearing-in has occurred. ―  Tartan357  Talk 00:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know who keeps putting TBD as the start date. My dude, you’re gona wait for an eternity if you want to see the actual swearing in. I swear somebody has a chip on their shoulder. Why are you fixated on a ceremonial event when the actual senate confirmation has taken place? Ahnaf.eram (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , is the user who has most recently objected. I am mostly indifferent. Please discuss in the above section, . ―  Tartan357  Talk 02:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The ceremonial swearing-in is not what I’m waiting on. We usually know when they get sworn in and then when their separate swearing in is. The issue is they do not start when they are confirmed (with the exception of a few people); they start once they’ve signed the papers and sworn in. Biden’s Secretary of State is a good example; he was sworn in on January 26th, the day heel was confirmed per the state department’s website. When a person is elected president, should we say they start on January 6th when Congress has confirmed the Electoral votes or even Election Day? Corky  03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLE
Why do you keep changing "Cabinet secretary" back to "Cabinet Secretary" without explaination? I've cited MOS:JOBTITLE, which requires the former capitalization as the modifier "the youngest" precedes the term. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Tartan357 I only did it once and that was a small minor error on my part.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually, you did it 4 times, but it's okay. Please self-revert. ― Tartan357  Talk 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I do apologize about that I changed it back. I was merely trying to fix my edits. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, and no worries. ― Tartan357  Talk 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

this edit violates MOS:JOBTITLE. Please self-revert. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert this edit when I added that comment because I've already used up my WP:1RR for the day. So, the incorrect capitalization is still there. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done! — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add   to your message. 21:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard Grenell
I think you might have missed the comment about Richard Grenell not being a Cabinet member. It has nothing to do with Senate confirmation. Director of National Intelligence is Cabinet-level, not a Cabinet position. It's not in the presidential line of succession, etc. ― Tartan357  Talk 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * made a request at RFPP because of your edit, but seeing as you're an admin, I don't think that will do much good. ― Tartan357  Talk 16:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I did indeed miss the earlier edit comment, for which I apologise. I made my edit in good faith, and did not intentionally ignore the comment. CLW (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo: Official DOT Photo?
On the DOT website linked here, there is a more professional photo of Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. I'm not sure if this is an interim photo or if this will be the one for good, but could I see if anyone else supports having this one become the photo atop this page? Thanks a lot Negrong502 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This photo is of a much lower quality, and it is the one which he has used in various social media profiles for years (i.e. this is not a newer photo than the one in the infobox, and may not even be in the public domain.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d second that it’s not in the public domain. We should probably be seeing an official Biden administration official within the next few weeks or so for those already confirmed. Corky  05:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering why it wasn't in front of the flags like others. Thanks for the input guys. Negrong502 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021
Please adding description that Pete Buttgieg is not only the first openly gay Cabinet member in U.S. history but also add that is the first Maltese-American to hold the post. I believe i find the description from 89.7 Bay. The purpose to adding description is maltese-american is make an evidence that he is an American with Maltese descent, which is never covered by mainstream world's media. Many Maltese media also places this description. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per MOS:ETHNICITY, do not include such information unless it is a significant thing as regards this person's notability. If the "mainstream media" does not consider this so, then its probably WP:UNDUE, and anyway Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Piano and guitar
This sentence was deleted as "superfluous." (It had four cites, available in the history.)

Buttigieg plays guitar and piano, and in 2013 performed with the South Bend Symphony Orchestra as a guest piano soloist with Ben Folds.

To me, this seems like something worth noting; one of the cites is to a review of his performance of Rhapsody in Blue, which is a technically demanding piece. It's on par with Condoleeza Rice playing piano. Samer (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've reverted the edit and instructed all in the revision history to participate in talk page discussion per WP:BRD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing that some of the text on this page is written like a press release or under the effect of someone close the the subject. The article does not include any conflicts or controversies. Not sure if this is notable enough but putting this in the talk page so that people are aware about either the subject or someone close to the subject has been editing the page.

Wikipedia controversy
Wikipedia Controversy: The Slate and several other news sites have reported that either Buttigieg or a close friend has carefully been editing and updating his Wikipedia page since 2010 which is strictly forbidden on the website. The editor goes by the username “Streeling” which is an old Irish word that means “wandering" and James Joyce uses the noun streel, meaning “a disreputable woman,” in his epic Ulysses, which happens to be Buttigieg's favorite book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readingfortheplot (talk • contribs) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors of this page are aware – you can see above near the top of this page some editors have tagged certain articles about this where it says "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations". Readers should be glad to know that the user you're talking about has not been editing the page for a very long time, and that the page has grown significantly since then, as Buttigieg's national profile has risen. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Party affiliation
The fact that he is a Democrat only becomes apparent about 100 words into the lead of the article. Such information should be introduced much earlier. Please keep in mind that en.WP has a global audience, many of whom are not familiar with (even quite prominent) American politicians. As time goes by even Americans might no longer immediately recognize the subject without prompting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ― Tartan357  Talk 16:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Name recording
Given how much difficulty many Americans have pronouncing his name, it'd be good to have an audio file of someone speaking it (or, even better, of Buttigieg himself saying it, if it's freely licensed anywhere). Would anyone be interested in taking that on? We'd just add audio to the IPAc-en. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image caption
Best place to come to an agreement? the good talkpage. Come on guys, avoid edit-spats. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The caption should be Buttigieg in 2021 per MOS:CAPLENGTH. Easy.  KidAd  •  SPEAK  04:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's settled . ― Tartan357  Talk 05:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To give you both a chuckle, an IP has threatened to take me to Arbcom, for telling him "This is gonna shock the pants off of you" at a George V discussion. PS: Check my user talkpage recent history. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've noticed that (I watch your talk page), and it is pretty funny. :) If it's bothering you, I think WP:RFPP would be the easiest remedy. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, but do follow his contribs. They're quite entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello to all of the users involved in this discussion. I have checked the edit history of Buttigieg's article (as this page is on my watchlist), and I came across this dispute. If I could provide a final opinion, it appears that both GoodDay and KidAd are correct in their interpretations of the Manual of Style. Because the leading image is of Buttigieg himself, it would be fine to not mention anything else per the Manual of Style: That being said, the leading image is a portrait of Buttigieg from a specific year (i.e. 2021). The Manual of Style also accounts for this situation: . There is no obligation to mention that Buttigieg's portrait was taken earlier this year, but it does not hurt to include this information. Given the validity of both sides, I believe that the caption should remain as is.


 * Moreover, as I have disclosed above, I have nominated Buttigieg's article to Good Article status. I would like to remind everyone reading this talk page that one of the criteria for a good article is that it is stable from edit wars and content disputes. If situations like this become too frequent, I worry that my nomination may fail even if the article quality is satisfactory. Please try to resolve any future conflicts swiftly and diplomatically on the talk page, as was done here.


 * Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021
Anne Montgomery was a professor for 29 years at ND. She wasn't a teacher. Give her the appropriate respect. 81.145.97.21 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021
I don’t think Pete Buttigieg was the first openly gay cabinet member of a president I believe Richard Greenel was. This information is wrong please correct. 2601:152:4300:9AF0:DC41:C1E:6D16:401B (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see footnote c. There is apparently a difference between a Cabinet Secretary and a Cabinet-level official Cannolis (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They welcomed?
Do you mean adopted? 82.37.67.151 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct - it was Grenell, while both are practicing homosexuals, Grenell gets credit for being the first publicly gay Cabinet member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:70D1:FA30:193C:E295:3A42:400 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Surname
Add a link to Buttigieg for info on this uncommon surname. It even has a pronunciation recording. But then you also need a US recording.

See also https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/malta-mayor-pete-buttigieg-last-name/index.html

Jidanni (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

In relation to the East Palestine OH train derailment
Regarding the 2023 Ohio train derailment, a new source from NPR says that the NTSB has released a preliminary report which does not give a concrete cause of the derailment, but gives us an idea what went wrong. [Https://www.npr.org/2023/02/23/1158972561/east-palestine-train-derailment-ntsb-preliminary-report-wheel-bearing https://www.npr.org/2023/02/23/1158972561/east-palestine-train-derailment-ntsb-preliminary-report-wheel-bearing] Unknown0124 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Wojahn
I'm looking at the "Relationship with Patrick Wojahn" section, and it's not sourced very well. I'm looking for sources more broadly, and I'm finding National Review, an opinion piece in Washington Blade, a passing mention in The Diamondback, and some other passing mentions. But I think we're running into a WP:BALASP issue here (we surely don't need a standalone section dedicated to this based off of the sourcing), so I'm going to remove the section. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Turns out, I've been beat to doing so by . In any case, good removal. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Train derailment
Can you tell me why Wikipedia allowed the creation of a special section for the train derailment when there are no other special sections for anything else that has occurred during his tenure as Secretary - the supply chain crisis, the Southwest airline issue and many others? It certainly seems politically motivated since it began with quotes by The Lever (a very biased political source that repeatedly tweeted an attack on Buttigieg for days using their own article - which was later debunked by mainstream media in several places). The section goes on to detail criticism by people like former President Trump, etc. There is certainly much new reporting by mainstream media such as CNN, Newsweek, and others that explains the derailment very comprehensively and explains clearly what the US DOT can and cannot do, the history of what happened during the Obama administration, the FAST ACT of 2015 that prevents US DOT from certain rule making on the railroads, and how real reform must happen in Congress. LibraryLadyJan (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems WP:UNDUE to include so much about it compared to other sources. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @LibraryLadyJan, on "why Wikipedia allowed", this an open wiki, most articles can be edited by anyone with an internet connection (though this particular article has a WP:GREYLOCK, making it a little harder). So the section was added because one or more editors thought it was a good idea. WP:BOLD is the law of the land. But there are other laws too, like WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Alfred E. Neuman
Looking for suggestions here... The article is missing references to Alfred E. Neuman, to whom Buttigieg has been notably compared. Also, no news here about the latest House resolution. Mr. Deplorable (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * A Trump insult and a MTG amendment that won't pass the Senate, which the House focused on rather than fund the government and prevent next week's looming shutdown, do not belong on this page. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS for that matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)