Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 24 May 2019

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Announcement date

I'd argue that we should consider January 11, 2019 to have been the date the campaign was announced, not January 17. That is more accurately the date of her official launch. Look at Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, we consider the April 12 video announcement to have been the date she announced her campaign not the June 13, 2015 campaign launch rally. SecretName101 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Issues

I would like to propose we add a section regarding Tulsi's stances on the issues from her campaign issue website tulsigabbard.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmontana (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Pacific Islander?

Would Tulsi Gabbard in fact be the first Pacific Islander as president, given that Barack Obama was born in Hawaiʻi?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Michael J: Gabbard is ethnically Samoan. Obama is of African and European ancestry, he may have been born in a Pacific Island but he is not of Pacific Islander ethnic origin. { } 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tulsi Gabbard Official Photo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces

Should we include the Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces here? I've removed the Daily Beast article from her BLP as it is more concerned with her campaign, but has not yet been deemed sufficiently notable to add here. The text was as follows:

The campaign drew attention after The Daily Beast reported that it had received contributions from several individuals sympathetic to Russia and Vladimir Putin, including Stephen F. Cohen and an RT employee. Gabbard called the story fake news.

References

1. Markay, Lachlan; Stein, Sam (May 17, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists". The Daily Beast. Retrieved May 19, 2019.
2. Beavers, David (May 19, 2019). "Gabbard calls unflattering report 'fake news'". Politico. Retrieved May 19, 2019.
3. Zilbermints, Regina (May 19, 2019). "Gabbard says claim her campaign is getting boost from Putin apologists is 'fake news'". The Hill. Retrieved May 19, 2019.

I'll dig up the NBC hit piece (& rebuttal) if anyone thinks the smear campaign should be covered in an encyclopedia. Will it be relevant in 10 years? ~ SashiRolls 19:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a section to cover the smear campaign. ~ SashiRolls 20:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things: they are not hit pieces. They are factual reporting, which you have errantly described as allegations. How is it that a report by a reputable source, picked up by other reputable sources, is a hit piece and "smear", when two opinion articles, apparently ignored by other reputable sources, is just fine?- MrX 🖋 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen contributed $1,100 dollars to TULSI NOW. In 2017-2018 he donated $10,800 to Warren campaigns, $4,000 for Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, $2,700 for FRIENDS OF SHERROD BROWN, $1,250 for Congressman Andy Kim, $1,000 for Congresswomam Nanette Barragán and $500 for Sam Jammal, a former Obama official in an unsuccessful bid for Congress.

Contrary to the claim made in the Daily Beast, Cohen is not a professor at NYU but is retired. He is a contributing editor to The Nation, which is edited by his wife. It's misleading polemical writing disguised as journalism that Misplaced Pages was a policy of weight. One or two misleading articles are insufficient for inclusion. "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."

So someone with a record of making dozens of contributions to Democratic candidates over the years made a relatively small donation to another Democratic candidate in 2019. No wonder the story has been ignored by mainstream media. And I note that even in highly polemical sources, that the information is not being used against any of the other politicians to whose campaigns he contributed.

I note that Snooganssnoogans valiantly defends Warren on her article's talk page. ("When recounting the family lore about Native American ancestry, Warren said that her "aunt Bea" remarked that they had high cheekbones like Bea believed Native Americans had. You want this trivia included in the article? With a description of Warren as someone who espouses racism?") I recommend they show consistency across articles, regardless of the party line.

TFD (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Elizabeth Warren campaign article, nor would I support suppressing unflattering information about her, but I believe the native American controversy predates her campaign. The Daily Beast erred by omitting the word "emeritus" in describing Cohen, but that's not really that important anyway. Notably, he has been vocal in his pro-Russia views and his support of Gabbard.

If I understand correctly, you seem to object to this material because you think that the sources (more than just a couple) are not treating Gabbard fairly. That viewpoint is already represented by the Intercept and Rolling Stone, but it doesn't diminish the many more sources about contributions from pro-Russia sympathizers, Gabbard's stance on Syria, and the pro-Gabbard Russian propaganda campaign. Are you suggesting that we leave this out? That would reduce this article to little more than a campaign brochure. - MrX 🖋 11:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No I do not and never have objected to material because it treats a subject unfairly. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to determine what coverage is fair or not, but to follow policy which 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."

We are discussing an article about contributions to Gabbard's campaign, not Syria.

Obviously Snooganssnoogans has a different editing history from you, but compare your treatment of this topic with Hillary Clinton. When someone wants]ed to add information about Clinton's role in mass incarceration, you wrote, "I'm suspicious of the timing of this "research" that comes out more than 15 years after the fact. I think it overstates Hillary's influence, and is largely the opinion of one person.... I never said the article was an opinion piece, however, the author makes a number of conclusions colored with her opinion." (19 Feb. 2016) We should not use different rules for different people.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that we should not use different rules for different people, I don't think the correction needs to occur here. There is not a great deal of coverage in the media about Gabbard. The Russia angle stands out in the coverage about her, so it's hard to ignore whether it's fair or not. There seem to be two main points of view: (1) she has taken positions viewed as favorable to Russia, so Russia and Russia's surrogates tend to support her, and (2) the media is unfairly smearing her with undue coverage about #1. Point two should be covered in this article (and probably the bio), but with proportionally less volume to reflect its coverage in the press. My main concern now is not so much about how the content in this article is written (although it can be improved). My objections is calling the campaign contributions and Russian propaganda "allegations", a characterization that is not in widespread use in sources, and thus should not be made in Misplaced Pages's voice, if at all.

I remember writing that comment about Clinton's fairly minor role in mass incarceration and I still stand by that view. By contrast, the viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant to this article. - MrX 🖋 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Are you claiming Gabbard has a role (other than being anti-interventionist) in how she is being reported? You seem to be suggesting there is a "tit for tat" (quid pro quo) relationship. Could you provide a reference for that claim? Thanks.~ SashiRolls 19:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has articulated positions that many view as pro-Russian, so in that respect, she has a role, although it may be unwitting. Unfortunately, she probably hurt her credibility by calling it fake news.- MrX 🖋 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to limit the depth of coverage, but there's mentions from ABC, and CNN, in addition to the sources already mentioned. It's garnered enough coverage that we can also mention Gabbard's response and the criticisms of the reporting from Taibbi and Greenwald. Nblund 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me restoring your remark to level 1, since you are responding to the original question. Feel free to restore your original threading if you really feel it necessary. I would like an answer from Mr X concerning their claim of a "tit for tat" relationship with Russia. I want to know if he has evidence or if it was just gratuitous. I appreciated your edits of my copy Nblund... your text is much better. Thanks. ~ SashiRolls 20:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact there is a great deal of media coverage about Tulsi Gabbard, it's just that there is more coverage about each and every other candidate who has qualified for the debates. Google News returns 82,400 articles about her, which is less than John Hickenlooper for example at 93,700 articles or Kamala Harris with 7,340,000 hits. We have to decide what information to add and what to omit. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages has a policy called Balancing aspects, which provides assistance: "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."

That means that stories ignored in mainstream media should be ignored. According to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Daily Beast has been found to be ""largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons." The site's role is to provide positive information about people it likes and negative information about people it doesn't with very ittle regard for the fairness of its reporting. With 82 thousand articles about Gabbard, there is no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Whether the fact that 3 out of 80,000+ contributers to Gabbard had said positive things about Russia is more important than Clinton supporting mass incarceration is easy to establish by the degree of coverage. Politifact for example has an article about it. Hillary campaigned for her husband in 1996 and spoke in support of the crime bill ("we have to bring them to heel.")

Sorry, but could you explain your "quid pro quo" comment or strike it out as a BLP violation.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote apparent quid pro quo, meaning that the sources imply an apparent quid pro quo. The references cited establish that perception quite clearly. For example "But Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria." and "RT began defending Gabbard as soon as she announced." - MrX 🖋 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the Legal Dictionary, quid pro quo means "The mutual consideration that passes between two parties to a contractual agreement, thereby rendering the agreement valid and binding." Nowhere in the Daily Beast article is it claimed that there was an agreement between Tulsi Gabbard and the three donors. The fact the article left you with that false impression shows how effective it is. TFD (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign

Are any of the following considered RS?

fair.org (in 595 en.wp entries) :

Counterpunch (in 2057 en.wp entries):

Real Clear Politics (in 1766 en.wp articles):

Joe Rogan Experience (1.8 million views, posted 10 days ago): :

There are a lot more, but these are a few of the more obvious ones. ~ SashiRolls 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You can check at Perennial sources and then search rs to see what other editors think. They are certainly reliable sources for the opinions expressed in them. I would rather avoid however posting accusations in dubious sources about Gabbard, then rebutting them with other opinion pieces. And note I am consistent with this policy based view regardless of the subject and their views. If editors could agree to rely on using sources in mainstream publications and stories and opinions that have been reported across them, then we have a chance to have a reasonable article. TFD (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this link! In fact, I had only seen your preceding post where you mention Perennial sources as an "edit conflict" at first. (sorry) It's interesting how few sources are mentioned on that page, but I guess there have only been so many discussions at RS/N. While I'm not sure I share your optimism about the mainstream/corporate media, it's true there are one or two dissident billionaires out there. ^^ Comparing this en.wp page's number of views to the number of views of the interview with TG on the Joe Rogan show, it looks like maybe a lot of people are not entirely satisfied with the corporate media echo chamber. ~ SashiRolls 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why a broad question about reliable sources is under the heading smear campaign. In any case, the question in unanswerable without knowing the context of the proposed content. In general though, those seem to be low-to-very-low- quality sources.- MrX 🖋 21:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

All the articles or videos cited talk in one way or another about a DNC/media campaign to marginalize Gabbard. ~ SashiRolls 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then no, those would not be reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles