Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 7

Cmts re use of Version (4)
[Version (4) refers to this option for wording "mention of the SIF" after an RfC asking whether there should be mention was closed in favor.]

The Bowles article is not a reliable source — in particular for the phrase "still guides her" (quoted in 's insertion, et seq) at it is, as Xenagoras noted, "very vague and misrepresents what Gabbard actually said." Its meaning in the original is not at all clear. If intended there as a paraphrase of the paragraph that follows, it is a poor paraphrase. Its use here is misleading. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article in the New York Times says
 * The phrase "whose work she said still guides her" is equivalent to "she is influence by". If you have a reliable source that says the New York Times got it wrong, please show it. You cannot substitute WP:OR for WP:V. In other words, you can't take at a direct quote of the subject and use your own interpretation of that quote to negate what a highly reputable newspaper has stated as a matter of fact. If you don't believe me, we can take it WP:ORN right now. Since you referred to the article in the New York Times as "not a reliable source", shall we take that to WP:RSN as well? - MrX 🖋 13:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you requested, if you have a reliable source that says the New York Times got it wrong, please show it. The NYT claim that Gabbard says that Butler's work still guides her is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. It is not supported by the direct quote of Gabbard in the NYT article and is even contradicted in the very same article: The socially conservative guru Chris Butler. ... The progressive movement have always had their share of peaceniks [like Gabbard]. It is dubious how a "socially conservative" person can guide a "progressive" person. Other sources make the contradiction more obvious. "I was raised in a very socially conservative household with views and beliefs I no longer hold today. Like most of the country, my views have evolved." Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—“perhaps, a while ago.” She says, “It’s something that we don’t agree on.” Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee. A "devotee" is "an ardent follower" . WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, when you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source. The original document is the direct quote by Gabbard in the NYT article and I recommend using that in the BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see WP:OR says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” My comment concerns evaluation of article content.
 * What we have in the article is Bowles making a summary statement followed by the quoted material from Gabbard. Why are we not using the latter? Are you asserting that Bowles's summary statement is more authoritative than the quote itself? Humanengr (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: 1) There is no indication that one is referring to the other; and 2) The analysis by the journalist is far more encyclopedic than the musings of the subject herself. Let me know when you're ready to go to RSN to get some outside opinions about whether the NYT article is a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 21:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus to get into this topic, opinions of reporters with no expertise in Hindu spiritual practices are not appropriate RS. There are sources where Gabbard has spoken publicly in some detail about the guru dev role such as Yoga Hawaii Magazine. Humanengr (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave two sound reasons why Bowles New York Times reporting is more appropriate than Gabbard's reflections. Your response is to present a yoga magazine? Am I on candid camera? - MrX 🖋 02:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." What does "raised in part by the teachings of" actually mean? Which teachings? Which part? I was raised in part by the teachings of Lord Baden-Powell because as a 10 year old I attended a few cub meetings and recited DYB DYB DYB DOB DOB DOB. Of course I had other influences, many contradictory, and think it would be absolutely misleading to say that I was influenced in part by Lord Baden-Powell without providing information about other influences. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. Didn't some editors fight like mad to get "raised in a multicultural household" and "mixed ethnicity" added to the article? This material dovetails beautifully into that same narrative. Help me understand: is there something toxic about being associated with Butler's work? Has Gabbard ever spoken against how she was represented in the New York Times article? If so, that would be worth factoring in. - MrX 🖋 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not following you. I don't know what "raised in part by the teachings of" actually means. Can you please explain to me what the influence was and what part it was? Why do you think that mentioning Chris Butler dovetails into multicultural household? Since everyone has an ethnicity, your idea that we should include anyone with ethnicity would dovetail into adding anyone and everyone. TFD (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The full quote is in the green box above. In context, it means that she was raised in a multicultural environment, which included Butler's teaching, which continue to influence her. I think that's perfectly clear—every bit as much as "Gabbard embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager." (did she actually hug it?). For clarification, "multicultural" does not exclusively refer to ethnicity. Spiritual views are often interwoven with cultural background and ethnicity. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How does Butler's teachings continue to influence her? If you know we can put that in, otherwise it's just weasel-wording. I posted the matter to BLPN. TFD (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I suppose you could ask her, or the New York Times reported. I disagree that it has anything to do with WP:WEASEL. - MrX 🖋 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't know what the influence was but think it's important enough to include. It's similar to the types of statements Trump has been criticized for: “I don't know his father. I met him once. I think he's a lovely guy. All I did is point out the fact that on the cover of the National Enquirer there was a picture of him and crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast.” TFD (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it speaks to her spiritual background, and I don't view it as a negative. Other editors have supported this material as well (see archives). I'm genuinely curious why you don't object to similar material in that section like "embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager" or "multicultural". - MrX 🖋 16:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

They other things you mention are unambiguous statements. Stating someone's religion is not weasel-wording nor is mentioning their ethnicity. If asked what we mean, we could say that her father had mixed Samoan and European ancestry and grew up in American Samoa while her mother was of European ancestry and grew up in the United States. That would substitute for and elaborate on the statement about multiculturalism. But you cannot restate or explain the weasel-wording about Butler because it is weasel-wording. TFD (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But I did explain my interpretation: ("it means that she was raised in a multicultural environment, which included Butler's teaching, which continue to influence her."). Other readers could interpret it slightly differently, I suppose. I think we disagree about what is ambiguous, vague, or otherwise. Hopefully we can get more outside input from WP:BLPN. - MrX 🖋 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What teachings are those and how does it influence her? Dear in mind that unlike polemical writing, encyclopedic articles must be explicit in what they say and avoid weasel-wording. TFD (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is most definitely not weasel wording. The text in question is "She has said Butler's work still guides her." which is a directly reported fact from an impeccable source. So far, only one uninvolved editor has commented at WP:BLPN. We can take this to WP:ORN or WP:RSN if you think thing there would be support for your view that the New York Times erred in it's reporting, or that the material in the article doesn't faithfully reflect what is written in the New York Times. - MrX 🖋 17:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's extremely difficult to follow the discussions here. I can't figure out what "Version (4)" refers to...
 * The New York Times attributed the last bit to Gabbard ("she said still guides her"), rather than go into detail. In that context, it's weasel-wording. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * [ Version (4) refers to this option for wording "mention of the SIF" after an RfC asking whether there should be mention was closed in favor. Humanengr (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)]


 * What definition of "weasel-wording" are you using? - MrX 🖋 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." TFD (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From WP:WEASEL: "...phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." In this case, [the work of the SIF guru Butler] "still guides her" is the "vague and ambiguous claim", which "gives the impression that something specific and meaningful has been said", namely that Gabbard is somehow directed by SIF guru Butler. -Darouet (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is meaningless objection. You think the word "guide" will be misread as "direct"?? What?  SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange that you find this to be a "meaningless" objection, when so many other editors are pointing this out to you in other words, and when the OED states that most plausible synonyms of "guide" include "steer," "lead," "govern" and "administer." According to the OED it's not a misreading of accurate text, but an accurate reading of misleading text. Unless there's some other linguistic standard you're referring to?
 * Do you object to just quoting Gabbard directly on the issue, or do you really favor this one particular wording SPECIFICO? If the latter case, why? -Darouet (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you object to quoting the New York Times reporter's factual reporting? - MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , please allow me to explain the English term "to guide someone" to you: The Oxford dictionary defines it as, [to] direct or have an influence on the course of action of (someone or something). Synonyms are: direct, steer, control, manage, command, lead, ... have control of, ... supervise, oversee as well as advise, counsel, direct, give direction to, make recommendations to, make suggestions to, .... The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as, to direct, supervise, or influence usually to a particular end as well as to superintend. The Cambridge dictionary defines it as, to give someone advice or help on how to do or understand something as well as to control or influence a person. Xenagoras (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll need to explain your explaining to the NY Times, who are the source for that word. WP reflects the content of RS references.  SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I unfortunately had to explain the term to you, because you dismissed Darouet's objection that "Gabbard is being guided" could be misread as "Gabbard is being directed". And I have to kindly ask you to read WP:BLP, which defines various conditions and restrictions to the usage of material by secondary sources and self published material. Xenagoras (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, WP:WEASEL is shortcut to a page in Wikipedia's style manual that pertains to how we write Wikipedia articles. It does not extend to how the New York Times writes their articles.- MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's your obligation as an editor to write biographies carefully, which means that even with ordinarily strong sources, you don't abdicate your critical reasoning faculties, and strive to get it right. You have written above that you don't think the text you're proposing has negative connotations. Surely you can devise an alternative wording that avoids a potentially misleading claim. -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I have not abdicated any of my reasoning abilities, although my patience is on life support. This is very straightforward material that is not contested by any other reliable source that I'm aware of. I have not seen a shred of evidence that the New York Times misrepresented what Gabbard communicated to the New York Times journalist. No one has demonstrated that it is "a potentially misleading claim". We are obligated to stay as close the source as possible without plagiarizing. I'm not inclined to "devise an alternative wording" that will introduce something into the article that is not actually verifiable. This is not creative writing. - MrX 🖋 19:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:WEASEL states, [weasel words] may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe ... should be clearly attributed. The NYT claims that "Gabbard says that Butler's works still guides her", but the NYT does not prove that claim with a clearly attributed quote from Gabbard. Xenagoras (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources say. Adding or taking something from it would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Are you saying that the NYT is not a reliable source? ContentEditman (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I recommend you to read WP:BLP which gives basic guidance on how to write a BLP. Your claim, taking something from [what reliable sources say] would violate Wikipedia:No original research, is false. There is a long list of policies that restrict which reliably sourced material shall go into a BLP and how it shall be written. Please do not impute a general dismissal of the NYT to me. I never said that and I never meant that. Xenagoras (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also respect the guideline on usage of news articles which states, Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. And human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy. I have already demonstrated that parts of a human interest story about Gabbard turned out to be factually false . Xenagoras (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated multiple times now, if you want to claim that the New York Times erred in its reporting, you need to show other sources that have disputed its reporting and/or ask if the New York Times article is reliable for the content in question. You can do that at WP:RSN. We do not have a WP:HUMANINTEREST content policy, nor have you even made the case the NYT article is a human interest story. - MrX 🖋 23:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to doubt that the NYT piece is RS for this. "Human interest" is like when a chicken gives birth to a goose or when a man eats 32 tacos -- maybe coverage of the winner in a quilting contest. There is no basis for this epic and contentious denial of RS sourcing. If there were a valid reason to reject the New York Times article, it would have been discovered by now.  SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what our style guide says, which should be evident by my comments in this very discussion. ContentEditman is exactly right. The NYT does not have to "prove" anything or include a quote in their article. (Where did you even get the idea that that is a Wikipedia standard?) We trust the NYT, so our job is to write content that faithfully reflects what they have published about the subject. - MrX 🖋 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That standard is verifiability and WP:BLP has the highest standard and requires that editors must get the article right. Let's see how well your trust in reliable sources went last time, when you inserted factually false claims four times into this BLP and did not stop even after I explained to you  why it it false. The NYT claim that Gabbard says that Butler's work still guides her is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. It is not supported by the direct quote of Gabbard in the NYT article and is even contradicted in the very same article: The socially conservative guru Chris Butler. ... The progressive movement have always had their share of peaceniks [like Gabbard]. It is dubious how a "socially conservative" person can guide a "progressive" person. Other sources make the contradiction more obvious. "I was raised in a very socially conservative household with views and beliefs I no longer hold today. Like most of the country, my views have evolved." Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—“perhaps, a while ago.” She says, “It’s something that we don’t agree on.” Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee. A "devotee" is "an ardent follower" . WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, when you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source. The original document is the direct quote by Gabbard in the NYT article and I recommend using that in the BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of those policies say that a source has to prove anything. And no, your other sources do not contradict the New York Times. We've been through that already. See my comments and Masem's comments at WP:BLPN. - MrX 🖋 02:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline on usage of news articles states, whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. And because WP:BLP directs editors to adhere to the highest standard of verifiability and to do no harm to the reputation of a living person, I examined the specific NYT claim that Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her, and found it to be unreliable because it is contradicted by many other sources. Xenagoras (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the New York Times article has not been "contradicted" by many other sources. We've been through this before. Shall we go to WP:RSN now to see how many Wikipedians agree with you? - MrX 🖋 23:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the Bowles piece is not questioning the general RS status of the NYT. The Bowles article is not a news story, presenting specific facts about an allegation or incident. Those are the stories for which a source can establish a reputation for checking the facts alleged. Bowles’s article is a ‘human interest’ piece. The NY Times may have a general reputation as RS for reporting news, but policy says that does not necessarily mean a human interest piece in NYT is to be treated as RS. Per WP:NEWSORG: "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy ….” Humanengr (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument. You can take it to WP:RSN if you think you can find other editors who would support it. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no human interest exception. Please engage seriously or desist. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If the statement that Butler guides her is meaningful, then we should be able to rephrase it in a meaningful statement. For example if we were to say that Sanders was guided by FDR, we could rephrase it as saying that he intended to expand the welfare state that FDR had pioneered. But just say guided by could mean that he intended to reintroduce internment camps. As an encyclopedia, articles should be precise and avoid innuendo. TFD (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Asian ancestry
As far as I know, neither Gabbard nor her father have ever claimed any Asian ancestry, nor did Finding Your Roots' genealogical research discover any. Yes, the show's DNA test of Gabbard read "25.6% Southeast Asian," but that's just the category that covers Samoan ancestry. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gabbard's presidential website says, "As is typical of many residents of Hawaii, she is of mixed ethnicity. She is of Southeast Asian (25.6%) French and German (24.6%), and Polynesian descent—as well as a mixture of 9 other ethnicities." That appears to be taken from the PBS DNA test. Without context, the reference to her SE Asian descent is misleading because most readers would think of Indochina rather than the South Pacific islands. The reality is that her father is from American Samoa and like most Samoans of mostly Samoan ancestry while her mother is from the mainland United States and of European ancestry. This isn't a case of fake appropriation of ethnicity. TFD (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree also. This should be left out. It is likely to be misinterpreted by readers. - MrX 🖋 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * When you deleted the text, your edit summary included a question, "Your source is the Finding Your Roots DNA test, which read 25.6% Southeast Asian?" No, that was not the source for the text. The source was the first citation, Gabbard's house.gov site (not the campaign site), which states "A practicing Hindu, she is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent." For 2ary RS, we can include the Boston Herald which says "she … is a Hindu of Asian, Polynesian and Caucasian descent." and NBC which says "Gabbard, who is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent …." The question of confusion from the 'Southeast Asian' phrase is moot. Humanengr (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true but misleading. Her Asian ancestry was probably Polynesian. Fortunately, policy is of assistance. We don't include information that is unreliably sourced (RS), or requires interpretation (OR) or lacks significant coverage (WEIGHT). TFD (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't believe its relevant and also not sourced well/clearly. Sources are to ambiguous and I don't see her calling herself Asian. Its already listed that her heritage is Samoan. ContentEditman (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A nuance on foreign policy
The section now defines her controversy over the Obama administrations language re: Islamist terrorist as her criticizing them for the seeing the enemy as "Islamic extremists." While she mentions that phrase in the one clip sourced, that was not the gist of her criticism. Her repeated criticism -- many times on Fox News as well as (twice) in the clip provided here -- was that the administration did not define the enemy as "radical Islam."

This is precisely the nub of controversy, because "radical Islam" is a more more controversial phrase for the "enemy." It defines the religion itself as the enemy, rather than particular followers ("Islamic extremists"). I am going to change this to the controversial phrase and add sources. Msalt (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden is a candidate for president in the 2020 election. introductory paragraph
If accuracy is actually important and Wikipedia is not a mere tool of the gated institutional narrative now, please include the following sentence immediately in the introductory paragraph which is included in every other 2020 candidates opening paragraph. "Tulsi is a candidate for president in the 2020 election. "

This is patently absurd that this was allowed to be removed and that the page has been "protected" from including this, I think I'm about done supporting Wikipedia financially I might convince some others to do the same. Nymojoman (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already language in the lead about her running for president. "Gabbard's announcement of her intention to seek the Democratic nomination in the 2020 US presidential election made her the first female combat veteran to run for president.[24][25]" Did you miss that? Its also referenced and been there a while now. ContentEditman (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , assume good faith. Language like "tool of the gated institutional narrative" is not going to help you here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bad sources
We should not be using questionable sources in this, or any other bio. Sources like reason.com, votetulsi.com, and expression808.com are s few examples of low quality sources. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The other candidates’ bios follow the WP:ABOUTSELF policy of allowing exceptions to the strict RS rules when 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * I guess it’s time to escalate this as you suggested to see whether policy should be applied with parity across candidates’ bios. Humanengr (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Some of the other candidate's bio are in terrible shape. We should be using them as the prototype. We should always look for the most reputable sources for any material. If material can only be found in press releases, newsletters, blogs, primary source documents, or the subject's own website, it should almost always be left out. Any editor who wants to to include such marginally sourced content needs to make the case on the talk page per WP:ONUS. An example of where this is problematic is the self-sourced claim that she "led an effort to pass legislation to assist victims of military sexual trauma". The reality is that she only co-introduced it into the house. Also, the resulting senate bill has been criticized for doing the opposite of what Gabbard gushed about in her press release. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Reason.com, the website of the Reason Magazine, is a reliable source. There is a list of their staff: ., you have no support in policy for your claim about which material should almost always be left out. You wrote , we should always look for the most reputable sources for any material, but you inserted the same factually false claim into this BLP four times    although I had explained  to you why the claim is false and although you previously also inserted sources disproving that claim.  You never attempted to build consensus before inserting false or otherwise inappropriate (obsolete or non neutral) content, or before deleting pertinent reliably sourced content. You claimed to edit WP:BOLDly instead. Therefore don't argue that other editors have the WP:ONUS to build consensus with you before adding material. WP:POTKETTLE The policy which determines which true factual statements should be included is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Xenagoras (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Xenagoras, having a staff does not make a blog reliable. I'm relating my experience discussion that sources with other editors. Be careful with the accusations of bad faith. I added material that was properly sourced to Vox. Removing all of the anti-LGBT material or reversing the order in which it occurred is not the solution to fixing a minor wording issue. I don't know why you didn't you simply correct the wording as I suggested at RSN. By the way, several other other editors have expressed support for this material in the past. - MrX 🖋 02:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , having a large staff of editors, reporters, producers and directors defines a news media organization and distinguishes it from a blog. I have never accused anybody of bad faith. Stop lecturing me to not make accusations of bad faith. I raised  the problem of factually false information repeatedly being inserted into a WP:BLP and reverted your large edit series  because it contained too many policy violations. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Vox article issue was corrected as soon as you raised the issue. What other specific "policy violations" are you referring to, keeping in mind that most of our policies are subject to broad interpretation? If there are violations, let's discuss how to fix them, one at a time, (like we did with Vox) rather than just bulk reverting. - MrX 🖋 17:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You will have to understand when I am not enthusiastic to discuss violations... like we did with Vox, because that problem with Vox was an unacceptable "discussion". After you repeatedly inserted the same factually false claim into this BLP   and I explained  to you why the claim is false, you ignored me and did not stop, so that I had to drag you to WP:RSN. I suggest you rethink your approach of editing. Xenagoras (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you wholesale reverted all my edits, . Why don't we discuss the content, item by item, and see if we can come to a compromise or concession. Kind of like how I compromised on the wording of the LGBT material in the lead, and conceded on military service in the lead, Samoan-American in the lead, and many other such disputed items. And please, no accusations of bad faith or wrongdoing. We're all trying to make the article better. - MrX 🖋 03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , because you changed a lot of things that caused a lot of policy violations as I wrote in my revert summary: WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS AGE. Also violated were: WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:RFC (you inserted material without a consensus from the workshop that was decreed by a RfC). I agree that we should discuss each of the pieces of content respectively policy problems. You did not compromise on the wording of the LGBT material in the lead as you claim . You repeatedly removed         Gabbard's current pro-LGBT stance from the lead to leave only her obsolete anti-LGBT stance in the lead to misrepresent a living person. The community spends more time cleaning up your mistakes and educating you about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying someone is violating policy means noting if you do not articulate what they have violated. MrXs edits seem well written and supported, even on the TALK as well. ContentEditman (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with both editors, Xenagoras and Humanengr arguments. The sources are of low quality. BLP should only be using high quality sources(WP:BLPSOURCES) Also, challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus(WP:BLP).-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you wrote "Challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus." Then why did you just re-add the Equality Caucus material; the Gabbard-sourced "very socially conservative home" material; the Distinguished Honor graduate material; the self-congratulatory (and self-sourced) military sexual trauma material; and the intertwined material? That is exactly the opposite of what you claimed here and in your edit summary. - MrX 🖋 04:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the balancing stuff like Since 2013 she has been a member of the LGBT Equality caucus in Congress. and removed some weak sources like indianweekender.co.nz . I made a revert to whole edit that removed balancing content and added weak sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "challenged material about a BLP should not be readded without consensus(WP:BLP)", yet you -re-added challenged material without consensus. In what way does exaggerating Gabbard's role in in house bill that arguably does the opposite of what she claims balance the article? How does removing her comments about her zeal for fighting against LGBT rights balance the article? It seems like you didn't actually examine each of these edits and read the sources. It seems like you just pressed revert. - MrX 🖋 13:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I reverted to this revision . You need to seek consensus for your additions if they are challenged.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not ask what version you reverted to, since I obviously already know that. I am asking why you restored material that was challenged, without first obtaining consensus for including it? I even gave very specific examples that I researched. It would be awesome if you would please address the substance of my comments with respect to the underlying content and sources. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not ask what version you reverted to, since I obviously already know that. I am asking why you restored material that was challenged, without first obtaining consensus for including it? I even gave very specific examples that I researched. It would be awesome if you would please address the substance of my comments with respect to the underlying content and sources. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Alleged cooperation with the Russians
Gabbards strange actions have made other politicians including hillary clinton accuse her of working with or associating with the Russians. I think these claims are notable enough to add to the article. Flalf Talk 17:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not support the peddling of conspiracy theories and unproven allegations generated by political opponents. She has a security clearance, meaning she has passed a heavy background check. This is a biography of a living person after all.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, alleged cooperation, I do not approve of conspiracy theories either. I just believe the accusations are notable enough- just as alleged assaults are included on politicians articles. Flalf Talk 18:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use any opinion articles for this type of subject matter. The botnet angle is already covered (barely) in the campaign article. - MrX 🖋 18:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saw that, looks good, apologies for bothering. I just thought it warranted a mention. Flalf Talk 18:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's already mentioned under Tulsi Gabbard. I suggest you read the article before making recommendations. TFD (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, I noticed, sorry to bother. Flalf Talk 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for discussion
one time and  two times   fully reinstated challenged BLP material    without explaining or discussing it. Large parts of that material had already been challenged with detailed explanation  earlier. This time around, I again explained that the insertion  of factually false claims  into the LGBT section violates WP:V. And I again explained  that deleting  Gabbard's Congressional pro-LGBT activities from the lead violates WP:RS AGE. I explained   that the insertion  of previously challenged "SIF" material into the early life and family section by falsely claiming there were consensus for it, although the RfC-workshop to create wording for that material closed with "no consensus" for that text  violates WP:RFC and WP:CON and WP:BLP. Previously I explained  that the addition  of too much detailed material about obsolete political stances from ca 20 years ago into the LGBT section violates WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS AGE. The deletion of pertinent reliably sourced material from the military service section via claiming it were "not independently sourced" violates WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Sources from the first page of Google results:. Xenagoras (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * With 26 diffs, this is very difficult to respond to, but I will try.


 * I have extensively discussed the material related to the first nine diffs in following three sections:, and  having made 35 comments justifying my edits, responding to questions, and rebutting arguments. I am willing to continue any of those three discussions, in the appropriate sections above. Challenging material is fine, but your challenge has not resulted in a consensus for your position. If anything, there are more people who support my edits than not. The same is true of the discussion at WP:BLPN in which I made 5 comments.


 * The 10th diff relates to content that was corrected when it was pointed out the impossibility of Vox's reporting. I corrected it within three hours of being alerted to the issue. That didn't stop you from wholesale reverting 11 edits of mine that I carefully worked on over the course of about 30 minutes.


 * In the next three diffs, you accuse me of "trying to damage her image" and changing "a lot of things that caused a lot of policy violations", and you accused ContentEditman of "grossly misrepresent Warren's article".


 * In the next four diffs, you repeat some of the same diffs and rehash material discussed in three previous sections. Following the 17th diff, you accuse me of "falsely claiming there were consensus for it". What I actually wrote is "I believe this version (4) has the most support of all the versions discussed." The 18th diff shows that none of the versions has consensus, but there is also an RfC on which consensus was found for adding material related to SIF.


 * In your 19th diff, you accuse me of "grossly misrepresents Gabbard's stance on LGBT issues", which a personal attack in that it attributes malfeasance to my editing. In your 20th diff you claim a violation of WP:AGE MATTERS does not apply to Gabbard's politicl history which has been documented throughout her political career. The older material has specifically been reintroduced by source since Gabbard announced her presidential campaign. The idea that we would omit Gabbard's previous anti-LGBT activism and lobbying because she has recently changed her position is not grounded in Wikipedia policy or best practices for writing biographies. See WP:WELLKNOWN. I dispute that the alphabet soup of WP:SUMMARY, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS AGE applies.


 * The 22nd diff requires and independent source. It is unduly self-serving. Feel free to re-add it to the article with the ABC or CNN source. - MrX 🖋 15:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * While it is fine to mention the political positions Gabbard held in her teens and twenties, it is misleading to imply that she holds those views today. You are perfectly justified in providing sources that Gabbard secretly holds socially conservative views etc. so long as those sources explicitly make that connection. See Queens, NY English Society: "Explicit means something is made clear and stated plainly. Implicit means something is implied but not stated directly." All statements made in articles should be explicit. TFD (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this relates to the 26 diffs. Are you referring to a specific sentence in the article? - MrX 🖋 16:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think my posting is pretty clear to anyone who reads it. If you have difficulty following it, I apologize, but I don't think further elaboration will resolve the problem. TFD (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much a question of clarity as much as it was a question of applicability to the topic of discussion. - MrX 🖋 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said before MrXs edits were well written and supported. You, Xenagoras, said it violated just about every rule at Wikipedia. When I asked you to explain what and how it violated you never responded with anything supporting your claims. ContentEditman (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you think MrXs edits were well written and supported. TFD (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * His edits were well sourced and topics that were brought up when she announced she was running for president. When you put yourself out in the national spotlight people will look into your life in more detail. The topics were major ones that first popped up and some that defined her campaign and where she came from. They were also discussed on the talk page as well. So this is not new, just 1 editor is not happy they did not get their way and even violated WP:CANVAS. ContentEditman (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you did neither notice the many times I explained the problems with MrX' edits before you began cloning them, nor did you notice that many more than just 1 editor was not happy with MrX'/your edits. And if you are so convinced by MrX' explanations for his edits, then I remind you that you still did not yet respond to my objections. I am going to write each of them in more detail and then I will be awaiting your response to each of them. Xenagoras (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ContentEditman, it appears to me that did not notice my previous objections which can be read among my earlier comments on the article talk page . Every editor has the responsibility to justify his edits by himself when being challenged. Xenagoras (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Every editor has the responsibility to justify his edits by himself when being challenged" That's good to know. Let's start with your edits: . Please justify adding LGBT Equality caucus to the lead. Please justify adding her comments about her "very socially conservative home", with the "values and beliefs" of her outspoken activist parents. Also, please justify removing her association with Chris Butler and the four corroborating sources. Then if you could please justify restoring 'Distinguished Honor graduate' material with a press release as a source. Also, why did you restore material about the Military Justice Improvement Act that is contrary to what was reported in independent sources? Please justify adding her poorly sourced (and completely WP:UNDUE comments about intertwined budget issues. Then if you could kindly explain why you made her anti-LGBT lobbying seem like a good thing, by removing material about how much money was spent by her PAC and her bragging about fighting against LGBT rights. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the amount of material under dispute needs to be presented and discussed in an orderly and thorough way. Therefore I suggest we make one sub section with number+name for each issue in this section. I will create these if you agree. Xenagoras (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I would be fine discussing each item separately. - MrX 🖋 23:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

you two times  fully reinstated challenged  WP:BLP material without explaining it or discussing it. I have been waiting for your response to my objections for additional 6 days now. Please respond to the following list of problems with the article. I want to learn your reasons for you making the changes listed below. Xenagoras (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

§1 LGBT section: inserting unsourced text
, you inserted, In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, Gabbard emphasized her role in getting a constitutional amendment passed that made same-sex marriage illegal in Hawaii and vowed to "bring that attitude of public service to the legislature", which violates WP:V. Already on 19 January I gave a detailed explanation why Gabbard never made such a vow. I also explained it at WP:RSN and on talk. Xenagoras (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 12:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we consider this resolved? - MrX 🖋 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 12:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we consider this resolved? - MrX 🖋 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 12:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we consider this resolved? - MrX 🖋 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 12:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we consider this resolved? - MrX 🖋 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we consider this resolved? - MrX 🖋 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. Looking first just at the first source (in time order): CNN has as title, "Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy". That is supported neither by the body of the article nor by Gabbard's statement. Humanengr (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

§2 Lead: deleting pro-LGBT activities
, you deleted Gabbard's pro-LGBT activities (Since 2013 she has been a member of the LGBT Equality caucus in Congress) from the lead so that only her anti-LGBT activities until 2004 remained. Already on 15 January I explained why this violates WP:RS AGE. And WP:BITR gives an explanation why this is not acceptable. A reader unfamiliar with the topic gets from this article's lead that Gabbard is anti-LGBT, which is misleading the reader. I repeatedly raised this problem. See also WP:BALASP Xenagoras (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not lead worthy. Feel free to show that this has received such a huge amount of coverage in prominent sources that we simply must consider it as a significant point, per WP:LEAD. - MrX 🖋 12:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

§3 Early life and family section: inserting SIF material
, I explained   that the WP:RFC on what material related to the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) shall be inserted had closed with no consensus, and inserting such material without consensus violates WP:CON and WP:BLP. I made a text proposal at WP:BLPN. Xenagoras (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is consensus to include material about SIF.on Science of Identity Foundation and there was more support (three in favor) for including the current material than any other version proposed. Elsewhere in the archives, there are additional editors support very similar wording. Also, the RFC was specific about mentioning Chris Butler. - MrX 🖋 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

§4 LGBT section: inserting too much (especially obsolete) material
, beginning on 15 January and again on 19 January I explained  why we must not have too much material in the LGBT section. The Political positions section of this article is not supposed to contain everything Gabbard ever said or did, especially because this section has to be a brief summary, because otherwise it would be a redundant fork of the content on the spun out article. And we have to consider the weight of material from before 2012 vs after 2012, because Gabbard's stance from before 2012 is obsolete. See also the reasons I gave in §2 (mainly WP:RS AGE, WP:BITR and WP:BALASP). Xenagoras (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gabbard is notable in large part because of her significant flip on LGBT issues. Her stark position against LGBT rights are not to be removed from her biography simply because she articulated a new and improved position after she decided to pursue higher office. What we have in this article is a summary of her history of lobbying, activism, and publicly commenting about "homosexual extremists". By the way, a bunch of shortcuts to sections of policies and guidelines does not an argument make. - MrX 🖋 12:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

§5 Military service section: deleting her graduation with Distinguished Honor
, this material can easily be reliably sourced. Deleting it instead of taking the sources from the first page of Google search results     violates WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. You could also have asked other editors to insert sources via adding the WP:CITENEED tag. Xenagoras (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you not create sections for the disputed content that you inserted into the article? The problem as I see it is editors who are very focused on the article subject have been removing content from the LGBT section claim that it's "obsolete". The history of a biography subject does not become obsolete when they decide to pursue a higher political office. That would mess up NPOV. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I (and others) have raised objections against the changes listed above since mid January and want to read ContentEditman's reasons for repeatedly making these changes. Below are the other issues: Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I and other editors have raised objections to the content that I highlighted above. If you plan not to justify your edits in good faith, I don't see much being accomplished here. - MrX 🖋 12:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

§6 Early life and family section: deleting reference to conservative values of parents
, Gabbard has said that she was raised in a "very socially conservative home", with the "values and beliefs" of her outspoken activist parents should be in the article, because it is an important information to understand the history of Gabbard's social stance, especially on same-sex marriage. It explains why at age 17, Gabbard began working for the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, an anti-gay political action committee her father founded. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to fail WP:DUEWEIGH. A single newspaper article from eight years ago, quoting the subject's opinion about how she was raised is not automatically encyclopedic. In fact, this article you cited does not even contain that quote. The only thing useful in that article is already in this article: - MrX 🖋 12:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

§7 Political career: deleting reference to Military Justice Improvement Act
, Gabbard co-sponsored H.R.2016 - Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, and has worked with Senator Gillibrand to get this law passed. In 2019, Gabbard emphasized the need for this legislation to be passed. Therefore we should write, "She co-sponsored the house version of the Military Justice Improvement Act and together with Senator Gillibrand she advocated for passage of this legislation.  " Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Xenagoras, please respond to my previous previous objections about the unintended consequences of this bill and how its final form arguably accomplished the opposite of what Gabbard touted. Also, would you please steer clear of primary sources and low quality sources? - MrX 🖋 12:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

§8 Political positions: deleting intertwined domestic and military budgeting
, the source you deleted goes into detail about how the civilian and military parts of the federal budget are intertwined - meaning: they are both contending for the same pool of taxpayer money. In hundreds of town halls, as well as in her Christmas message, Gabbard talked about the interdependence of civilian and military funding and the need for shifting resources towards civilian purposes. The Guardian calls Gabbard's "central theme" ending wars and diverting military funding to social programs. Politico describes this policy as advocating deep cuts in the Pentagon budget in order to pay for what they consider more important domestic programs or diplomatic initiatives. See also, ,. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the Politico article her views on military spending are indistinct from six other candidates. Just say that she favors cutting military spending like most other democrats. We don't need to use her fancy words to explain the obvious fact that U.S. defense budget is part of the overall U.S. budget. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

§9 LGBT section: "make anti-LGBT lobbying seem like a good thing"?
,, WP:BLPSTYLE states, BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner..., summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources... That's what I did and why I wrote, As a Hawaii state legislator in 2004, Gabbard opposed and protested against Hawaii House Bill 1024, which would have established legal parity between same-sex couples in civil unions and married straight couples. The bill was defeated. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, your wording was horrible. That's a consequence of what appears to be cherry picking sources rather than using the high quality national sources that have thoroughly research the subject and reported on it objectively. We have discussed this before. - MrX 🖋 12:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

§10 LGBT section: inserting Alliance for Traditional Marriage PAC
, you complained about me removing info about, how much money was spent by her [Alliance for Traditional Marriage] PAC. The source used for this claim states that this was not her PAC, but Mike Gabbard's PAC (which makes this "info" also a WP:COATRACK). This is just one more case of MrX and ContentEditman inserting obviously factually false information into Gabbard's BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you think the problem is here. This is what the source says:
 * She worked on behalf of the PAC
 * The PAC spent $100k fighting against LGBT rights
 * She later bragged about it (See: ). - MrX 🖋 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * She later bragged about it (See: ). - MrX 🖋 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

'Voted' and 'lobbied' against same-sex marriage
Your edit summary for your revert pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard#LGBT_rights. The text there does not say Gabbard 'voted' or 'lobbied' against same-sex marriage and so do does not support your reversion. Kindly explain or undo your revert. Humanengr (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, Gabbard emphasized her role in getting a constitutional amendment passed that made same-sex marriage illegal in Hawaii and vowed to "bring that attitude of public service to the legislature". As a Hawaii state legislator in 2004, Gabbard argued against civil unions, saying, "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."[235][236] She opposed Hawaii House Bill 1024, which would have established legal parity between same-sex couples in civil unions and married straight couples, and led a protest against the bill outside the room where the House Judiciary Committee held the hearing.[237] The same year she opposed research on LGBT students[238] and disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination.[239]" She lobbied to get a constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage illegal, and she voted against legislation to afford rights to gay individuals in civil unions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your quoted text is not the current version. Neither your quoted text nor the current body text includes the words 'voted' or 'lobbied'. Your unquoted sentence that follows the quote does not cite any sources. Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see now you did quote the current version — but omitted the cites at the end of your first sentence. In any case, the issue remains: that text does not include the words 'voted' or 'lobbied'. And your unquoted sentence that follows the quote does not cite any sources. Humanengr (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to respond? Humanengr (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely nothing to respond to. You claim that the section does not contain votes and lobbying against same-sex marriage rights, yet it clearly does so to anyone with a basic reading comprehension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been removed from the lead even though it is covered in the body of the article. I'm putting it back. - MrX 🖋 10:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing an external link
The current version of the article has an external link about wedding ceremonies which I'm not sure belongs there. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "false and later corrected stories"
I'm concerned that changing the wording from "false and later corrected stories" to "reports" changes the pov. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Link cleanup
Why did you revert my edit? I think you may have accidentally rolled back past it. I removed a link to a page that no longer exists, which is perfectly reasonable. ― Tartan357  Talk 11:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored my edit. 24 hours are up, and my edit was almost certainly mistakenly caught in a vandalism rollback. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Who decides what a policy issue is?
One of her most notable public policy stances relates to surveillance and privacy/Snowden, etc. This was removed due to the topic being "not a policy position". What is the approved list of policy position topics? And if surveillance/privacy, or technology, are not included as core public issues upon which we want to understand a politicna's stance, should this list be revisited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitpenny2001 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , so I had to peer back into the page history of May 2019 to find what you are talking about (next time, please include diffs). removed this for no particular reason. If he felt it was not "policy" then he could have moved it to another section. It feels enough like policy to me. It is WP:DUE being cited to a reliable secondary source. I see no reason to exclude it from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Re-adding LGBTQ policy details
Right now the article's summary includes details about Gabbard's history on LGBTQ rights/policy, but crucially leaves out the recent 'protecting women's sports act', which is only mentioned later in the article. The summary as it is now gives an incomplete picture, so this detail should be added. There are now plenty of verifiable/trustworthy sources that have reported on this, and LGBTQ rights groups are now commenting on the bill, so it's definitely not too early to add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:CE00:32F4:91D:5701:FEAA:A168 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Commas
personally, I feel that the commas you deleted were very helpful. Very often, we tend to write articles in breathless, run-on sentences, and it always helps to go back slowly, read them out loud, and add commas where pauses are appropriate. These were appropriate pause commas. I sincerely hope you will consider adding them back in, for readability's sake. Elizium23 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * C'mon, commas like this don't benefit anyone... they just look silly:


 * Her mother was born in Indiana, and grew up in Michigan.


 * It passed Congress, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama.


 * Bills she has introduced include: the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act.


 * On March 19, 2020, Gabbard dropped out of the 2020 election, and endorsed Vice President Joe Biden.


 * --Jamesy0627144 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tulsi Gabbard, official portrait, 113th Congress.jpg

"First female combat veteran"
I see that has reverted my removal of a description of Gabbard as the first female combat veteran to run for president. I don't see how this is a notable distinction; it reads to me as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization (see WP:NOTDIR). I mean, Kamala Harris was the first female former attorney general of California to run for president, but that's not in the lead of her article because it's not a distinguishing or defining feature of her candidacy. I would suggest removing the analogous description here as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with and will support removing this trivia. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @ : I did not revert the removal from the lead. I included the material in the section about her '2020 presidential campaign'. The information was notable by the reference from ABC news, and it is not a list or directory, so I fail to see how WP:NOTDIR is relevant. Concerning the Kamala Harris article; in the 'Vice presidential campaign' section it states, "She was the first African American, the first Indian American, and the third woman after Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin to be picked as the vice-presidential nominee for a major party ticket." That is similar to the 'first' achived by Gabbard. It should be included based on the similarities to the Harris article, and by reason it is simply an interesting fact. Ward20 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, seems I misread the diffs. No particular objection to putting it in the body, I guess; I just have an allergy to sentences of the form "X is the first Y to Z". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"Gabbard lost political clout"
There is a repeated entry of a claim made in an Indian newspaper that Gabbard "lost political clout" due to her links to Indian political organisations. This is a spurious assertion since there is no justification provided in the cited news article. There is no proof given on the claim and is merely re-stated with no source provided. Following the guideline that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" we need to remove this poorly cited line about her political clout.

--Vik101101 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Vik101101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * , The content has been reliably sourced to a reputed newspaper. The WP:BURDEN has been met. If you are casting doubts about the news, then you should rather take up your cause with the news paper. Here is another source for the same . Walrus Ji (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

--Walrus Ji You keep citing news articles but I am talking about the substance of the article. Please quote the exact part of the articles that show a causal relationship with her association with the political organisations and a loss of political clout. Please do not just cite another newspaper but address the specific concern that there is no source. Else any, even reputable, newspaper can write anything and we would presume it's true simply because they wrote it. Responsible journalism cites their sources. It is very clear, based on lack of evidence, that WP:BURDEN has not been met. Vik101101 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Vik101101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Articles covering Gabbard's Hindutva RSS link

 * --Walrus Ji (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Caravan" is blacklisted by my ad-blocking software. "Dissent" looks like pure editorial opinion. "Outlook India" is carrying a wire service article. The other two look like decent in-depth coverage that will allow us to go beyond what the single source already has in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC
 * , How does your ad blocker affect the reliability of The Caravan (magazine)? Its articles are subscription based and behind paywall. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , None of these articles prove a link with Gabbard and RSS, they merely assert it. Case in point, the Honolulu Article entire proof would be the fact that a donor has links to RSS. Surely this cannot prove anything to Gabbard herself? It would be absurd to assign every political alignment of every political donor to the politician they're donating too. Vik101101 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Vik101101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * --Walrus Ji (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Caravan" is blacklisted by my ad-blocking software. "Dissent" looks like pure editorial opinion. "Outlook India" is carrying a wire service article. The other two look like decent in-depth coverage that will allow us to go beyond what the single source already has in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC
 * , How does your ad blocker affect the reliability of The Caravan (magazine)? Its articles are subscription based and behind paywall. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , None of these articles prove a link with Gabbard and RSS, they merely assert it. Case in point, the Honolulu Article entire proof would be the fact that a donor has links to RSS. Surely this cannot prove anything to Gabbard herself? It would be absurd to assign every political alignment of every political donor to the politician they're donating too. Vik101101 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Vik101101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IP revert
Since you removed sourced and relevant material, you needed a strong reason for doing so. But your log comment was: "but it's not really notable that she made an appearence on a daytime show since that's very common, the incident itself is what's notable" Of course the incident was notable. The edit simply stated the news program for context. But according to your comment, you removed the entire edit, including the source, just because the news program was mentioned. That's not just arbitrary, it's unjustified, per WP:PRESERVE. You also removed two more sourced sentences, as well as a sourced references to two others, because you claimed: "and I'm doubtful the lawyer's past clients are noteworthy since lawyers naturally have many different clients in their line of work." But the notability of the lawyers' past clients came directly from the sources, not the IP. Since the Gabbard/Clinton thing was well documented, as were the Mueller/Russia investigations, the lawyer connections the source made were relevant background. But your revert deleted four new sources and two referenced ones. But the edit improved the article. So on that basis, I'm restoring the IP's edit. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is actually ridiculous, and I'm reposting here since most of the points you made against it on my talk page (which you moved to mine after I made it on yours, remind me again about 3RR and how if you actually wanted to facilitate a discussion you'd keep it to the talk page and not revert the controversial edit):
 * I don't think I need to tell you that's really not noteworthy for an article on a politician, and we have her stepping down already as is included.
 * So beyond her hiring a lawyer who also represented other clients, Gabbard herself has no association with either George Papadopoulos or Rudy Giuliani or Michael Cohen. And in three of these sources you claim are "sourced" and "valuable", Gabbard isn't mentioned at all in. This is textbook WP:ORIGINAL. Now I'm trying to be fair and pleasant, which is why I labeled the IP edit as one in WP:GOODFAITH, but when you came and reverted claiming I was acting arbitrary I was really insulted. I mean surely you can see this is not fit for a WP:BLP? Hopefully we can settle this, thank you. CaliIndie (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So beyond her hiring a lawyer who also represented other clients, Gabbard herself has no association with either George Papadopoulos or Rudy Giuliani or Michael Cohen. And in three of these sources you claim are "sourced" and "valuable", Gabbard isn't mentioned at all in. This is textbook WP:ORIGINAL. Now I'm trying to be fair and pleasant, which is why I labeled the IP edit as one in WP:GOODFAITH, but when you came and reverted claiming I was acting arbitrary I was really insulted. I mean surely you can see this is not fit for a WP:BLP? Hopefully we can settle this, thank you. CaliIndie (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So beyond her hiring a lawyer who also represented other clients, Gabbard herself has no association with either George Papadopoulos or Rudy Giuliani or Michael Cohen. And in three of these sources you claim are "sourced" and "valuable", Gabbard isn't mentioned at all in. This is textbook WP:ORIGINAL. Now I'm trying to be fair and pleasant, which is why I labeled the IP edit as one in WP:GOODFAITH, but when you came and reverted claiming I was acting arbitrary I was really insulted. I mean surely you can see this is not fit for a WP:BLP? Hopefully we can settle this, thank you. CaliIndie (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And another point you tried to make on my talk page in regards to this:
 * Shows to me you haven't even read the articles or where they're cited, I repeat, the three sources used for the lawyer connection DON'T CITE TULSI GABBARD SO WHY SHOULD WE USE THEM TO CONNECT HER.
 * Shows to me you haven't even read the articles or where they're cited, I repeat, the three sources used for the lawyer connection DON'T CITE TULSI GABBARD SO WHY SHOULD WE USE THEM TO CONNECT HER.

CaliIndie (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You ignored how with this edit, you removed this article: Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Steps Down From DNC, Endorses Bernie Sanders; and this article: Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton over ‘Russian asset’ line - both of which cite Gabbard by name in the headline. Further, in the text of the Star article is found this passage:"Gabbard is represented by the Los Angeles law firm of law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, which has represented a number of high profile and political figures including President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aid who pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI.".
 * From there, the other source you removed was: Giuliani Turns to Pierce Bainbridge and Michael Cohen's Ex-Lawyer in Ukraine Scandal, which was an additional source for the same information. Your edit also deleted the footnote to two other articles that gave additional background without being directly relevant to the article. That's why they were given in a footnote. Per WP:FOOTNOTES, this "refers to the Wikipedia-specific manner of documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information." So the IP did everything in perfect alignment with WP policies and guidelines. Actually, the use of footnotes showed a rather sophisticated knowledge of WP practices. Whereas your complaint, especially your "actually ridiculous" claim of ORIGINAL; and lack of understanding regarding the use and purpose of footnotes does not. X4n6 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The first article I clicked on, from January 2020, says Gabbard was suing Clinton, using the same law firm that defended Giuliani and Papadopoulos. Those parts of the addition are good. But the law.com citation and all the cites that date from before January 2020 should be removed per WP:SYNTH. If the source doesn't mention Gabbard, that's an indication someone is adding together A + B to create the new idea C. At first glance it's the Cohen material which should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained above, per WP:FOOTNOTES, the articles in the notes provided additional tangential information. So it isn't necessary that they be relevant to Gabbard. They are relevant to the lawyers. X4n6 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Binksternet is absolutely right, and thank you for providing the words I'm looking for to tackle this nonsense since I'm a new user and don't know the vernacular. This is WP:SYNTH through and through. You can't use this loose connection to try and hammer in references to not only three incredibly controversial individuals with three references that don't cite Gabbard at all. Imagine if for every person represented by Robert Kardashian we hamfist a reference to O.J. Simpson. Utterly disingenious. CaliIndie (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:FOOTNOTES guideline would have been fine if Cohen and the Trump joint defense agreement were already discussed in the sources with reference to Gabbard. But they were not; that new connection was made by Hawaii IP editor 67.53.214.86 in this addition, which was a combination of relevant material plus unrelated material brought in to make Gabbard's chosen legal team look worse. I gave the Hawaii IP editor a Level 4 final warning against doing that in the future, because in this case the violation of SYNTH is also a violation of WP:BLP. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Foreign affairs/Stop Arming Terrorists Act
Currently the section reads:

On December 20, 2019, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act that she introduced in 2017 became law as part of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, § 1228 to prohibit the Department of Defense from "knowingly providing weapons or any other form of support to Al Qaeda" or other terrorist groups or any individual or group affiliated with any such organization.

To this reader "other terrorist groups" is too vague since as far as I can tell designated terrorist groups like Shining Path or Lashkar e Taiba were unaffected by either the original proposal or the implemented law. I would propose changing it to something like "select Islamic terrorist groups". If however I've misunderstood the proposal or law, changing it to something like "all US designated terrorist groups" would help.

It also seems to this reader based on her statements also that the original bill was specifically designed to 'hurt' Saudi Arabia, until the "countries" was changed to "any individual or group." How Tulsi originally intended the act might be worth making a note of.

Geoff Young in Kentucky race
Geoff Young is running in Kentucky's Congressional race. He has many of the same positions as Tulsi on war. Can we get some help on this article?
 * Is there any reputable news outlets that have made this claim? As editors our job is just to report and relay what WP:RS aka "Reliable Sources" have to say about a topic. If it isnt covered by any outlets, and it fails WP:COMMONSENSE, then it probably is just going to be reverted due to it falling under the WP:OR Original research clause. Also good practice is to sign your talk page posts with your signature with four "~" in a row. Eruditess (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Forbes is unreliable and the claim it is cited for violates WP:BLP
@: Humanengr (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The Forbes article is used to support the assertion In March 2022, she promoted baseless Russian state propaganda that the U.S. and Ukraine were developing biological and chemical weapons in Ukraine.. [emphasis added]
 * 2) The headline says Tulsi Gabbard Latest To Push Russian-Backed Conspiracy About U.S.-Backed Biological Labs In Ukraine. [emphasis added]
 * 3) No evidence is presented in the article that Gabbard is pushing a conspiracy about U.S.-backed biological labs in Ukraine. [emphasis added] Hence, the headline is unreliable per WP:HEADLINES.
 * 4) The body of the article says there’s no evidence of the U.S. supporting biological labs in Ukraine and the U.S. has consistently denied doing so. [emphasis added] which speaks of biological labs not biological weapons labs and so blatantly misrepresents what the linked NYT article says: There is no evidence to support the claims that the U.S. is funding biological weapons laboratories (emphasis added)
 * 5) The Forbes article makes no assertion regarding Gabbard and chemical so the insertion of that is unsupported.
 * 6) You seemingly pulled the 'baseless' word from the NY Times article, but that article makes no reference to Gabbard.
 * She definitely pedaled baseless allegations about biological weapons . See also WP:CRYBLP.  Calidum  18:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your [1] cite, the Intercept article, is unreliable re Gabbard:


 * 1) The Russian government’s claim that the biological labs funded by the U.S. were experimenting with dangerous pathogens, though debunked by the Russian biologists, was echoed by influential voices on Fox News like Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard.
 * 'Echoed' is a weasel word; and that text does not indicate the referent.
 * 2) For instance, after Victoria Nuland, a State Department official, [Youtube link] said that the U.S. was working with Ukraine to prevent “biological research materials” in Ukrainian labs from being seized by Russian forces, Carlson and Gabbard amplified the false claim made by the Russian military that the routine public health research in those labs was dangerous. …”
 * 'Amplified' is another weasel word; and again that text does not indicate the referent.
 * 3) On March 13, Gabbard tweeted a video viewed nearly 3 million times, in which she falsely claimed that the public health labs were “ conducting research on dangerous pathogens ” and were engaged in that she called “ dangerous research, including gain of function, similar to the lab in Wuhan where Covid-19 may have originated from. ”
 * That blatantly misrepresents what she said, which was “According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens” and were engaged in that she called “Now, in addition to all this, the U.S. funds around 300 biolabs around the world, who are engaging in dangerous research, including gain of function, similar to the lab in Wuhan where Covid-19 may have originated from.”
 * 4) While the unfunded CDC proposal to monitor diseases in bats in Ukraine and Georgia obtained by the Russian military mentioned surveillance of diseases, including coronaviruses, the idea that any viral strains obtained by the researchers would be manipulated in gain-of-function research was wholly invented by the Russian military, Carlson, and Gabbard.
 * Gabbard made no claim about gain of function research specific to Ukraine -- see #3 above.
 * 5) When Gabbard was criticized for saying things about the type of work done in the labs for which there is no evidence, …
 * Gabbard did not say things "about the type of work done in the labs for which there is no evidence".
 * Your [2] cite, The Hill article, is also unreliable re Gabbard. Its headline, Kinzinger calls out Gabbard for Russian misinformation and the rest of the Hill article give the impression Gabbard presented 'Russian misinformation'. Nothing in the article supports that Gabbard presented 'Russian misinformation'.
 * 1) Re the lead ¶: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) called out former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Sunday for “actual Russian propaganda” after the ex-congresswoman tweeted a video claiming that the U.S. is funding more than 25 biolabs in Ukraine that are “conducting research on dangerous pathogens.”
 * Again, what she said was "According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens"
 * 2) After the next ¶ provides Kinzinger's accusation of treason, the following ¶ states: Gabbard tweeted a nearly two-minute video on Sunday laying out “the undeniable fact” that the U.S. funds between 25 and 30 biolabs in Ukraine that are “conducting research on dangerous pathogens.”
 * This again omits part of Gabbard's statement: Here are the undeniable facts. There are 25 to 30 US-funded biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens.
 * 3) Immediately after that clipped quote, the article states: The New York Times conducted a fact check on Friday that said the theory that the U.S. is funding biological weapons labs in Ukraine is “baseless.” “There is no evidence to support the claims, which President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department have all unequivocally denied,” the Times wrote, noting that the theory has been promoted by Russian state media, social media users and conservative voices. The newspaper wrote that the U.S. has given backing to biological labs in Ukraine since 2005 “to prevent the production of biological weapons,” adding that some individuals have “misleadingly cited remarks from American officials as proof that the labs are producing or conducting research on biological weapons .”
 * Counterposing those statements — which speak of biological weapons labs — against the clipped Gabbard quote is beyond unreliable.
 * Re your citing WP:CRYBLP, an essay that has nutshell Insisting that a non-BLP issue is in fact a BLP crisis is not helpful to building an encyclopedia: The material I deleted is false and defamatory and has no place in a BLP. Humanengr (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I saw Tulsi's video pushing the baseless biological lab talking point on Twitter. "Chemical" may be unsupported, and WP:FORBESCON indeed, but there's many RS about this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article is by Forbes staff (it's not a contributor op-ed). Forbes is a RS: WP:FORBES. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. WP:FORBES applies, not WP:FORBESCON. Forbes is currently being discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * I also agree that the content needs to be rewritten to avoid the problems that Humanengr identifies. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @, re there's many RS about this: Please be specific. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the content. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no dispute that she said those things. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Your Independent cite, after repeating Romney's accusation, says Ms Gabbbard has since “clarified” her remarks, claiming there might have been some “miscommunication and misunderstanding” about the terms bio labs and bio weapons labs.


 * That clips what she said, which was:


 * She didn't miscommunicate or misunderstand. She used the term 'biolabs' properly in her video and response to Romney; she did not use the term 'biological weapons labs' or 'bioweapons' in either. Her remarks were miscommunicated by 2ndary 'reliable' sources.

2. Your Military.com cite, says In the video, which was posted to Gabbard's TikTok and other social media accounts, the former congresswoman mischaracterized U.S. support for several dozen former Soviet biolabs in Ukraine, falsely implying that the labs work with diseases like COVID-19 and that the Biden administration had been "trying to cover this up."


 * Here's what her video actually says:


 * And after Romney accused her of treason, Gabbard said in relevant part:
 * citing [https://ua.usembassy.gov/u-s-ukraine-partnership-to-reduce-biological-threats this embassy release which says:
 * What exactly is she 'falsely implying'?
 * What exactly is she 'falsely implying'?
 * What exactly is she 'falsely implying'?

3. I responded re your Intercept cite in my reply to Calidum, above.

4. Your Austin American doesn't mention Gabbard. Why did you include that?

5. Your WaPo cite says


 * The first 'detail' is a question (Cover what up?), not a statement. For the fuller context of Gabbard's instead of trying to cover this up, see the video text above. The second 'detail' is opinion. Humanengr (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This "All the reliable sources are wrong. I, an editor singularly focused on pushing fringe content on COVID, Donald Trump, Syria and Piers Robinson, know better than the reliable sources" ranting is tiresome. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you identify an RS that doesn't miscommunicate or misunderstand what Gabbard said? Humanengr (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion about Forbes at Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * The Forbes article says that Gabbard "shared false information Sunday about U.S. involvement in Ukraine biological laboratories....but there’s no evidence of the U.S. supporting biological labs in Ukraine and the U.S. has consistently denied doing so." (March 13, 2022) In fact, the DoD has confirmed that it contributed a total of $200,000,000 since 2005 to fund 46 biological laboratories in Ukraine. In fact there is information about the program on the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine website.
 * In fairness to Forbes, they were reporting what they believed to be true, based on U.S. government information.
 * TFD (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Have to say I think makes some really valid points. I think that the Forbes article is breaching BLP, which needs to be taken way more seriously. I dont think this is breaching CRYBLP even in the slightest, that is barely invokable anyways since BLP should be considered the most prominent guideline to follow when dealing with living persons. Eruditess (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign policy section
re your revert with ES This is a massive POV violation ("Gabbard's views on Islamic terrorism distinguish her from mainstream Democrats.", "Gabbard decries powerful politicians...", etc). Discuss on talk, not one 48kb addition all at once: My intent was not to make POV changes but rather to bring in extant material from the Pol Pos page.

The first item Gabbard's views on Islamic terrorism distinguish her from mainstream Democrats is not my text but rather was originated, AFAICS, by MrX in May 2019 here.

Regarding Gabbard decries powerful politicians, I introduced that in August 2019 on the Pol pos page, where it has remained unchallenged since. (My original wording was Gabbard in her campaign launch pointed to powerful politicians …)

Do you prefer something else? I'm open to suggestions. Not sure what your "etc" refers to. Did you want me to post each Foreign affairs sub-section here? Humanengr (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What I prefer is bringing up proposed changes to an article under discretionary sanctions here, on the article's talk page, for collaboration and consensus before implementing them. You're working on these in sandboxes in your userspace, which others are not likely aware of (User:Humanengr/Foreign policy §, User:Humanengr/Domestic issues §, User:Humanengr/Governance §, and User:Humanengr/Trump administration §). It was a 48kb change all at once and I didn't see all of what you changed. The two that I did take note of, Gabbard's views on Islamic terrorism distinguish her from mainstream Democrats and Gabbard decries powerful politicians sound biased in her favor especially if written in WP:WIKIVOICE. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @ I see you were editing here back in August 2019 and didn't object when I did a large edit that boldly split out the Pol pos page and left a brief summary on the bio page. What if we restore those topics that were included then but which are now missing from the bio page Pol pos § in the form they were in prior to the split, basically undoing part of my large edit? We could then work step-by-step from there.
 * Re Gabbard's views on Islamic terrorism distinguish her from mainstream Democrats, while MrX did not include any cites for that, I'd be very surprised if an editor as experienced as MrX would violate that policy. Also note that the text remained uncontested on the bio page for 3 months in the midst of the campaign. In any case, that assertion seems well-supported by, e.g., Vox:
 * Re beat the drums of war, that was drawn from her campaign launch, but as she addresses the same issue in her interview with MSNBC's Katy Tur, the whole para can be cited to that: Gabbard decries "a foreign policy establishment, too many politicians in Washington and, frankly, a military-industrial complex that have all been working to amp up tensions between the United States and other nuclear-armed countries — like Russian, and China — putting us into this new Cold War, an arms race that is pushing us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war." She expressed disappointment that no moderators at the 2020 Democratic presidential primary debates "raised the issues or asked a question related to the most existential threat we face in this country." The text that precedes the foreign policy establishment phrase is And that’s one area where I was frankly disappointed that none of the moderators raised the issues or asked a question related to the most existential threat we face in this country. Nuclear strategists are talking about how we are at a greater risk of nuclear than we ever have been before …. Do you have a suggestion other than decries? Humanengr (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I take it you accept that your assertion in your revert ES that This is a massive POV violation was incorrect. Did you have any other specific concerns?
 * As for the drafts in my user space, those pulled from extant material on the Pol pos section of the bio page and interweaved material from the Pol pos page for context, with some paring, reorg, and minor edits for flow; also some work on cites. In summary on this edit: the 1st para, which was on Syria, was split out to a new § with material pared from the Pol pos page added to cover both earlier and later events; the 2nd para was incorporated in the 'Counterterrorism and Islamic extremism' § along with the hawk v dove remark currently in the lead of the Political positions §; the 3rd para (on Stop Arming Terrorists) is now in the Syria §; the 4th para (on Iran) was split out to a new § with material pared from the Pol pos page to cover both earlier and later events; I pared the 5th para and folded in mat'l pared from the Pol pos page to create the 'Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kurds' b/c of the various linkages there (I see now I need to fix the temporal flow); the 6th para became 'Ukraine'; the 7th para (on media freedom) I brought into the 'Media and party' § in my draft User:Humanengr/Governance §. The other new §§ were pared with some reorg from material on the Pol pos page on topics well-covered by RS. Humanengr (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Re your revert w ES reset. Use talk bit by bit and do not reinsert poorly sourced material, BLP problems, and UNDUE narratives: 1) See above; 2) Kindly point to P/G that states Use talk bit by bit; 3) Specify the poorly sourced material; 4) Specify the BLP problems; and 5) Specify the UNDUE narratives. Humanengr (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What's up with citing Foxnews, for starters? Many of the other problems have been identified by other editors prior to your recent activity.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edict to talk bit by bit, you apparently didn't notice that 1) I had already responded to Muboshgu's two complaints — which turned out to be non-issues AFAICS; and 2) I had already provided a para-by-para description of what happened to the extant material. You also didn't respond to my request for P/G re talk bit by bit.
 * Re your What's up with citing Foxnews, please identify a specific contentious claim assignable to a Fox cite. As you haven't provided anything to respond to, I took a quick look and saw that, of the Fox cites in my edit, only one was unaccompanied by other sources — and that was for a quote.
 * Re your second sentence, it's not all clear what that refers to. The material was extant on the bio page until I moved it to the Pol pos page in August 2019, leaving a summary in its place that has since been considerably enlarged. That which was moved to the bio page evolved somewhat. But the last discussion there was also in 2019, so I'm not aware of anything contentious regarding this material. What are you talking about? Humanengr (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are they "non-issues"? I didn't see your earlier replies of the last week. I have a big watchlist and didn't get pinged. I'd still need to review this massive edit to know if I object or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx, will await your rvw. To help with that, pls see the last para of my 12:42, 1 July cmt above. Humanengr (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Read into this what you will. But keep in mind, that mainstream US news media are corporate owned & most of them are pro-establishment. Gabbard wasn't an establishment politician. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 99.99% of the capital stock and enterprises in the free world are corporate owned. Please don't bring up extraneous factors.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look how they tore apart Howard Dean in 2004 when he had the temerity to criticize the Democratic Party leadership. TFD (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Convenience break
I'm starting to look through the changes and already I see some issues. There's too much detail in the foreign policy section. It relies on quoting Gabbard directly too many times rather than including any third-party analysis. You're using a lot of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Some of the language is not neutral or encyclopedic. Examples: she spoke out against Islamism, Gabbard has been outspoken in criticizing. This massive change is a non-starter. Changes can be made, but we should do it one point at a time. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I offered an alternative above: What if we restore those topics that were included [before my splitting off the Pol pos page] but which are now missing from the bio page Pol pos § in the form they were in prior to the split, basically undoing part of my large edit [then]? We could then work step-by-step from there. Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Awkward wording
It shouldn't say that her family moved to where her family lived. Obviously there were other family members, but it should've been worded like that. Think of it like this" "In 1885, I moved my family to the Town of Linden, where my family lived." Obviously it was other members than the ones I responsible for moving, but it needs to be worded better.  2600:1004:B12E:FDF:E149:7F62:D5DC:1926 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your correction because it was wrong. It was "her family" -- her parents and siblings -- that lived in Hawaii in the 1970s, not some vague "relatives". -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hindu?
Tulsi Gabbard is not or was not Hindu, but instead raised as a member of an offshoot cult that claims to be related to Hinduism. This should be changed, despite her claims and the rhetoric that was associated with her as “first Hindu member of congress.” 2600:8801:138F:7F00:357D:37B3:354F:1C08 (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems that many beg to differ with you: several reliable sources, many Hindus, Gabbard herself, the World Hindu Congress, et. al. It would seem that your say-so cannot limit Hinduism's borders to exclude this person's faith. Elizium23 (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * she never identified as Hindu until her congressional run for congress and her ties with Modhi. Her upbringing is from [removed]. It would be like saying Christian Messianic "jews" are Jewish. 2600:8801:138F:7F00:8845:8872:C1F5:C641 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You would need a reliable source that says that. There are a lot of Christians that don't closely resemble anything I would recognize, but they are called Christian nonetheless. TFD (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * you are a much more skilled editor than I am, but here are some links that discuss this:
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-cult-putin-democrat-science-of-identity-b2058196.html
 * https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe
 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html 2600:8801:138F:7F00:8845:8872:C1F5:C641 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources say she is not Hindu and the New Yorker article refers to her as a "practicing Hindu." The NYMag article says that "Butler’s group does not identify as Hindu," but then it doesn't say she belongs to his group. Even that statement is odd, considering it says that Butler is seeking recognition from mainstream Hinduism. In any case, journalists are not religious experts and therefore their analysis is unreliable, per policy.
 * Anyway, instead of deciding what the article should say and looking for sources, you should ensure that the article reflects what sources say. TFD (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since 2019 she's been openly Christian-leaning.
 * She was raised in [removed].
 * You can listen to these podcast episodes for further elucidation:
 * https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-211-tulsi-gabbard-p1-the-cult-feat-mike-prysner?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
 * https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-212-tulsi-gabbard-p2-the-fascist-turn-feat-mike-prysner?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing 2600:8801:138F:7F00:8845:8872:C1F5:C641 (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I said that you need reliable sources that make the same conclusion you do. Instead, you directed me to a conspiracy theory website from QAnon. TFD (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "QAnon Anonymous (QAA) is an investigative journalism podcast that analyzes and debunks conspiracy theories.", not actual adherents to conspiracy theories.
 * There is something to be said about the full breadth of her religious upbringing and family's background with what appears to be a cult, like those seen with Amy Coney Barrett, but to say she is not Hindu is a stretch.
 * Also, why the removals of OPs comments? 156.33.255.229 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The large majority of recent reliable sources discussing her religious identity say that she is Hindu including most relatively neutral Hindu and non-Hindu sources. A small minority of sources disageee. This is similar to the small minority of POV pushing sources that claim that Mormons and Quakers are not actually Christians. We summarize the preponderance of reliable sources, not the outliers. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I didn't read the title closely. However, per WP:NEWSORG, journalists are not experts on religion. I agree with Cullen328. When a religion has no regulatory body that determines who is or is not a member, people may disagree about which groups truly belong. What is important is that we provide detail about her religious affiliation, since it has received attention. TFD (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Political shift
Tulsi has announced she will campaign for far-right candidates Kari Lake and Blake Masters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3693646-tulsi-gabbard-to-campaign-for-kari-lake-blake-masters-in-arizona/ Craigboy (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The source you provided does not describe either candidate as "far-right", only Republican. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  05:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kari-lake-arizona-governor-gop-primary-trump_n_62e968f5e4b006483aa1e936
 * https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/tulsi-gabbard-continues-her-move-to-the-far-right-with-cpac-2022-appearance Kevindfreels (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.salon.com/2022/12/20/the-far-right-is-crazy--like-a-fox-the-code-behind-the-far-rights-success_partner/
 * Note:Both Gabbard and Masters are mentioned in this article. Kevindfreels (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reviewing WP:RSP. Alternet is not a reliable source, and both HuffPost and Salon are considered biased in their reporting.
 * I think either HuffPost or Salon would be okay for citing facts such as "she campaigned for these candidates" but not for and deeper political analysis. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  16:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

former American?
Looking at this edit;

I think the IP actually got this right. I think the more common language is to say "former [nationality x] profession". NickCT (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * She's not a "former American". I don't agree with including "former" at all. Who's to say she's not going to run for office again? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if she's not a doing politics anymore, she's a "former American politician" like Carter is a former American president. That doesn't mean they're former Americans.
 * The issue here is grammar, right? I understand if people think Tulsi is still a politician, but that seems like a seperate question to the one in the edit. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure its a different discussion. An IP added "former" recently. Per BRD, I have reverted it. Is there a RS that says the subject is finished being a politician? --Malerooster (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what doing these days is politics, even though it's not running for office at present. She could run for office again, who knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The diff I offered changed the wording from "a former American politician" -> "an American former politician". It wasn't about the presence of the word "former", it was about the position. Regardless, if the right thing is just to remove "former" that's fine... NickCT (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think we usually describe people as "former politicians" unless they have completely dropped out of politics (ie. they are no longer interacting with it or commenting on it in any form whatsoever.) It's not like president where there's a clear job title and term - being a politician is more broadly-defined and doesn't require currently holding or running for office. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Picture of promotion to major
On the right chest side T. is wearing a German Army badge. This is not mentioned in the text. 2A01:CB08:891A:1200:1DD7:393E:6F5F:19EC (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Political party
I have Heard Tulsi has switched to Republican and not independent WONKAKlD (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As with everything on Wikipedia, information such as this needs to bed verified from a reliable source. Rumors, etc. are not acceptable for a WP:BLP.  - Skipple   ☎  03:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Found this https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gabbard-emphasizing-independent-says-campaigning-bolduc-not-move-towards-joining-gop.amp so she is an independent but she is campaigning with Republicans WONKAKlD (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, there is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics. If this is true, you should be able to find a better source easily.  WP scatter  t/c 19:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are better sources, already cited in the article on this topic. She's not a Republican and this source doesn't say she's a Republican. Just the opposite in fact. I'm not sure what we are trying to cite at this point.  - Skipple   ☎  01:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Kicked off the debate stage by an arbitrary rule change, are we allowed to discuss it?
I mean it's already supported by a reference to a reliable source that's already in the article:

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-only-two-delegates-isnt-first-candidate-stay-race-this-long-1491334

The DNC changed the debate rules on the fly. Are we allowed to state facts on wokepedia or will an army of sock-puppets triple revert any change I attempt to make? 174.216.144.127 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We can discuss any changes to articles that are supported by reliable sources. WP:NEWSWEEK is questionable, though. And have you heard the expression You catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Try to assume good faith and be civil, because that's your best bet to see any changes get made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it is my experience that trying to assume good faith and be civil still doesn't keep an activist editor from deleting your comments off the talk page. I wish I could say today was the first time, but it's not.
 * I think I can play the wokepedia sources game and make a bold edit. One minor correction, Tulsi qualified for the next debate based on prior debate's rules. Once she won some delegates fair and square, it is at this point that they decided to change the rules, obviously knowing full well that the new rule changes would disqualify her.
 * Nothing says "fair and democratic primary process" more than boldly changing the quantifying rules but only after someone surprisingly qualified under the prior rules. 174.216.156.175 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That it was arbitrary is presented in the source in direct quotes, meaning it's her interpretation, not necessarily a fact. TFD (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia strict against Defaming Living persons (WP:BLP)
Please note that this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.RogerYg (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is important that all Wiki editors note that Wiki is NOT NEWS and be aware of WP:BLP (before putting negative News material on Wiki pages) as quoted below
 * RogerYg (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
In the Early life and education section, in the third paragraph, please change “Gabbard’s mother believed in Hindu faith” to “Gabbard’s mother was a Hindu”. 2600:100C:A216:D235:A408:C817:DCA0:8DDF (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I did add the word "practicing", since the second source there uses it to describe her. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)