| Revision as of 00:31, 4 August 2019 editBattleshipGray (talk | contribs)88 edits →One conservative org's assessment of the Green New Deal: Response← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:08, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,345 editsm →top: merge blp/living/activepol params into blp=activepol; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (581 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{old XfD multi|page=Peter Buttigieg|date=19:52, 19 July 2010|result='''Delete'''}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|activepol=yes|class=C|listas=Buttigieg, Pete|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid |
|
|
|
| action1date = 14 July 2021 |
|
|
| action1link = Talk:Pete Buttigieg/GA1 |
|
|
| action1result = failed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 1033358461 |
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = GAN |
|
|
| action2date = 5 October 2021 |
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Pete Buttigieg/GA2 |
|
|
| action2result = listed |
|
|
| action2oldid = 1048408492 |
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
|
| dykdate= 27 October 2021 |
|
|
| dykentry= ... that United States Secretary of Transportation ''']''' ''(pictured)'' wrote an essay in 2000 on ], his future competitor in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries? |
|
|
| dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/Pete Buttigieg |
|
|
| topic = Politics and government |
|
|
| collapse = yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
{{Active politician}} |
|
|
|
|date = July 19, 2010 |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C|person=yes}} |
|
|
|
|result = '''Delete''' |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|page = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter Buttigieg |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low|IN=yes|IN-importance=}} |
|
|
|
|link = |
|
| blp=yes |
|
|
|
|caption = |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|collapsed=yes|class=GA|listas=Buttigieg, Pete|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Low|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|person=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|Biography=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes|Maritime=yes|class=GA|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Transport|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|IN=yes|IN-importance=low|USMIL=yes|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2019}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |collapsed=yes |
|
|
| author = Ashley Feinberg |
|
|
| title = Pete Buttigieg’s Campaign Says This Misplaced Pages User Is Not Pete. So Who Is It? |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/pete-buttigieg-wikipedia-page-editor.html |
|
|
| date = December 20, 2019 |
|
|
| accessdate = December 20, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Juwan J. Holmes |
|
|
| title2 = Internet ponders if Mayor Pete (or devoted friend) was behind his Misplaced Pages edits |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/12/internet-ponders-mayor-pete-devoted-friend-behind-wikipedia-edits/ |
|
|
| date2 = December 22, 2019 |
|
|
| accessdate2 = December 22, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author3 = James Vincent |
|
|
| title3 = Go read this Slate report on presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s mysterious Misplaced Pages supporter |
|
|
| org3 = ] |
|
|
| url3 = https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/23/21034873/pete-buttigieg-wikipedia-supporter-slate-report-streeling |
|
|
| date3 = December 23, 2019 |
|
|
| accessdate3 = December 27, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author4 = Hannah Knowles |
|
|
| title4 = How the reporter who found Mitt Romney’s secret Twitter has turned online sleuthing into a beat |
|
|
| org4 = ] |
|
|
| url4 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/24/how-reporter-who-found-mitt-romneys-secret-twitter-has-turned-online-sleuthing-into-beat/ |
|
|
| date4 = December 24, 2019 |
|
|
| accessdate4 = December 27, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author5 = Alex Pasternack |
|
|
| title5 = How Misplaced Pages’s volunteers became the web’s best weapon against misinformation |
|
|
| org5 = ] |
|
|
| url5 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation |
|
|
| date5 = 7 March 2020 |
|
|
| accessdate5 = 9 March 2020 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<!-- Old templates retained for reference |
|
|
{{GA|21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)|page=2|subtopic=Politics and government|oldid=1048408492}} |
|
|
{{FailedGA|14:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=1}} |
|
|
{{old XfD multi|page=Peter Buttigieg|date=19:52, 19 July 2010|result='''Delete'''}} |
|
|
--> |
|
|
{{American politics AE |Consensus required=no |BRD=no }} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 14 2019|Feb 2 2020|until|Feb 16 2020|Jul 21 2024}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Pete Buttigieg/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Pete Buttigieg/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Wiki Loves Pride 2019}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Language Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused when this article starts talking about Buttigieg's language ability. It starts by saying this: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Buttigieg taught himself to speak a measure of Norwegian and has some knowledge of Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic, Dari, and French in addition to his native English, though his level of fluency in those languages is unclear." |
|
|
|
|
|
That sentence makes total sense. But then, I saw this line following it: |
|
|
|
|
|
"leading commentators such as Michael Erard and Jay Caspian Kang to question whether Buttigieg is using a combination of mythology and superficial mastery to appear proficient." |
|
|
|
|
|
I skimmed the articles referenced at this line, and one thing that Michael Erard said that stood out me was: |
|
|
|
|
|
"None of this is meant to cast doubt on or give credence to Buttigieg’s actual language abilities." |
|
|
|
|
|
Both of these articles aren't really questioning Buttigieg's language ability, but rather using it to start a larger discussion. Erard talks about how vague it is to say someone "speaks" a certain language, and Kang talks about identity politics and how we are focusing too much on his credentials. So, then that begs the question, **is this sentence really necessary?** I mean, just by proof of interviews and videos, we know he at least speaks (to a certain extent) Spanish, French, Arabic, Italian and Norwegian. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxtvXaRe2lg) He even says in that video that he isn't fluent in all these languages. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the best course of action would be to remove this sentence. Thoughts? ] (]) 03:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. This is not an article about his language skills.- ]] 🖋 11:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As someone who actually knows all of those languages (other than Norwegian) to a measurable degree of proficiency, I agree with removing the sentence entirely. Some of the languages he clearly does speak to some extent; others it's obvious that he's memorized no more than a few words or a badly composed sentence (which he can't reproduce without errors). If that counts as "speaking a language" then most US politicians will need a line in their Misplaced Pages page about how they "speak" Spanish because they've uttered a few Spanish words on the campaign trail. In any case we don't need to argue about how one defines "speaking" a language non-fluently, but I think we can agree that someone having memorized a few phrases of a language is decidedly non-notable. ] (]) 01:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Iowa Standard== |
|
|
I have removed an out of scope sentence which is also from a questionable source. The age difference between Buttigieg and his husband doesn't seem to be all that relevant. Further, the "reporter" is linked to ], which is certainly not in favor of her credibility, the article uses ] for the word "husband" and a quick perusal of The Iowa Standard's fb page indicates they are anything but credible. Finally, is such an isolated question relevant for a BLP? I think not. https://theiowastandard.com/buttigiegs-husband-doesnt-say-if-love-has-an-age/ Buttigieg’s ‘husband’ doesn’t say if love has an age], '']'] (]) 11:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, the editor who added the sentence and source ] also created the ] WP article, so this appears to be a ].] (]) 11:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree, it doesn't belong in this article.- ]] 🖋 11:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::The Iowa Standard is a reliable source it just simply isn't liberal and it clearly thinks same sex marriages are weird. Furthermore he wasn't being asked if their age difference was in question farther Bennett was referring to pedo relationships and the full interview is available for all to see and he had to "think about it"! It should be included Corey's l voters should know what kind of man is running for president!] (]) 13:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::So Bennett's question was an attempt to "bait" the candidate's husband? All the more reason it should not be included. And it's not merely an issue with the Iowa Standard, but the reporter who has been linked to Infowars which is plainly NOT an acceptable source.] (]) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I agree that it doesn't belong in the article, doesn't seem to add anything or be particularly notable. ] (]) 15:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::]-toting ] apparently makes a career of getting booted from campaign rallys when she's not ] and stringing for Infowars. ] No thanks. - ]] 🖋 15:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Did you know nomination== |
|
::::MrX, thanks for posting the link to her twitter feed. The "content" she posts speaks for itself as to whether she's a journalist or merely a troll. As for the Iowa Standard, their own about () page says all one needs to know about their reliability. ] (]) 16:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Did you know nominations/Pete Buttigieg}} |
|
:I disagree this will be the gotcha moment of his candidacy... regardless of your opinions for our against gays, pride, Buttigieg, chasten, infowars, or kaitlin. Can anyone find more sources or propose different wording? We should not editorialize rather paraphrase what the sources state, even if he was baited which i don't think he was he thought about it and wasn't confronted suddenly like Bernie was.] (]) 00:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Disagreement noted. This is a biography in an encyclopedia. The content you proposed is irrelevant to the subject, poorly-sourced, and ].- ]] 🖋 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I disagree that it is irrelevant] (]) 08:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2023 == |
|
== Promotional language == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pete Buttigieg|answered=yes}} |
|
Buttigieg's military service is noted extensively elsewhere in the biography. The effort to place "combat veteran" language at the very top of the biography is promotional for a political candidate and not consistent with other pages (such as Seth Moulton, who spent over 8 years on active duty). While Buttigieg's military service is a minor component of his resume, it is being leveraged to promote this campaign, and Misplaced Pages is an inappropriate place to do so. |
|
|
|
Please change the word "Anticipated" to "Anticipate" in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph of the "Secretary of Transportation" section. The sentence should read, "In March 2023, Buttigieg appeared on CNN, telling the cable news network that he had failed to anticipate the fallout from the derailment and erred in not visiting East Palestine sooner." ] (]) 18:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 18:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is also quite startling to see how fast the Buttigieg Campaign and it's surrogates revert any edit within seconds of being made. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:{{u|Qwmnpozx}} Please do not accuse other editors of affiliations without direct evidence(taking care to also avoid ]). ] (]) 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I disagree that it's promotion or misplaced. Now, if we wrote "he is a courageous war hero", that would be promotional. - ]] 🖋 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: Thanks for raising this issue. Regardless of whether or not it is "promotional", I agree that "combat veteran" does not belong in the first line of the lead. Buttigieg is primarily notable for being a politician, not for serving in the military; his military career constitutes just one paragraph of the article. See ]: {{tq|As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources}}. The current emphasis on his veteran status is clearly undue. — ] 👻 (]) 23:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|Qwmnpozx}} Two people in favor and two people against does not mean ''you'' have ]. I strongly suggest that you stop edit warring on this article, as you were warned in May. - ]] 🖋 01:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{re|MrX}} I've yet to see any specific arguments for the inclusion of the text "combat veteran" in the first line of the lead that are based on Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. Do you have any? So far all I've seen is "I disagree that it's promotional" and "Career always goes here per Wiki standard", neither of which are very compelling arguments (the first doesn't connect to any policy/guidelines, just the editor's personal opinion, and thus boils down to ]; the latter is an indefensible invocation of ]—it's not at all standard across articles for a politician's military service to be frontloaded in this way, and leads do not need to exhaustively list every career a person has ever held, or else the lead would also include "consultant", "intern", etc.). I've made the point above that the text is misplaced per ] and would welcome a substantive response. We can only reach consensus if editors are willing to engage in discussion. — ] 👻 (]) 01:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He served as an officer in the military for 8 of his 37 years, including seeing combat duty. This has been the subject of significant coverage. There are more than twice as many news search results for "pete buttigieg"+"war veteran" than for "pete buttigieg"+"McKinsey". Per ] the lead should include (among other things) "The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played;" His combat experience easily qualifies as noteworthy based on 6400+ mentions in the news.- ]] 🖋 02:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The text we're discussing is "combat veteran", not "war veteran"; I'm not sure why you searched for "war veteran" instead. You may also want to have a look at ]: {{tq|Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page}}. Comparing the number of hits for one phrase vs. another is not a reliable way to judge relative notability. |
|
|
:::: Questionable methods aside, something being "noteworthy" does not mean it belongs in the first line of the lead, let alone ''ahead of the primary reasons the subject is notable''. Buttigieg is primarily notable for being a politician; any mentions of his combat experience (or his work at McKinsey) are made in the context of his run for president and/or his mayoralty, and his role in the military is already detailed in the very next paragraph of the lead. The current emphasis it is receiving is undue. Have a look at the page for ], who also has noteworthy combat experience but is also primarily known for being a politician. Her military service is given ample coverage, but it comes after her political role and it is not implied to be the reason that she is notable. I think that's a better model to go with. — ] 👻 (]) 02:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request == |
|
==Mother's name in the infobox== |
|
|
{{yo|Therequiembellishere}} Regarding your recent edit , can you comment as to why you removed Buttiegieg's mother from the infobox? Regards, ] (]) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose the entire section, beginning with "Before Buttigieg took office, Jiha'd Vasquez, a 16-year-old black boy, was found hanging from an electrical tower" and enmding with "In 2019, Jones and ] coroner Mike McGann argued that the case should be reopened; however, sheriff William Redman said he would not consider reopening the case unless further evidence came to light" can be deleted. This large section references an event that took place before Buttigieg was mayor, and serves no real purpose.] (]) 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== One conservative org's assessment of the Green New Deal == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== pronunciation is wrong == |
|
A ten-day old account is spamming text about one conservative organization's assessment of the costs of the Green New Deal to the pages of various Democratic politicians. The text is not a NPOV summary of RS about the GND. NPOV instructs us to represent "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." Spamming one conservative org's assessment of the GND is not compliant with NPOV. Furthermore, the cited sources make zero mention of Pete Buttigieg, making the text ]. ] (]) 00:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
same as title, it's Boot-Edge-Edge not Boot-ah-judge ] (]) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I clearly stated where the cited cost information came from. As Snoog stated, Neutral Point of View instructs us to represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The huge estimated cost to implement the Green New Deal is certainly significant. I have no idea what SYNTH means, but I am not "spamming" anything - I cited properly and mentioned the source of the estimated costs in my insertion. ] (]) 00:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I have no doubt that he pronounces the second syllable as an unstressed link between the first and third, certainly not representable by "Edge-Edge" as though they had the same weight. Listening to him introduce himself , I'm actually having trouble figuring out the first vowel. It isn't /u/ as in "boot" but it also doesn't sound to me quite like /ʊ/ as in "put", but I guess that's what it is. In a respelling sort of phonetic representation "boot" won't work because it'll imply a long "oo". Let's see if this bit of Unicode magic works to represent a short "oo": "bo͝ot-uh-jedge". ] (]) 16:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
Please change the word "Anticipated" to "Anticipate" in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph of the "Secretary of Transportation" section. The sentence should read, "In March 2023, Buttigieg appeared on CNN, telling the cable news network that he had failed to anticipate the fallout from the derailment and erred in not visiting East Palestine sooner." Edmolo (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose the entire section, beginning with "Before Buttigieg took office, Jiha'd Vasquez, a 16-year-old black boy, was found hanging from an electrical tower" and enmding with "In 2019, Jones and St. Joseph County coroner Mike McGann argued that the case should be reopened; however, sheriff William Redman said he would not consider reopening the case unless further evidence came to light" can be deleted. This large section references an event that took place before Buttigieg was mayor, and serves no real purpose.Jrwsaranac (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg)
The official portrait of Pete Buttigieg.
– @AndrewPeterT – New enough (promoted GA on October 5, 2021) and long enough (38765 characters). Sources and neutrality all seem fine. The main hooks implies that Buttigieg is fluent in 8 languages (really exceptional), but the article says that he has "some knowledge" of those languages. None of the sources say that he is "fluent". I'd really avoid it to be on the main page, as it is unclear. Rest, the hooks are withing character limit; neutrality and WP:BLP appears all right. Every hook is interesting, but my preference is for ALT 4. I have un-linked almost everything except a few things, as rest appears to be overlinking. Let me know if you disagree. The hooks appear in the article, and are cited. The picture is very clear, and licenced properly. And QPQ is not required as you have less than 5 nominations, but feel free to do them. I leave the inclusion of "(pictured)" on the promoter, as we are currently in trial period. Almost good to go. Just some clarification needed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
– Fine, I'll approve ALT 1, 2, 3, and 4, with image. "Good to go", Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Done