Talk:Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Censorship?
Twice I have provided a section regarding relations with people and groups, or as controversies in this 2020 campaign, only to have it nuked under the premise that it "reads like criticism", and then because it is "not particularly relevant to campaign, and controversy sections should be avoided(!)" Which is absurd considering the person is running for office and thus such is certainly relevant. Yet somehow this exclusion of criticism or controversy  in a article  on the  campaign of a  Presidential candidate did not apply in articles such as on the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign   (criticized for his military service record under "Campaign controversies"), and controversy and criticism of statements made by  Mitt Romney in his 2012 presidential campaign certainly seemed appropriate to include, as well as some in the article on  the Joe Biden 1988 presidential campaign. As did Trump's relationships with people and groups in his 2016 presidential campaign (meanwhile the article on the   2008 presidential campaign of  Hillary Rodham Clinton  goes on at length criticizing how the media treated her). However, it seems the likes of the below cannot find any place in an article about the Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. If it can let me know or tell my why such is to be forbidden.

Due to his position on some issues, and especially as a supporter of abortion rights[47][48][49] and advocate for LGBT issues and same-sex marriage, Buttigieg is criticized by many conservative Christians. This was particularly pronounced after he stated at a LGBTQ event that he wished "the Mike Pences of the world" would understand that if they have a problem with who he is then their quarrel is with God.[50][51]

During his first term as mayor, in the wake of a federal investigation into recordings by police that allegedly contained racist remarks by some white police officers, Buttigieg asked Darryl Boykins, the city’s first ever black police chief, to resign, and later demoted him to captain, resulting in charges of racial discrimination and a suit by Boykins, which was settled out of court. Buttigieg called for the eradication of racial bias in the police force, and has been credited with being being a valuable partner in advocating for the needs of the city’s black community,[52]while being faulted for a decrease in diversity in his administration as mayor [53] as well as in his presidential campaign events.[54] &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)




 * There are several (fixable) issues with your proposed content:
 * 'Controversies' should not be a subsection of 'Statehood'
 * Articles generally should not have controversies sections. See WP:CSECTION.
 * The first paragraph might be usable in some form, but it should be naturally woven into the structure of the article in a logical context, however...
 * Life Site blog is not a reliable source.
 * None of the other sources say "Buttigieg is criticized by many conservative Christians., but I think it would be uncontroversial to say that "Buttigieg has been criticized by some conservative Christians."
 * Most of the second paragraph is unrelated to his campaign. Combining an event that happened during his mayoral term with the apparent lack of diversity in his campaign events violates WP:SYNTH.
 * while being faulted for a decrease in diversity... as well as in his presidential campaign events is not an accurate paraphrasing of the CNN source. It would be accurate to say that some of his campaign events have lacked diversity and he has so far had difficulty gaining African-American support.
 * The passage "while being faulted for a decrease in diversity in his administration as mayor" is cited to one person's opinion from a letter to an editor. It has no place in an encyclopedia article per WP:UNDUE.
 * Perhaps you can propose a revised version here based on these comments.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * :#'Controversies' should not be a subsection of 'Statehood'

It was not meant to be, and would have been fixed, and that was not a reason to delete it.,


 * :#Articles generally should not have controversies sections. See WP:CSECTION.

But controversial figures can have them. Yet as per CSECTION]: "For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section," then   tell me what you want me to call the section where material such as mine would be allowed.


 * :#The first paragraph might be usable in some form, but it should be naturally woven into the structure of the article in a logical context, however...

This is about a politician,  a major presidential candidate, and it is far more logical to have a section about  relationships with people and groups, or a "reception" in it..


 * :#Life Site blog is not a reliable source.

Citation needed. It testifies to the cited criticism, but i suppose since it is biased and WaPo or CNN is not considered to be (though they are, and too often deceptive), then the likes of the latter would be acceptable.


 * :#None of the other sources say "Buttigieg is criticized by many conservative Christians., but I think it would be uncontroversial to say that "Buttigieg has been criticized by some conservative Christians."

"Do not say?" They are showing the criticism. You mean an actual quote is required, since examples will not do? And do you think the criticism has ceased ("has been")?&#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * #Most of the second paragraph is unrelated to his campaign.

That is frankly absurd. Read articles on other candidates. Of course what they did, often in detail, prior to their candidacy was relevant to their latter campaign.


 * Combining an event that happened during his mayoral term with the apparent lack of diversity in his campaign events violates WP:SYNTH.

Not when a cited article does it:  (But the rise has also led to scrutiny, including his ability to win African-American voters and decisions he made during his time as mayor that more directly impacted communities of color.)

To which could be added: "Buttigieg's handling of the tapes case, now that the small city mayor has vaulted into the upper tier of candidates racing for the Democratic nomination in 2020, is under not just a legal microscope, but a political one, too. And his handling of the matter -- along with the racial overtones of the case -- has raised questions about whether the mayor will struggle with African American voters, a key demographic in the Democratic primary.)
 * Please indent your comments using colons so that others can follow the discussion. (See WP:THREAD and WP:TPG).
 * Please read WP:OR thoroughly. Your comments show that you haven't completely grasped this policy.
 * If you want to use Lifesitenews as a source, you need to demonstrate that it's reliable and compliant with WP:BLPSOURCES. It's not up to me to disprove your bare assertion that it is reliable.
 * Mild criticism of a political candidate does not rise to the level of controversies. The demotion of the police chief was somewhat controversial, but completely extraneous to the scope of his campaign. Buttigieg is not really a controversial figure.
 * "his record as mayor has come under scrutiny" is not equivalent to "faulted for a decrease in diversity in his administration as mayor" as you wrote. Again, WP:OR does not allow for this type of interpretation. If you disagree, you are welcome to ask for outside input at WP:ORN. - MrX 🖋 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please indent your comments using colons so that others can follow the discussion. WP:THREAD says, "Use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to, plus one level at the end of the indent/list code." "Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed."  I did differentiate  btwn your section and mine  by  indenting what I was responded to one level. Due to your use of deep indentation via  colons and asterisks, I thought to  indent more  would have resulted in too deep an indentation, but stand corrected. Thanks.


 * Meanwhile its your interpretation of what constitutes original research" that is the problem. What I stated was what the cited articles substantiated.  The quote, "But the rise has also led to scrutiny, including his ability to win African-American voters and decisions he made during his time as mayor that more directly impacted communities of color" substantiated that his prior record is relevant, and which article  also links to decisions regarding race that he made as mayor, and which I included in  response  to your charge that  "Combining an event that happened during his mayoral term with the apparent lack of diversity in his campaign events violates WP:SYNTH"  And the CNN article also states, "Watching the @PeteButtigieg announcement from South Bend. Crowd seems very large, very impressive but also very white-an obstacle he will have to overcome," tweeted David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to former President Barack Obama and Buttigieg friend . "And by obstacle I mean deficiency. He will need to build out his coalition in a very diverse party."


 * But i suppose that problem that he needs to overcome does not qualify as "faulted"  the way you see it.


 * As for Lifesitenews, since you oppose the posting of it,  you should substantiate  your bare assertion that it is not reliable, in the specific context of attesting to Buttigieg being criticized by many conservative Christians, while   that was only one site referenced, as the other,  CNBC (NBCUniversal) also provided the quote by Buttigieg and his contention with Pence.


 * That you actually think "The demotion of the police chief was somewhat controversial, but completely extraneous to the scope of his campaign Buttigieg is not really a controversial figure" still seems to be  frankly absurd to me.  Again, look at some of the other articles on campaigns of the candidates and you will see how past controversies find a place in articles about their campaigns.  And besides being the first married, openly homosexual and looking to adopt kids   major candidate, if  supporting abolishing the Electoral College, the radical Green New Deal as the right beginning, and  expanding the Supreme Court  (besides “Medicare for all who want it")  does not make one controversial just wait and see.  But you can define controversial otherwise I suppose. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V
I have removed this material added by (and by the way, it's not censorship). My reason for removing the material is that the cited source says nothing about Buttigieg having "invoked religious faith in support of policies and social issues", so I removed that on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:V. While he questions Trump's and his supporter's sincerity, that is not a policy position. Finally, Buttigieg's criticism of Pence is not a policy position; it's more of a personal reflection. This material has been contested so consensus should be sought before restoring it.- MrX 🖋 16:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with this., don't edit war. Seek and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for any addition of this sort. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. the cited source says nothing about Buttigieg having "invoked religious faith in support of policies and social issues. What does stating "Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction" mean if not that religious faith  is  being invoked in support of policies and social issues? Does  not "progressive direction" entail  that? And if you thought that was saying too much, then why not just edit out "in support of policies and social issues" so it reads has invoked religious faith  as pointing one in a progressive direction? Or just cite it as in need of a more substantive reference testifying to  Buttigieg  invoking religious faith in support of policies, which can be supplied?
 * 2.  While he questions Trump's and his supporter's sincerity, that is not a policy position.  You mean that attacking Trump and his policies and conservative evangelicals  as being contrary to (his) faith should have no place in a article about a presidential candidate, or only under the Political positions section?
 * 3. I tried to obtain suggestions as to how such material could find a place in this article, but never did except for possibly a little. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what he meant by that, and apparently, neither does the source because they don't attempt to analyze it beyond the vague "Buttigieg... embraced a fraught figure in Democratic politics: God."
 * I didn't say it has no place. but it's not policy related. It's background information about the early stage of his campaign. What determine if something should be included is the extent of coverage and consensus among editors.
 * If you propose something here, we can discuss it and come to some version that covers the role of religion in his campaign, proportionally to everything else related to his campaign. I don't think that anything like " In particular Buttigieg addressed those who disapprove of homosexual relations by wishing that, "the Mike Pences of the world" would understand that if they have a problem with who he is then their quarrel is with God." belongs in this article. It's just not important in the context of the campaign. - MrX 🖋 16:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. I have no idea what he meant by that, "we need to not be afraid to invoke arguments that are convincing on why Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction" is broadly invoking religious faith in support of policies and social issues. As is, "When I think about where most of Scripture points me, it is toward defending the poor, and the immigrant, and the stranger, and the prisoner, and the outcast, and those who are left behind by the way society works."  But evidently you do not see that.
 * 2. What determine if something should be included is the extent of coverage and if anything has seen extensive of coverage, relatively speaking,  it has been the aspect of Buttigieg's faith and what it effects.  "and consensus among editors." Well, i think the consensus on WP would be opposed to this if it is anything but positive.
 * 3. 'If you propose something here, we can discuss it and come to some version that covers the role of religion in his campaign, proportionally to everything else related to his campaign.''
 * 4. I don't think that anything like " In particular Buttigieg addressed those who disapprove of homosexual relations by wishing that, "the Mike Pences of the world" would understand that if they have a problem with who he is then their quarrel is with God." belongs in this article. It's just not important in the context of the campaign. You mean denigrating evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics  just does not seem  important to you in the context of the campaign. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. We are not allowed to use original research. Feel free to try to convince other editors that your construct is not original research.
 * 2. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. As I said before, I have no reluctance to include same material about how Buttigieg has introduced his personal faith into his campaign, but it has to accurately reflect the sources and be in the proper context.
 * 3. & 4. I would not consider his comments "denigrating", but yes. - MrX 🖋 14:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no original research, only that which is substantiated. Contrary to your interpretation, "progressive direction" encompasses its policies and social issues, and claiming that Christian faith is going to point you in that direction is indeed invoking religious faith in support of it, including the social actions Buttigieg sees Scripture pointing him. As for the rest,  thanks anyway.  &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Vague statement that Buttigieg "mentioned his sexuality" at first debate
In the section on the first Democratic candidates' debate it is stated that "During the debate, Buttigieg mentioned his sexuality". The term "sexuality" standing alone is rather nebulous (e.g. the relevant definition at Wiktionary gives example sentences that are disambiguated only by inclusion of additional terms like "gender identity" and "gay man"), and it is unclear if Buttigieg himself ever uses that word. It would be better to either quote and source the specific words he used to describe himself, or use the more precise term "homosexuality".
 * Disagree. He is known as the only openly gay candidate. No need to belabor the point if it wasn’t much but a mention. If/when it becomes an issue quotes might be appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. It was unsourced and beyond obvious, anyway. He mentioned his sexuality and military experience. In other words, he mentioned his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg's False Claim about 400 Black South Carolinian Endorsements
The claim, originally reported by the liberal The_Intercept, should be included in this article. There's a reason that Buttigieg struggles with African American voters, and moves like this are worth documenting. GooodHousekeeping (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC) — GooodHousekeeping (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * , I read the Intercept article about this story and it does not support the text addition at all. That's probably because the Washington Examiner is an unacceptable POV source. The Buttigieg campaign never said the people on that list are black, or endorsing his campaign. The rollout seems to have not been handled well, but it's undue to include. No mainstream media sources seem to have picked up this story at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you show a couple more mainstream sources to show that is noteworthy? The Intercept is not a particularly strong source, and hardly liberal (not that that should even be a consideration). Also, where in the source does it say that Buttigieg mad a false claim? - MrX 🖋 03:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Intercept's a very strong source. How about this one? https://www.businessinsider.com/pete-buttigieg-falsely-touted-black-support-south-carolina-douglass-plan-2019-11 And he claimed he had the endorsement of 400 black leaders while 184 weren't even black. That's a false claim. GooodHousekeeping (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC) — GooodHousekeeping (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Or this source? Lots of coverage about Buttigieg's misstep - 1 sentence may not do it justice.. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/19/pete-buttigieg-leads-iowa-but-finds-controversy-south-carolina/4203610002/ GooodHousekeeping (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC) — GooodHousekeeping (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * More sources.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/18/pete-buttigieg-black-american-douglass-plan-kenyan-photo/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/mayor-pete-black-support-announcement.html GooodHousekeeping (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC) — GooodHousekeeping (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First of all, you're confusing Buttigieg with his campaign. Second, the Business Insider article simply repeats what in The Intercept article. I'm not convinced that this should be included. Let's see what other editors think. - MrX 🖋 03:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Business Insider article rests entirely on The Intercept article. An independent reliable source would be helpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The intercept article printed the truth. The truth was picked up by several mainstream sources. What did you believe that pointed you to untruths printed in the intercept? 172.58.227.108 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit we keep reverting says "400 black supporters". That is unsupported. The Intercept article says: "Three days later, the Buttigieg campaign began promoting a list of 400 South Carolinian supporters of his Douglass Plan in emails to reporters and posts on social media." Emphasis mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not been following this, but research shows the charge of 400 black supporters  is based upon inference, plus one email. The Intercept article itself  states, Pete Buttigieg Touted Three Major Supporters of His Douglass Plan for Black America. They Were Alarmed When They Saw It." And states, "The Washington Post reported on Monday that “Buttigieg persuaded hundreds of prominent black South Carolinians to sign onto the plan even if they are not supporting Buttigieg himself.” And as re. "mainstream media," if this qualifies, The National Review reported, three South Carolina black leaders — Columbia City Councilwoman Tameika Devine, Rehoboth Baptist pastor and state Representative Ivory Thigpen, and Johnnie Cordero, chair of the state party’s Black Caucus — all expressed misgivings over the way that the Buttigieg campaign featured their names prominently in an open letter published in the the HBCU Times touting the plan’s details.“We are over 400 South Carolinians, including business owners, pastors, community leaders, and students. Together, we endorse his Douglass Plan for Black America, the most comprehensive roadmap for tackling systemic racism offered by a 2020 presidential candidate,” the letter reads.... When reached for comment, Devine, Thigpen, and Cordero all denied that they intended their correspondence with the Buttigieg campaign over the plan to be read as an endorsement of the candidate." More substantially, Slate   shows a image of the campaign ad which states, "HBCU Times: More Than 400  South Carolinian Endorse  Maye Pete Buttigieg's  Douglass Plan for Black America"  and names 3 top-line black politicians under it.  Slate informs that "BCU stands for historically black colleges and universities—which is credited to the three prominent black South Carolina figures.

While Buttigieg's campaign ”never said the people on that list are black, or endorsing his campaign it clearly infers black support, while as Slate reports," When the Intercept dug into the endorsement, it found that two of the three top-line black politicians listed say they never endorsed the Douglass Plan, and that at least 40 percent of the other 400 individuals whose names are listed are white." And to add to this, the names were added by the campaign without consent, and instead they were just given the option to have their names removed, plus the campaign used a stock photo from Kenya to promote the Plan. Then Slate also reports,  a sharp-eyed Twitter user noticed that the email the campaign sent about the article to its signees claims that the 400 supporters involved are “black South Carolinians.” In response, in a statement the campaign responded with they claimed that  they  never claimed every supporter of the plan is Black "in any public communication. We never gave the impression publicly that these people were endorsing Pete, only that they supported the plan." NBC news  cites the Intercept, reporting, "The campaign also noted that 400 South Carolinians have endorsed Buttigieg’s plan for empowering black Americans, though some of them have not endorsed Buttigieg for president. So you all can do with this misleading blunder what you will, but  it must be remembered that nothing negative has yet to be allowed in the article. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s charming to pretend nothing negative has been allowed but that is patently untrue. Instead poorly written POV-pushing false negative information that has been inserted a few times has been rightfully removed.
 * If you’d like to propose content using only reliable sources, and written NPOV, I’m sure other editors will meet you at least halfway.
 * My impression is that this may or may not be of much significance but we’ll likely better know in a few days vs. a few hours. By then we may even have an official campaign response on what happened. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * a bit of an overreaction from El C / Muboshgu to pump to "admin only editable" here. Especially because Muboshgu's claim of "No mainstream media sources" has been debunked and could have with a simple google search. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-south-carolinians-say-buttigieg-campaign-misleadingly-touted-their-support_n_5dd188aae4b0d2e79f8eb357 another in addition to the 6 above. At least a dozen more when you search. Change some verbage if you feel it's necessary, but something should be said. GooodHousekeeping (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , for such a new user, with less than a dozen edits, you seem to be stunningly well-versed on how to edit here, as well as what sourcing is acceptable.
 * As such you are likely in full knowledge that if you want the content included it’s on you to suggest wording, and the best sources to include. We’re here to check the work, not do it for you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, "The local police union accused Buttigieg of making decisions for political gain." Well then something actually negative made it in the article, while at seen above attempts to provide much of any other negative, substantiated content have been censured. Including  his well-substantiated  invocation of  religious faith in support of policies, and  his  negative attitude toward  evangelicals (such as expressed in  saying the Mike Pences of the world should understand that if they have a problem with who he is then their quarrel is with God), and the statement,  "Buttigieg is criticized by many conservative Christians," cannot be mentioned).
 * The justification for this censorship is that it is  just not important in the context of the campaign, or WP:V,  meaning that the article was not from a qualified "non-biased" (like WaPo!) source, or that    favorite of all WP catch-alls, NPOV, meaning the article it did not exactly say that. Meanwhile, positive summations lauding Buttigieg are not a problem,  such as,   Following his heralded town hall performance and a series of well-received interviews with news media, Buttigieg was dubbed by CNN "the hottest candidate in the 2020 race."
 * Sure there has been some need for corrections, but there is an evident and discouraging biased resistance to anything negative. And I doubt this deceptive criticized (including by "non-biased" liberal sources) blunder at inferring substantial and notable black support will be allowed either. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * El C protected the page because of edit warring. And even though mainstream sources have picked it up, that doesn't mean we should include it. See WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM / WP:10YT. Muboshgu (talk)
 * Meaning justification for what is actually censorship is never lacking based upon the interpretation of some policy. Positive self-promoting quotes such as him dedicated to “fighting climate change, treating mental health and addiction, and providing caregiving for older people” are worthy of inclusion, but how would one fare one that once again attacks the legitimacy of the faith of the   "Pences and Falwells of the world"  that "such as it ever was, is going to collapse as a result of this alliance [supporting Pres. Trump] that they’ve made?" &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌, A WP:TLDR ranty wall-of-text is not conductive to working well with others. Please concisely make your proposed content, with reliable sources, or find something besides an encyclopedia as a passion project. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts User:Muboshgu.. Everything in this article's a recent event. Everything in this article comes from a news source. You keep using different excuses for not wanting the material included in this article. You admit at least now that your statement "No mainstream media sources seem to have picked up this story" was inaccurate? Logic for including this has only been bolstered by a large array of credible sources.. Propose different verbage if you insist. 172.58.227.235 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I struck through the sockpuppet's comments per WP:TPG and WP:EVADE. - MrX 🖋 18:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So now we have a "user page does not exist" that does not/no longer exist lecturing on working well with others, and referring to my paragraphs of substantiation- which should at least been seen as helpful - as a "wall-of-text " Or is it my last 2 sentence, reasonable critique that is dismissed as a wall-of-text? That is working well with others, meaning the censors losing even more credibility. Its over. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting an edit? If not, perhaps you would be more comfortable expressing these thoughts on your user page, or something. - MrX 🖋 03:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can close this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Daniel1212 can start a fresh thread with proposed content and reliable sources. I’m sure there’s no end to anti-Buttigieg topics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this article has but one actually critical sentence some would certainly be warranted, and my attempt was to provide some semblance of balance, but as that was only met to deletions I simply provided information that would enable at least a remark regarding Buttigieg's blunder, yet even that is discouraged. So instead this article remains another example of such resistance. Bye for now. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There's talk page consensus that something of the sort proposed should be added and you provided no justification for deletion. A good wikipedia's of life or death importance. 172.58.227.104 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus and you're a sock puppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

And every rationale you proposed has been debunked. Don't be another deadbeat. 172.58.227.104 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given the IP-hopping socks’ tenacity for disruption maybe the talk page should also be semi-protected? Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's usually only done in extreme cases of disruption. I suggest we just quietly revert any new comments from 172.58.227.* per WP:EVADE. - MrX 🖋 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I saw this comment, I had already taken the liberty of protecting this talk page. If you folks wish me to lift the protection and believe you can keep the block evasion from 172.58.224.0/21 under control, just ping me and I'll be happy to do so. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

South Bend shooting
The shooting of a South Bend citizen by a police officer is not really a part of the campaign. I have removed this for that reason. Articles should not be used as WP:COATRACKS. - MrX 🖋 13:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Plenty of news sites are reporting on that shooting and how it is directly affecting his campaign. They also are reporting how it sheds light on how his campaign is missing the mark in connecting with black voters. I think it’s rather dishonest to say it has nothing to do with his campaign. Numerous outlets have pointed out he won’t get elected without the black voters’ support. This shooting is being held as the prime example of the problem his campaign is having. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather see a section that discusses the campaign's overall issues with black voters, rather than isolate this or any other single incident. Sources like the Guardian simply say he's been criticized by the city's black leaders, without really covering the impact to the campaign or how it influences the nationwide perspective of black voters. The Huffington Post article is the usual robotic lazy journalism. I see nothing there worth using. On the other hand, this passage from the NYT article is useful:
 * . I'm sure there are similar feature articles about Buttigieg's campaign and black voters, which would be much more useful than cobbling together material from routine reporting about individual incidents and local criticism. - MrX 🖋 13:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick news search will turn up plenty of sources. As you seem to have an idea what will work and how it can be best presented maybe make a go of it? I think the shooting incident should be included but have a look at the reporting and see what you think. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to write something from scratch at this time, but perhaps I will later. - MrX 🖋 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My addition wasn't meant to be about just the shooting; this incident seems to have led to the coverage of the firing of the black police chief.  But now with the coverage of Pete's 2011 remarks on education, we could call this section "South Bend policing crisis and African American relations".  I had started with: South Bend policing crisis: On June 16, 2019, a white police sergeant shot and killed South Bend black resident, Eric Logan. Following the shooting, Buttigieg came under scrutiny for his management of the South Bend police department. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Buttigieg has been under scrutiny for how he has managed the police department since 2012, so that's not really a campaign issue. Referring to the shooting as a "crisis" in the context of a campaign article hardly seems appropriate. The shooting simply caused some criticism of Buttigieg, but in itself, it's not a crisis for the campaign and it's more related to his mayoral office anyway. Axios is not a good source, and this particular controversy involving The Root has not been picked up by mainstream media as far as I can tell. There are several solid sources that cover how the campaign has failed to connect with black voters, without the need to list individual cases. - MrX 🖋 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree "crisis" was a poor choice of words. I'll take a look at your sources.  Note that The Root story has been discussed in mainstream media.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Buttigieg has been under scrutiny for how he has managed the police department since 2012", so that's a huge campaign issue. Part of any campaign for the Presidency involves convincing the American public that you're the most qualified person to lead the FBI. Buttigieg's record handling the police department as mayor's the only thing that demonstrates his capabilities in that department. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think everyone agrees *something* should be added but we don’t yet have some proposed (and WP:NPOV) content to workshop and add as of yet. You’re welcome to write something up to start the process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I remember editing in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- seems like things are more contentious now Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t really matter one way or another, this article certainly didn’t exist then, so we need to deal in the present. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Page Protection Rationale
Am wondering the reason IPs are not allowed to edit this article or the talk page. While some may disagree with their edits, their points are well sourced and not original synthesis. Regardless, I feel Eric Logan should definitely mentioned by name and not simply as the slain African American man. Powerrranger (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The shooting and its effect on the campaign is already mentioned. There is no justification for writing about it at length, or including the name of the slain individual.- MrX 🖋 14:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Following the shooting, Buttigieg came under scrutiny for his management of the South Bend police department" is not writing about it at length though. And I'd like to edit this article. An argument could be made that the IPs who added edits to this article should not have their edits included, but no real argument exists that their edits were vandalism or written in bad faith. In each case, arguments are well sourced and do not contain original research. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , sadly it doesn’t take much to sour editing on an article. But the good news is that adding article protection has eliminated most of the drama from the process. Any good faith edits are given consideration. Start a new section with proposed content and WP: Reliable sources and someone will take time to consider the edit. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of NPOV content has been deleted though. This one -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Buttigieg_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=928286691&oldid=928285526 was extremely well sourced per talk page. And in another instance, a single well sourced sentence that Buttigieg has been criticized for his handling of South Bend police has far more meat than a lot of the fluff included. Sometimes drama - allowing different opinions the opportunity to present their case - is better than, as we call it in IT business, a dead IDF closet.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be true but it’s still exhaustive to deal with drama so this is the new rule for now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Washington Examiner is not a great source, but The National Review and Slate are better.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just start a new section with proposed text and sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Washington Post and Huffington Post are also cited on the talk page above. A new section could be a good idea. Any objections? Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There was also the well-sourced  issue of the  Buttigieg campaign's  misleading blunder re. the claim " 400 South Carolinians have endorsed Buttigieg’s plan for empowering black Americans,"  and the email that said these were “black South Carolinians.” As regards African American issues there is also that of the Washington Post awarding Buttigieg “Three Pinocchios” (its highest bluff rating) after finding his claim  to be false  that   he had “cut the black poverty rate by more than half” in South Bend, Ind. since he became mayor. The Post said that the actual figure was a 6 percent reduction, rather more than half. What Buttigieg’s campaign left out was data from 2018, which shows the African-American poverty rate in South Bend rose 8 percent in one year, to 32 percent. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That would seem the very definition of WP:Undue, try inserting Trump’s thousands of lies into his campaign article first. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, there is always a policy to be interpreted to exclude the negative, while the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign article abounds with such, from accusations of being a "bully" and a "pathological liar", to a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," with a section on his relationships with about 20 people and groups being included. Of course, he provided much ammo for charges, but there is hardly a comparison btwn that article and the overall infomercial on  Buttigieg as regards  resistance to much of anything negative being included. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You and anyone else are welcome to propose content, and anyone is welcome to further edit that content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found that attempt discouraging, but I do provide suggestions, and in that regard perhaps in time what should be considered is a "Relationships with people and groups" section, as in the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

H.K. Park email
A couple of weaker sources are claiming that one of the campaign's bundlers is dangling influence for contributions. In my opinion, this is not usable because the sources do a inadequate job of making their case. The Huffington Post is a marginal source, and Axios is pretty much unusable. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Participation in maintenance of his Wikipedia presence" charge
Speaking about making a case or not, then there is this from Slate:: "The evidence seems overwhelming that, despite the campaign’s repeated denials, Pete Buttigieg has had knowledge of, and at least some active participation in, the maintenance of his Wikipedia presence." I doubt this controversy would be considered worthy of inclusion but I will say the author did some impressive detective work. And at least I am not the only one who thinks the article sounds too much like a infomercial/too campaign-y, or at least that it was seen so.&#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the story documents an admin abusing their tools for political ends on top of everything else that apparently went down. Regardless, while worth a read, I don't think it's worth including here (yet). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sparse debate details
I find the section on debates as hardly fitting to even be called cursory, and provide no real  info to readers on how the candidates differ/conflict with each other. I added an internal link to the 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates but which itself is too brief as regards the latter. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost anything will be WP:Undue, and WP:Recentism, as well as boring, and unhelpful to understanding the campaign. The coverage is mostly routine. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, there is always a policy to interpret in support, but such inclusion is not that of  isolated criticisms or events, nor reasonably represent an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. And if such disagreements were boring they would not be part of major news reports, and  "understanding the campaign" by merely reporting debates took place but not what it entailed or substantively so  is what is boring and hardly usefully informative. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the campaign progresses more details worth writing and reading will likely be published. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

College tuition free for 80% of students. Next 10% on sliding scale
The article had old now-incorrect info on his position on college tuition. I removed it. See diff.

Someone with more time than me might update the article. There should be a separate section on college tuition and higher education.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * https://peteforamerica.com/issues/#HigherEducation
 * https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=buttigieg+free+college+tuition+for+80%25
 * https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/11/11/buttigiegs-500-billion-free-tuition-plan - "The proposal would make public colleges tuition-free for the 80 percent of students who have annual family incomes of $100,000 or less. The next 10 percent of students, from families earning $100,000 to $150,000 per year, would receive public college tuition subsidies on a sliding scale, under the plan."
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/11/12/pete-buttigiegs-college-affordability-plan-the-goldilocks-solution/#1158a8ca545d - "Public college students from families that earn up to $100,000 would not pay any tuition at either two or four year public colleges. Buttigieg estimates that this figure represents about 80% of those students attending such colleges. The next 10% of families, those earning between $100,000 and $150,000, would have their tuition reduced on a sliding scale."
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pete-buttigiegs-college-affordability-plan-is-actually-the-most-progressive/2019/11/10/f6c473e8-026d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html - "Mr. Buttigieg released Friday a plan to make two-year and four-year public colleges free for 80 percent of American students. Those hailing from families that earn $100,000 per year or less would see no tuition bills. Families earning between $100,000 and $150,000 per year would see their tuition costs lowered in amounts proportional to their incomes."