Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

pro-Russia campaign contributions and pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign

I strenuously object to this reversion and this reversion, which deletes relevant sources, introduces WP:OR, and gives prominence to two single sources over multiple other available sources. Content about the extensively reported pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaigns is completely missing and the reader is directed to conclude that Gabbard has been smeared based on the opinions of Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. The word "allegations" is tossed around, but the campaign contributions are a matter of public record and the pro-Gabbard Riussian propaganda is stated as a fact by sources. [1][2][3] It's also a 1RR violation for which I have requested self-reversion, but was rebuffed.[4]. - MrX 🖋 11:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign

For information, the paragraph added above by MrX has been discussed on the TG 2020 campaign entry. We decided to remove the NBC news story from this page in February but MrX has reinstated it against consensus. (Though I did not participate in that discussion, I agreed with the conclusion.) In addition to that NBC news story, MrX is complaining about the removal of a story from the Independent which recycled the NBC news story the same day (before it was made clear that the NY Times had discredited the group NBC News was using for the story), and adding nonsense about David Duke supporting Gabbard, which I believe has been discredited as well. The other opinion piece Mr X doesn't mention (in Vanity Fair) mentions the word "Russian" many times in the first paragraph but none of the occurrences refer to Gabbard. Only one occurrence refers to RT coverage of TG, which is not pertinent to her BLP. Finally, it is unclear what is "original research" in the addition of the Matt Taibbi / Glenn Greenwald reporting.

Further information: given that his reinstatement of material that had been removed by consensus is also a revert, Mr X was at 9RR on 19 May 2019, a fact he does not mention. Similarly, the discussion on the 2020 campaign entry suggests that contributors feel that that material should not be included over there either, but somehow MrX has not mentioned that discussion. If anyone wants to take Mr.X to WP:AE for his 9RR day, it would be justified, though it would likely be a waste of time and energy because for some reason Mr X seems to be above the law. I do not feel that we need to weaponize DS, but obviously Mr X does feel that way based on his comments above. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls please list nine discrete reverts that I made in a 24 hour period, or kindly retract your personal attack. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) of course.

Woops. Mr X was only at 8 RR on 19 May 2019 nope 9 red edits, but seems to have been at 3RR yesterday, because he only reinstated the NBC news story yesterday. All of this depends of course how you count reverts. Mr X seems to be saying that any change whatsoever to text he has ever added to the entry is a revert. MrX you are welcome to count the red items on the history page for 19 May 2019 I linked to above.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to cover the RS reporting on Russian support for her campaign, and any conflicts that exist between RS and notable opinion about the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know why SashiRolls removed it and the finance information with an edit summary "removed opinion piece following TP consensus, and stale campaign contribution data from her political positions". SashiRolls, where is the talk page consensus that we shouldn't include the pro-Russia information? - MrX 🖋 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, on the 2020 campaign entry listed above it was barely considered worthy of brief mention (by some contributors, not by others), so I assumed a higher standard would hold here. Fact is, though, I did get a bit confused between this and the last time you guys were adding smear about Russia (the NBC News article, which has also been roundly rejected on her BLP). You are giving the appearance of doing everything you can to make Gabbard's biography look bad (ignoring positive reports, & adding & amplifying every minor detail you can find that you think someone might consider negative, e.g. this one which I notice looking at your history you didn't add anywhere else). I personally "hope" it is because you dislike her candidacy, rather than because you want to play psychological games with people on the internet: but neither is a good excuse for the POV editing.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You're stepping over the line again. I have scoured sources for anything about Gabbard that is not currently in the article, that does not originate directly from her campaign (like the Marie Claire source you added to the abortion section). I recently added her support for marijuana legalization, debate qualifying, campaign funding stats, and polling stats. It's not my fault that some of the material is unflattering to the subject. I've also made edits to improve citations, to link other article, to improve grammar and style, and to adjust material to more faithfully follow what independent sources have written. I pride myself on being able to collaborate with a wide range of editors who have a wide range of viewpoints, but I can't work with combative editors who spend more time berating other editors than discussing content.

I request that, from this point forward, you refrain from commenting on my motivations. If you think I'm violating policies, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, or at a noticeboard. Please keep it off article talk pages. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the #1 author of the campaign entry, and yet in all your "scouring" of sources you haven't yet found the phrase "opposes regime change" which she mentions in every interview I've ever heard, nor have you found her suggesting that the money saved from all that military action could be used for domestic issues, which she likewise mentions in every single interview. Odd, that. Here, let me help: [5], [6]. Tucker Carlson, "I predict, with certainty, that you will be attacked for what you just said." Please don't play Mr. Innocent. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The article, as it existed when I first edited it in January, already contained extensive material about her views on regime change: in the lead, in the '2017–18' section, in the 'Syria' section, and in the 'Counterterrorism' section. That's four places! Maybe you're hearing the phrase "opposes regime change" in interviews because your watching too much Tucker Carlson. I prefer using reliable sources that cover subjects objectively.- MrX 🖋 20:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't realized you'd deleted so many mentions of her main campaign point on the 2020 campaign entry. Surprised you're proud to admit that since she's used that language on ABC, on MSNBC, on Colbert, on PBS, on FoxNews, on CNN, on the campaign trail, (& of course on Joe Rogan)... and been cited using that language extensively in RS, and yet, Mr X knows better than those who had originally written the entry. As it happens, my only edits to the entry were with regard to the Daily Mail Mirror Beast smear you want to spin everywhere. I added none of the mentions you are so proud to have deleted. By the way, you should not have deleted her comments about her opposition to regime change in Venezuela from this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the following content:

According to NBC News, Gabbard's primary campaign has received support from Russian interests. Experts found that websites connected to the Shortly after her campaign launched, NBC News reported that it had received unusual coverage from Russian media,government had posted 20 or more stories on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, beyond the level of support given to any other Democratic candidate.

Replacing this with "unusual coverage from Russian media" misrepresents the source, which writes:

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.
— [7]

- MrX 🖋 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You could post the information without the tabloid phrasing. What exactly for example is a "Russian interest?" This is typical of polemical writing where there is an implicit accusation that there was quid pro quo, which is not encyclopedic writing. It's a bit like listing all the similarities between Ted Cruz and the Zodiac killer, without actually saying that Cruz is the killer. Could you assure us that inclusion does not violate policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." You can do that by showing that other mainstream media picked up on the story. Maybe we can wait until Snoogasnoogans next shift and get his opinion. TFD (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am attempting to adhere to the source while not plagiarizing it. What I wrote is substantially similar to the lede of the source article,[8] with some facts from the fourth paragraph:

Gabbard's campaign received supportive news coverage in the same Russian propaganda sources that influenced the 2016 presidential election A minimum of 20 stories ran on RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider favorable to Gabbard's campaign, exceeding that given to any other Democratic candidate.

How would you word it differently? By the way, it was picked up other news media, including several that we liberally use in this article: The Independent, Business Insider, Honolulu Civil Beat, and of course, Rolling Stone and The Intercept also took notice.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The topic sentence of the paragraph should be related to the smear campaign. Otherwise, the smear has been rejected from her BLP previously as I pointed out in my edit summary. You can ping the people who participated in the previous discussion if you wish to discuss the matter again, but the only person who ended that discussion maintaining the position that this should be included was the sockpuppet "Dan the Plumber" who has been indefinitely blocked. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What smear campaign? Are you talking about Matt Taibbi's opinion that the NBC article is a "transparent hit piece"? He doesn't explain what motivation two NBC journalists (Robert Windrem and Ben Popken) would have for "hitting" Gabbard). Or are you referring to Glen Greenwald's opinion that the story was "a sham". Why would we trust Rolling Stone and the Intercept more than NBC and The Independent? We should simply include both points of view without choosing sides. In any case, you can explain why 1RR doesn't apply to you at WP:AE.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The one everyone knows is taking place. With regard to your edit warring and AE threats, see further: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion." I see absolutely nobody joining Dan the Plumber in dissenting from the TP consensus reached back in February. (As you can see, I did not participate in that discussion, so you would need to add my vote to it.) Of course, everyone knows that the inner cabal doesn't have to follow the rules and can bully folks around to their heart's desire. Are y'all donors? special ops? just lucky? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, You could phrase it, "After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran 20 stories favorable to her. These sources are considered to have influenced the 2016 presidential election."

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• The story is significant and can not be ignored after such wide coverage. So, I would agree with MrX. Also, this is not a smear campaign, but one of the first rounds of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, so you probably need such separate page for content like that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what policy based reason you consider it to be significant or how a story ignored by ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune has received "such wide coverage." TFD (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

I am sorry, but you are making a very strange non-policy based argument here. Something not being published in sources X,Y,Z can never be a argument for anything. Only something being published in RS X,Y,Z is the reason for inclusion per WP:NPOV. It tells: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How exactly this should be phrased on the page is another matter. Should it be a separate subsection? This is something debatable. I think this should be a separate subsection (maybe with a different title), given that the subject of the "interference" is separate and important. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

An opinion published in only one major source is not significant. If you read further in weight: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" (my emphasis).One source does not a body make. TFD (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You probably forget this is not a single source, but at least six (see here), and there are more like this ref. "Major" is not a requirement. RS is. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And you probably forgot that I addressed that objection above:

The United States has five major cable news networks: ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox and CNN and four major broadsheets: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. If a story about a public figure is significant, it will appear in all of them. The story about Kamala Harris' appearance on Breakfast Television was covered in all these sources, yet you still thought it was UNDUE for inclusion in her article.

I don't understand what standard you are using for weight. If you would explain that to me, with reference to policy, then perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement on content.

TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

While I very much enjoy in engaging in dialogue with you, it would be more interesting if you acknowledged my replies, rather than stating your opinion over and over again.

TFD (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Which WP policy tells it matters how many news networks US or any other country has? The policy is here, and 6-7 RS is enough to document an allegation as this policy requires. I am not saying how exactly this should be worded. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As you are well aware, one source among all the major media does not count as the body of reliable sources. Out of curiosity, do you believe that Susan Sarandon sent $500 to the Gabbard campaign because the Kremlin told her to? TFD (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: The source makes the point that the Russian sources were the same ones that were involved with the 2016 election and that the CIA considers two of them part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine." That's lost in your version. As My very best wishes points out, this is likely part of Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in U.S. elections. You ask why other major U.S. news sources haven't picked this up. Probably for the same reason that they are not covering Gabbard much at this point—because she's polling at around 1%. As such, we have to rely on less prominent sources. Thats why this article is filled with sources like West Hawaii Today (2), Hawaii News Now (5), Honolulu Civil Beat (4), Maui Now (2), Honolulu Star-Bulletin (2), KHON (5), and VoteTulsi.com (2). - MrX 🖋 11:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you believe "this is likely part of Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in U.S. elections," then your ecit should state that explicitly, rather than imply it. "After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran 20 stories favorable to her as part of an effort to interfere in the 2020 election". The problem with the source is that it makes that implication without actually stating it, which presumably why no major media picked up on it. TFD (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the comments in this section, I have edited a much shorter version of this content to address WP:WEIGHT issues, using The Four Deuces proposed wording.

After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election. Matt Taibbi, in the Rolling Stone, called the report a "smear campaign"

Hopefully this satisfies everyone as a reasonable compromise.- MrX 🖋 12:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Nowhere in either article does it say that these sources successfully influenced the election, so the second sentence fails verification. I have removed it, because it is not responsible to be saying things the articles themselves doesn't say. If people want the article to say the 3 blue-linked sites influenced the 2016 election they need to find sources actually saying that.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems to meet neutrality. At some point however we are going to have to decide how much coverage attack articles need in mainstream media before inclusion. As I mentioned, we seem to have a higher standard in Kamala Harris and I imagine in other articles. TFD (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have noted this as well and it is quite disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And now AOC (see WP:RSN#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change). TFD (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is it's not even Gabbard's fault. There's no reason to assume that she wants Russia's help with anything. Nonetheless, it's a noteworthy factor in the campaign coverage.- MrX 🖋 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But isn't the "smear campaign" the reporting by NBC and The Daily Beast?  According the The Intercept and Rolling Stone the reporting on Russia's support isn't accurate.  Shouldn't the main subject of the text at this point be about the stories themselves?  Something like: NBC and The Daily Beast reported that the same Russian sources who influenced the 2016 Presidential Election have been running stories favoring her.  The Intercept and Rolling Stone condemned the reporting for relying on a "disgraced" source, and Gabbard called it "fake news." Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think that's roughly what we have now, but the Daily Beast story is about campaign donations. I've been convinced, primarily by TFD, that we should leave the Daily Beast material out of this article. I think it's too esoteric and doesn't meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. It also muddies the other issue. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The article now refers to a "report" but leaves out what report it's referring to.  Gabbard's response to a question about the Daily Beast story is what received the most coverage, isn't it? (sorry I don't have time to look into this myself now).  Both stories are about Russia-linked support.  We don't have to get into specifics, and we only have to differentiate when we say which people criticized which stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If we provide sourced rebuttals (as we should), we should also source the claims that have been denied. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What about:

NBC News reported that the same Russian sources who influenced the 2016 Presidential Election were promoting her candidacy, and an article in The Daily Beast reported that Gabbard had received campaign contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia. Gabbard dismissed The Daily Beast story as "fake news", and journalists Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald described allegations of Russia-linked support as deceptive and part of a smear campaign.

Neither story used the exact phrase "smear campaign". It doesn't read very well, but I think this wording makes sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The passage becomes confusing by conflating two separate accusations in two separate sources. It's not even clear that the Russian sources refers to news agencies as opposed to spies. One of the problems is the lack of attention paid to the stories in mainstream media means that we cannot provide a fair representation of the claims, which is one reason why weight dictates against including them. TFD (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, we could separate the two stories, and we could simply replace "sources" with "news agencies". After a quick search I found that Business Insider reported on the NBC story and The Intercept's reaction to it.[9] ABC News reported on The Daily Beast story.[10] I think I understand your point that we can't provide a fair representation of the claims, but I think we should find a way to describe the attention around these stories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If we separate the two stories, then there is no reason to change MrX's wording of the NBC accusation. TFD (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be an idea to have a separate article listing the various articles that have been run against Gabbard, beginning with "Tulsi Gabbard is not your Friend" in Jacobin and including the Daily Beast and NBC articles. Then we could provide more detail on the accusations, the other media that picked up the stories and articles written in rebuttal. TFD (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we have articles like that about other candidates?  We can just expand on this in her 2020 campaign article.  I don't understand what you're saying about Mr.X's wording.  Do you mean this version? This is incomparable.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a plethora of sources (literally hundreds) stating that there is a smear campaign going on, but most of these sources are in places like fair.org, and progressive sites that will be argued not to be "reliable".🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't to my knowledge, but then none of them have attracted the same slew of attack articles. There are however numerous "Criticism of" articles. (I was referring to MrX's version at 12:10, 28 May 2019.) SashiRolls, you only need reliable sources that there is a smear campaign if you want to make a factual statement that there is a smear campaign. TFD (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This version doesn't even mention NBC and uses Wikivoice.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The just add to the first sentence "according to a report in NBC news." TFD (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What about:

According to NBC News, the same Russian news sources who interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election were promoting her candidacy. Gabbard repeated journalist Glenn Greenwald's opinion that the story was a deceptive smear.[11] An article in The Daily Beast reported that Gabbard had received campaign contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia. Gabbard dismissed The Daily Beast story as "fake news", and journalist Matt Taibbi called it and the NBC News story "hit pieces".

 Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And I would cite the National Review story which quotes the RNC's reaction.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For some reason this was removed: "These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election." with a stated reason: "remove claim which is not in either source cited. "sought to influence" / "efforts to influence" is not the same as "influenced". However, the source actually says the following:

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016."
— [12]

This directly contradicts the reason stated for removing this important material.- MrX 🖋 12:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You should be all set if you use the word "interfered" instead of "influenced".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sashi was correct to remove that sentence. When one attempts to reduce thousands of words into a couple of sentences in a BLP, and a political one at that, we must be very careful to not include anything that is easily misunderstood as is the case here. And especially true when Mike Taibbi then says the entire NBC report is a smear in the first place. If our readers want to fully understand this information they will need to read the sources. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: How could that sentence be misunderstood? It's a straightforward sentence stands on it's own. Now, the entire paragraph reads as if there was actually a smear campaign, but for unclear reasons. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I am doing my best to catch up here so sorry if I'm wrong here... On the other hand, unlike the rest of you who have been wrestling with this for some time now and understand fully what's involved, I'm more like one of our readers, in other words just trying to understand the whole story with very little previous knowledge. I'll copy what our article had:

After Gabbard announced her campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. These sources influenced the 2016 presidential election. Matt Taibbi, in the Rolling Stone, called the report a "smear campaign".

Certainly, as has (I think) been suggested it should state that the report was done by NBC, but even still why would WP throw in the fact re Russia's support for Trump? While it may well or most likely was her stance on Syria, IMO we can't just make the Trump election statement without some sort of explanation. And then one gets into one of those WP instances where the devil's in the details, and unable to go into the details it is best to let the reader read the sources. I think...though I certainly am open to changing my mind on this.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think should be in the article?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Very good question Kolya. Actually I'm still trying to gather my thoughts/opinions and am not yet sure. Like the rest of you (I would assume) I am also working on other difficult articles and need to be able to spend the time to catch up on this one. Right now this one is not at the top of my priority list. At any rate, I will tag along as best as I can. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the definition of innuendo is: "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature."[13] It presents a problem when reporting it in an encyclopedia, because there the writing should be direct and explicit. The only way we can do that is either through original research or use of secondary sources. Trump for example never claimed Obama was not born in the U.S. but asked why he had not provided a copy of his birth certificate. However, we had reliable secondary sources that interpreted what he was doing. TFD (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm not seeing a policy based reason for omitting a this basic fact that he source itself made a point to highlight. The fact that RT, Sputnik, and other Russian media were part of the election interference by Russia is a widely-reported and widely-accepted fact. I don't think we should put ourselves in the position of assuming that readers are not able to understand something so basic, or click though to the sources. By the way, Russia's support for Trump was never in this article.- MrX 🖋 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you explain what you are referring to as something so basic that readers are supposed to understand? TFD (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot follow this conversation.... Is my suggestion on 16:19, 29 May 2019, acceptable? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is to me, but I think other editors would push back on covering the Daily Beast article at all.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: That Russian media websites were used to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The subject has been covered extensively in English language sources on the seven continents. Any readers wanting to take a deep dive can click through to the main article.- MrX 🖋 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

But that is already clear in the various versions presented. What relevance does it have to the stories about Gabbard? TFD (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it was taken out. The relevance is established in the source. I hope we're talking about the same thing, because I'm a bit confused by your comment.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD, the NBC story is precisely about how the "Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election" was promoting Gabbard. Are you ok with my 16:19, 29 May 2019 suggested version? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And NBC is the same network that ran Seinfeld, although you don't include that. What is the connection? TFD (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to sound bad faith. What is your question? What is the connection between what and what? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the connection between they "tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election" and they promoted Gabbard when she announced her candidacy? TFD (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward? The NBC story is saying that the "propaganda machine" that tried to influence the 2016 election is now trying to influence the 2020 election by promoting Gabbard. We can make that more clear in my suggestion by replacing "interfered" with "tried to influence". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But it's not straightforward. What is the relevance to them being a propaganda machine to their reporting on Gabbard? TFD (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of the NBC story? It seems straightforward to me, so I need to understand your understanding of the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In my interpretation, the NBC writers are implying that the Russians are running positive stories about Gabbard as part of an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. Do you agree or do you think there is another reason why they mention Russian interference in the 2016 election? TFD (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

How is that different from what I said at 01:51? I don't understand what our disagreement is. Can you rewrite my suggestion using your interpretation of the NBC story so I can see the difference? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't re-write your text because I don't know what it means. Can you please explain the relevance of Russian owned media being a propaganda machine to their reporting on Gabbard? If it has no relevance, then it does not belong in the article. I believe that you think it is relevant because you believe that the Russians are running positive stories about Gabbard as part of an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election. Am I right or wrong? TFD (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the meaning of my text is intended to have the same meaning as the NBC News article story which it summarizes. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to highlight between my text and the NBC story. I don't personally believe anything about what the Russians are or are not doing; I am describing a news story that was reported on by RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD, it sounds like you disagree with how NBC covered the story. It's perfectly natural that they would mention the 2016 events, given the scope of the article. To answer your earlier questions about relevance and connections, the article says "Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.". The connection is that Russia is promoting one candidate, while given other candidates perfunctory coverage. That also happened in 2016. That's the connection and the relevance. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Several experts..." - so I take it that you do not agree with Taibbi's contention that the so-called "experts" were hardly experts at all, to say the least? Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That was a direct quote showing what the article says, not an opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not go out of your way to treat other editors as though they are not capable of editing this article due to stupidity. Guess what, I know that it's a direct quote because MrX said it was a direct quote. Easy as eating pie. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I neither agree or disagree with any of the sources about the experts, and I'm not equipped to determine who's right. When there are two major viewpoints, the best we can do is represent both in the article, without adding our own conclusions. I think we have done that. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is conceivable (or even likely) that Russian propaganda may prefer certain candidates or simply intends to stir the pot, the noteworthisness in encyclopedic biographies seems somewhat questionable to me and as well as insinuated framing of it "inappropriate" influencing in general. One might ask the following question. Do we mention in the biography of other politicians their treatment in Russian funded English speaking media? Would we consider largely negative or positive description of US politicians in other international English speaking news channels (BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera English, press tv, Chinese and Indian news outlets, ...) as an attempt to influence US election? Noteworthy of mentioning in the concerned biographies? Or to pick an rather polemic example: Would we consider the (justifiable) largely negative reporting on Donald Trump by the BBC or Al Jazeera English as an attempt by the UK and Qatar to influence the US elections (say Fox but hardly anybody else would carry such a story concerning "iappropriate" British and Qatari influence on US elections due to their press coverage)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We aren't writing about Russian propaganda preferring a candidate; we're writing about a news story about Russian propaganda preferring a candidate which was widely reported on. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I could from following the discussion so far (without doing any extensive research on my own) the "widely reported" of yours is being disputed above as well as the noteworthiness of the whole thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh, yes we would mention such coverage if another low-polling candidate were receiving disproportionate coverage in Russian media that was reported by a major news organization after they consulted with experts. For example, if Cory Booker or Any Klobuchar were suddenly the subject of flattering coverage in RT and Sputnik, and the Washington Post wrote and an article about it, there's a pretty good possibility that it would be included in their bio. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

So we would mention it only in the case of low polling candidates and Russian funded media? That logic escapes me. Also above was suggested that the Washington Post did not carry that story. So was that mistake or has changed in the meantime?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It was disputed that Russia's alleged support of Gabbard was widely reported; I don't believe it's in dispute that the NBC story was widely reported on. In addition to the sources already discussed,The Chicago Tribune[14] discussed it. The aren't many stories devoted solely to Gabbard around this time, but this story was covered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, that was my point. The polling is largely a phenomenon of name recognition at this point. There is relatively little coverage about Gabbard compared with Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, etc., so any major stories about Gabbard will tend to stand out from the coverage in the local Hawaii press.- MrX 🖋 14:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the Chicago Tribune did not discuss it, it was mentioned in a column published in the Chicago Tribune. (Read News organizations if you do not understand the difference between news and opinion.) "Widely reported" does not mean ignored by news reporting in ABC, CBC, CNN, Fox, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. It doesn't mean whatever appears in your daily news aggregator. TFD (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, it was "discussed in" The Chicago Tribune.  This is one of the only articles about her in The Chicago Tribune around that time.  We may have a different definition of "widely covered", but the point is that this is how she has been covered in RS.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided a link and asked you read it. Here is the relevant text: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content....Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." By the way there is a difference between "discussed by" and "discussed in." Columns published by newspapers do not necessarily represent the views of the newspaper. Rachel Marsden, who wrote the column published in the Chicago Tribune is not the Chicago Tribune. It does not establish weight, the most you can say is that someone whose opinions you have absolutely no interest in mentioned the NBC article. TFD (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference, that's why I acknowledged that I should have said "discussed in". I don't know what you're talking about. We're not discussing establishing the weight of an opinion, we're discussing whether to include the coverage of the NBC article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the NBC article or anything else is included in the article is determined by its weight, which is one of the major content policies. TFD (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop explaining basic policies to me. Like I said, we're not discussing establishing the weight of an opinion; we're discussing whether to give [weight] to the NBC article, if that makes it clearer. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for establishing the weight of an opinion and the weight of a story are exactly the same and are included in the subsection of Due and undue weight called Balancing aspects. In case you cannot follow the link, it says,

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

TFD (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fact check: smear campaign

Can someone point out where in the Rolling Stone article [15] Matt Taibbi calls the NBC story a "smear campaign"? I see that he calls it a "hit piece". Then he talks about Howard Dean, and refers to the Dean scream coverage as "these smear jobs". I think we need to rectify this. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Exhibit A:

• She’s Exhibit A of a disturbing new media phenomenon that paints people with the wrong opinions as not merely “controversial,” but vehicles of foreign influence. source

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm only looking for the part of the article that says NBC's report was a "smear campaign". - MrX 🖋 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you have a point: based on the above, and strictly speaking, we would need to use "paint" campaign with a redirect to smear campaign. Perhaps we could add a link to the Liberty Paint factory chapter in Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Maybe Quantic's "Bomb in a Trumpet Factory" could be on the soundtrack. Flight of the Cosmic Hippo, too. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. No reason to leave a misquote in the article while we're waiting to form a consensus on the rest of the paragraph. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That solves the problem.- MrX 🖋 14:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, this was resolved until SashiRolls restored the false information in violation of WP:V. I even included the source passage in my edit summary, but that was ignored for some reason.

A transparent hit piece came out as Gabbard was announcing her run. NBC reported “the Russian propaganda machine” is “now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.

- MrX 🖋 12:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the person you reverted (i.e. not me) referred you to the discussion of Taibbi referring to today's "smear jobs". Reminder: "paint as" terrible and write "transparent hit pieces" about are synonyms for "smear"... cf.  [16]🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote "smear job" is now removed, which corrects the clear policy violation.  I do think that the direct quote "hit piece" is better than us characterizing his controversial remarks, even though smear is a perfectly appropriate characterization.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, MrX has complained about my removal of their false "not in source" tag, so in order to be a rule-follower I have had to reinstate something false. Feel free to correct it. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The text reads "Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept and Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone identified the report as being smear." Not only is that really poor writing, it misrepresents the source. "identified" carries the implication of authority, and while Greenwald did accuse NBC of smearing Gabbard, Taibbi avoided calling the report a smear. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only is that really poor writing, it's misrepresents the source. Cf. Tarage's 2nd law for the grammatical mistake. For the "substance", I hope that my telling you "you are wrong" will not be construed as any sort of personal attack, because you are wrong about what you have said: both articles say without any ambiguity that the NBC article is smear. You can find a lot more sources saying the same thing. 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then a direct quote should be used for now.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a direct quote from one of the sources should satisfy everyone. I would also be willing to explore something along the lines of "Taibbi and Greenwald were critical of the NBC report". However, "identified as [a] smear" is not acceptable in my view.- MrX 🖋 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added direct quotes per your suggestion. Insofar as both call the article smear, but we do not yet have unanimous consensus to use the English word for what is described, it seemed wisest to quote both opinions, so any nuances between their positions could be evaluated.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like these edits at all. There's way too much from Taibbi and Greenwald (or at least those specific quotes are poor choices). Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to capture the gist, not the detailed opinions of Taibbi and Greenwald. The two main viewpoints about this should be roughly equally balanced (which I have stated before, and no one has disagreed, AFAICT). - MrX 🖋 00:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I probably already asked you this, but doesn't my 16:19, 29 May 2019 suggestion...pretty much address all the points in our discussion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

For the most part I believe that this edit is appropriate. If you're going to mention such controversial matter based on one opinion of a couple of NBC journalists it needs to be addressed by better-known commentators such as Greenwald and Taibbi if they object to it. On wikipedia we sometimes need to bend over backwards to avoid bias in our articles, as is the case here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Are you saying that we should give Taibbi and Greenwald's opinions higher weight because (according to you) they are better-known? If so, that doesn't fly with our policies. I don't think we are in a position as editors to judge who's reporting is right and who's is wrong. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.- MrX 🖋 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed Taibbi's comments, hopefully that will satisfy your concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Partially, and thank you. I see a bit more opportunity to trim or adjust. I'm bothered by a quote with an ellipsis in the middle of it.- MrX 🖋 17:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's what we've got--what would you change?

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New Knowledge] [...] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm’s CEO just got caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."

Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized NBC's use of cybersecurity firm New Knowledge as a source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.[17]

Greenwald's comment about "fabricating Russian troll accounts" is over the top, so we should note his criticism, but lean on the NYT for the actual description of what New Knowledge did.- MrX 🖋 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the NYT. Sashi made the BOLD edit--Sashi, what do you think? IMO the bold edit is confusing and needs work but I'm not sure "participated in an experiment" is critical enough, though again I can't read the NYT information so am not sure... Gandydancer (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls is currently blocked. You should be able to read the NYT article here.- MrX 🖋 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for calling an edit dishonest, which is apparently not allowed even if what you call "dishonest" really was demonstrably so. Oh well, not the first time I've been blocked for pointing out an inconvenient truth. ^^ With regard to your question, Gandydancer, the NYT cites the New Knowledge report verbatim as follows in the link above:  We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 11:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote can also be found in the The Intercept story.  And SashiRolls, let's not come back from a block immediately being dishonest.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sad to say MrX, but it is not working for me. I went back and forth several times and got just snips of the article. (On a personal note, I am retired and on a limited income and for my work here I have picked WaPo to pay for. I've brought this pay-for-view problem up on Jimbo's talk page several times where it has been brushed off... Perhaps not enough editors that work on the basic nuts and bolts of our endeavor. Use only RS say our WP guidelines, but if you are blocked from reaching them, oh well...) Anyway, frustrated I googled the CEO and found this [18] Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's weird. I have no problem accessing NYT articles, maybe because I don't accept cookies and I have uBlock origin and Privacy Badger plugins. Sometimes, you can access such content by disabling javascript in your browser or changing your user agent to Googlebot, or both. I am also able to access some newspapers online by logging into my public library account. Wikipedia does have several programs for providing editors with access to paywalled content. If you need more info, stop by my talk page.- MrX 🖋 18:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK I will stop by your page when time permits. Anyway, I did do a lot of reading on her and it is my impression that Russia would indeed support her as compared to the others that are running. Even still I have reservations about using NBC journalists as a source. On the other hand, I know you to be a cautious and fair editor and I'm comfortable with using your wording if it is agreeable to others here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, and I can also post excerpts from the NYT article here if you like. Kolya Butternut and anyone else: what do think of the proposed text in green as replacement for the Greenwald quote?- MrX 🖋 14:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question, but my concern is how this compares to Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Allegations of Russian support. I feel like what we write here should be the same but less detailed, but the proposed edits are different information. Maybe would should work on that article section first? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve this wording issue. If you still think that we need to add the Daily Beast material here, or remove it from the campaign article, that's worth discussing (or just be bold). But it shouldn't impede improving the wording about Greenwald's criticism of the NBC article, which is what I'm trying to accomplish now. As you can see from the article history, both articles had the same content when I added the material, and it has since morphed due to back and forth editing. So what should we do?- MrX 🖋 02:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just read the other entry for the first time and I'm surprised that you find it acceptable. I'm very surprised in fact. Gandydancer (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX, your proposed text is much better than the Greenwald quote, but I wouldn't include anything about New Knowledge here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald criticized NBC's use of a cybersecurity firm as a source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.[19]

- MrX 🖋 16:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, why get into the details at all?  We could just say Greenwald condemned the piece which relied on a source which he stated was "discredited".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

But why mention the NBC article at all, when it was ignored by other mainstream media? The purpose of articles is not to provide stuff we think is important but professionals do not, except in articles about fringe topics. TFD (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed this. It's not that mainstream media are ignoring this particular story about her; it's that there just aren't that many stories devoted to her in the mainstream media. What other stories devoted to her that have been left out of this article do you think should be given weight? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite what policy supports your argument? If there are insufficient sources to write a fair article, the solution is to submit to articles for deletion. I note by the way that google news returns 76,200 hits for "tulsi gabbard"'[20] I think there are sufficient sources to write a neutral article. She is not exactly obscure. Anyway, if you want to ignore the policy of neutrality for this article, then you cannot use the same policy to keep out stuff you don't agree with. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like your comment is not responsive to mine. Let me put it another way: there is no policy that states something should only be given weight if it is reported in mainstream media. There are not many stories about her which meet your criteria of being covered by every single major news source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy says articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Something that is only mentioned in one major news network and ignored in major print media does not satisfy this criterion. Policy does not list every possible situation, because one assumes that editors will use reasonable judgment in interpreting them. Stormfront for example is a reliable source for the opinions of its writers. That does not mean that every opinion expressed there should be copied into every article about every subject on which they opine. Is there a policy that says an opinion expressed in only one source lacks weight? No. But one assumes that editors will use judgment in applying policy. TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That's obviously an incorrect interpretation of policy. The policy is about the body of reliable sources, it has nothing to do with "major news networks and major print media". When you say "an opinion expressed in only one source" it sounds like you're only including "major" sources as reliable sources. What is an example of a story about her campaign (other than her announcement itself) that met your criteria of being covered in all or most major media? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess we have a difference of interpretation as to what "the body of" means. To me it means a subtantial munber if not most of the major sources. To you, it means one major source and a one or two minor ones out of numerous minor sources. Or what do you think it means? TFD (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of [RS] on the subject". Media which do not report on the subject are not included in "the body of" RS. So, that leaves my question, what is an example of a story about her campaign (other than her announcement itselft) that met your criteria of being covered in all or most sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is actually about Tulis Gabbard, there is a separate article about her campaign where we can discuss your novel interpretation of weight. I note that CBS News has run 35 stories that mention Gabbard since she declared her candidacy[21] most if not all of which present news that probably is also reported in every other mainstream source. TFD (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you're focused on my lack of precision where I'm conflating a topic within an article with the "subject" of an article, but there is nothing "novel" about the interpretation that "the body of [RS] on the subject" refers to... RS on the subject.

None of those CBS stories after her campaign announcement are devoted to her besides the ones about her campaign announcement. The stories that "mention" her certainly may contain the most notable information, but other notable information will be found in less prominent RS. It does make sense to have this conversation at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss that in the article about her campaign. In this article, if you believe that her campaign has received almost no coverage in mainstream media, then the solution is to cut back on it. As policy says, articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body." If sources provide very little coverage of her campaign in relation to articles about her overall, then so should this article. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss what information is included about her 2020 campaign in Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but how much information about her campaign is in this article is a separate discussion we can have here. Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Her campaign has received plenty of coverage in "mainstream" reliable sources, but yes, we can discuss her campaign's relative coverage to the other topics in this article after we decide what information is included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be going backwards in this discussion. I believe we have already established that his material should be covered in this article. We were discussing specific wording. From what I can tell, no one has made the argument that that Greenwald's broken quote is better than the paraphrased version that I proposed several days ago, so I have made the change. - MrX 🖋 11:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, most of us have. The paraphrased version is better, I'm just questioning why we should get into the weeds here about why people believe the source is discredited. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"None of those CBS stories after her campaign announcement are devoted to her besides the ones about her campaign announcement....Her campaign has received plenty of coverage in "mainstream" reliable sources...." So her campaign has received no coverage beyond her announcement yet has received plenty of coverage at the same time. It's difficult to argue with you when you use different sets of facts depending on what point you choose to argue. TFD (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That would only be confusing if you completely ignored all context. What you describe as "major" "mainstream" media sources, e.g. CBS, is different from what I describe as mainstream media sources, i.e. reliable sources, which I have repeatedly discussed and even highlighted in bold above. The semantics argument is a distraction, and so is continuing this conversation here. It sounded like we agreed to discuss the content at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but you have not replied there. This is feeling like bad faith POV pushing. You have a legitimate argument over how much weight to give these topics, but you are instead arguing over my use of the word "mainstream" which you claim to have made it "difficult" to argue with me. Let's go to the other talk page and discuss this in good faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but did not check the campaign talk page yet. But let's keep each discussion separate. You are saying that Gabbard's campaign has received very little coverage in mainstream sources, which is understandable considering that we are early in the race and her polling numbers are low. To me, policy dictates that we provide little coverage to her campaign in this article, in accordance with its weight in the body of reliable sources about Tulsi Gabbard. Do you agree with that? Sorry, are you saying that CBS News is not a mainstream source? TFD (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If the misunderstanding is around the word "mainstream", I suggest we not use that word. I prefer to use words which are used in policy, i.e., "reliable sources." This conversation surrounds her campaign so we should move it to her campaign article. There we can discuss what to include, here we can discuss how much of that information to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Military decorations table

This is super inconsequential, but if anyone is good with table hoodoo voodoo, they could go in and clean up the "2nd Row Awards" row. My table-fu wasn't good enough to figure that one out. Jdc5294 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

David Duke

Non-endorsement from a non-noteable person "I must make it clear that I did not endorse Tulsi Gabbard for President yesterday, but I do endorse her efforts to stop these insane Neocon Zionist wars for Israel in the Mideast and that even threatens us with a catastrophic war with Russia, a nation which has simply dared to oppose Israel and Zionist objectives in the Mideast and globally." https://davidduke.com/dr-david-duke-no-i-did-not-endorse-tulsi-gabbard-for-president/ Scottmontana (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

PLEASE CHANGE THIS TEXT: "In 2006, Gabbard began serving as a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka in Washington, D.C.,[111] and in March 2007 she graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy."

TO THIS TEXT: "In 2006, Gabbard began serving as a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka in Washington, D.C.,[111] and in March 2007 she graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy where she was the first woman to finish as the Distinguished Honor Graduate in the Alabama Military Academy's 50-year history. This award, signifying distinguished leadership and academic ability, is given to one top candidate per state in each OCS class and is presented by the authority of the Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau. The accelerated program is the most physically and mentally demanding program."

BECAUSE: The new text provides more facts.

FinchandEagle (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done - MrX 🖋 14:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Moderate Democrat?

She's the only politician in leadership to have supported Bernie in 2016. Some progressives/liberal view her as a moderate, while others view her as a liberal. Putting that she's a moderate in the opening paragraph seems to be misleading when this is often subject of debate. GeekInParadise (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"while others view her as a liberal" like who? Who are those others?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Education

Something is wrong here. How could she have been a nurse in the Marines with a degree in business administration? Skysong263 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

She is not a nurse or in the Marines and the article does not say she is or was. TFD (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Please add the following info in the “Syria” section: Tulsi Gabbard met Assad in Syria, without informing top Democrats 2601:14D:8602:3336:F844:3B71:8D60:B0C5 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References