Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 28 June 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

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)

I think we both know that I wasn't using the term in a legal sense. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Really? What other definition is there? It literally means in Latin "something for something," TFD (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I would probably remove the entire "Allegations of Russian support" section. If anything, this belongs to page Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, why do not we have such page already? Here is why. As the publication correctly tells, "Experts in Russian on-line propaganda say Gabbard appeals to pro-Russian sites because her positions —and her appeal as an outsider in her own party — can be used to create division among Democrats." This has little to do with the candidate who actually "had cosponsored legislation calling for an independent investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election", etc. Could be kept here too though. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is that NBC is the only major medium that his published this particular theory. TFD (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a problem, but a reason for inclusion per WP:NPOV. There is no requirement for content to be covered in all major newspapers. However, it is important that the controversy was covered in six sources currently cited on the page.My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

See also this ref. Once again, this is NOT just "Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces" as your title misleadingly tell. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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) 20:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: @My very best wishes: @MrX: @SashiRolls: I removed the portion sourced by The Daily Beast. You can see the explanation in my edit here. The Daily Beast has made these "donation" articles many times in the past.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it important to mention Gabbard's response? She denounced the allegations as "fake news", which was mentioned prior to your edit. I wasn't aware that Beast wasn't considered reliable until recently, so I'm not necessarily opposing the removal of info about that article, but shouldn't Gabbard's response be mentioned? Just mentioning the allegations without mentioning her response seems to give the impression that she hasn't responded to them. On the other hand, did she technically not respond to the NBC report specifically? I had thought her "fake news" statement was referring to all of the allegations, but some of the things that I'm reading indicate that it was more directed at the Beast stuff. Silver181 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLater I read your explanation, but I have been arguing that it does not matter that the Daily Beast story is unreliable, RS have reported on the controversy surrounding the story:

• Rolling Stone: "We’ve Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces"
• ABC News: "2020 candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard presses that US must not go to war with Iran" (where she calls Beast story 'fake news')
• National Review: "Should We Be Worried About Candidates Accepting Donations from ‘Russophiles’?"
• Politico: "Gabbard calls unflattering report 'fake news'"
• MSN: (same Politco story above.)
• The Hill: "Gabbard says claim her campaign is getting boost from Putin apologists is 'fake news'"
• CNN: "Tulsi Gabbard invokes Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric to push back on report of Russia-linked support"

There aren't that many stories devoted to her, so this controversy seems significant. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Google news lists 70,400 articles that mention her. If people want to read highly partisan conspiracy theories, they can tune into Alex Jones or Rachel Maddow, except even they have ignored this story. I'm surprised you aren't talking about how she wasn't born in the United States. TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether or how much to give weight to the story. How does the coverage of this story compare to other stories about her campaign? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 9 June 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)

Reversion of edit

User:SashiRolls recently reverted my entire edit based on a single WikiLink. Before I get into an edit war, I'd like for him or her to explain why he or she reverted the entire edit instead of simply removing a link. The edit contained a number of improvements to the article other than the link.

To be quite frank, SashiRolls, you seem like you're biased in favor of Gabbard and trying to defend her. You seem determined to prove that it's all just a "smear campaign" against her. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to push your politics. I don't believe that you are editing with with the intention to truly improve the article, but rather, simply "defend" Gabbard. In my view, the article already does a good job of expressing neutrality. The word "allegations" inherently expressed that the claims are not verified, there is a mention of journalists accusing the media of a smear campaign, etc. The fact that you're trying to find all these obscure, unreliable sources that accuse the DNC of trying to sabotage Gabbard (which sounds like a blatant conspiracy theory) indicates to me that you want to try to protect her reputation. Silver181 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not need links to Russian media outlets on the page. Everyone knows what Sputnik, RT, etc. are. We do not POV-push DNC-conspiracy theories here. ~ SashiRolls 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL! You're accusing me of pushing a DNC narrative by adding links to news outlets, which is common practice? You are literally admitting your bias with this comment. This is Misplaced Pages. You have absolutely no proof that there are "DNC conspiracy theories" afoot. YOU are the one pushing conspiracy theories that the DNC is trying to sabotage Gabbard.

I can say with near certainty that you are not editing in good faith. You are editing to protect Gabbard's reputation. I do not believe that you can be trusted to edit this article further without incorporating your bias into your edits. Stop trying to politicize the article.

Also, I like how you didn't address at all the other improvements that I made to the article. Nice job at dodging my actual question and immediately jumping to accusing me of being a DNC shill. Silver181 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should link the Russia media articles as is standard practice. I dispute that everyone knows what they are. I support Silver181's version as on overall improvement to the article. I think it's unreasonable to disparage the DNC or to refer to what's reported in reliable sources as a conspiracy theory.- MrX 🖋 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave AmPol2 to the trolls. Adding big blue-links to Russian media entries is obviously not standard practice, except for folks like Cirt (and others in his cabal). It is rhetoric. Ciao. ~ SashiRolls 18:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you would assume good faith and try to work collaboratively with other editors, we could improve this article with minimal heat. It is common practice to wikilink to other articles with the exception of very common terms. I'm trying to understand why you view it as issue, or if you have an policy-based argument for why we should not link RT (which could be anything) or Sputnik (which could be a satellite).- MrX 🖋 18:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rhetorical blue highlighting and bad faith: a primer

You asked what a rhetorical blue-link is, MrX. In the first sentence of this paragraph the brand new journalist Silver181 added a blue link to the word "support" that directs the reader to "cyberwarfare by Russia". This is a tactic eerily similar to what Cirt & the gang were using while astroturfing their dozens of book review reviews about Trump. (further examples here). This page is such a textbook example, I'll add it to my textbook. Bravo, in particular, for the "Policies" section where whoever it was managed to make the first highlighted words under policy be "legalization of recreational cannibas" and "decriminalization of sex work". According to en.wp, these are TG's most important policies. Where did that sex work bit come from? Buzzfeed. And who added that blue link?

Either you, MrX, or Silver181 has also reverted my correction of a citation error "accidentally" introduced by the latter: Greenwald has not debunked the Beast article as they rewrote the entry to say: he & Taibbi debunked the NBC News article. I also tried to fix for the second time the silly claim that we can source TG calling the NBC News article "fake news" to the NBC News article itself. Such trolling is why I think I'd be better off keeping my sanity and leaving AmPol to the regulars (like Cirt / Tarc / etc.) Cf. WP:GNAT (Give No Aid to Trolls). ~ SashiRolls 19:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Mate, no offense, but you've got a bit of a persecution complex going on. I'd rather not discuss my personal politics here, but since you're clearly implying that I'm some sort of neoliberal troll who's out to get Gabbard, I'll just say this: I consider myself to be left-wing and a progressive. I agree with Gabbard on many issues and I do believe that the media is exaggerating the extent of Russian support for Gabbard. I have no idea who "Cirt" is, either. Regardless, I would consider the link that I added to "support" to be accurate in this instance; if the allegations are true, that would be cyberwarfare. I'm also not sure what you're getting at when you say things like "whoever it was" with the policy section. Are you implying that I'm trying to make Gabbard seem like some looney by putting cannabis and prostitution policies there? I wasn't the one who put the crime section first, nor was I the one who added the info about sex work and cannabis. Silver181 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Cf. wp:tag team

1) I am not your mate. 2) Cf. sources & methods Chapter 1 is gaslighting the opposition.~ SashiRolls 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, first, let me add that I also take offense to your characterization of me as a "brand new journalist". Firstly, I'm not a journalist. I believe that my responsibility as a Misplaced Pages editor is to try to state unbiased facts, not tabloid journalism. Secondly, my account is almost six months old and has over two hundred edits. I'm not some troll that created an account yesterday just to vandalize. Also, if you're trying to suggest that I'm a sock puppet of "Cirt", then... I don't even know what to say. Why would this "Cirt" create an account six months ago and readily make edits with it just to spread "conspiracies" about Tulsi Gabbard that first started circulating, what, a week ago? That would be some incredible foresight on Cirt's part.

Secondly, I'm just using "mate" in the same way that one would use "dude" or "man".

Thirdly, you're... accusing me of gaslighting now? That just proves my point about the persecution complex. You're assuming that I'm "out to get you" for some reason. If you want proof that I'm left-wing, look at my edit history. Notice how almost all, if not all, of the political pages that I've edited have been about Democrats? Silver181 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say I thought you were the CIRT.~ SashiRolls 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this needs such an inflammatory heading, but let me attempt to respond to your concerns. The link to cyberwarfare by Russia is not unreasonable, but not ideal per WP:EGG. I don't know Cirt, but if you have concerns about sock puppetry, SPI is the place you oughta be.

Concerning the material under crime, I don't see a major issue, but I do think the content I wrote under 'Marijuana' was more informative. Silver181 can you explain why you removed the detail about the bill?

The word "debunk/debunked" is not the article, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Gabbard did dismiss the reporting about pro-Russia contributions as fake news, which is accurately reflected in the article. Am I missing something?- MrX 🖋 20:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote: I don't know Cirt, which is just really funny since you worked so closely with them on so many articles: (interaction analyzer).~ SashiRolls 20:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Sagecandor! Yes, he was a good editor. I wonder why I haven't seen him around lately.- MrX 🖋 20:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think you have seen the latest instance of the CIRT, I know I have. The individual behind that username hasn't participated on this page yet, but some members of the "computer incident response team" have been summoned to the page. (What follows TFD's comment below is entirely off-topic distraction, but Calton insists using attack-dog language in their edit summary that we must not collapse it). For information, see their most recent block. ~ SashiRolls 07:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought that the marijuana thing was just leftover from an old edit. Didn't realize that you just added it. I can merge it with the "Crime" section. Silver181 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems odd that you agree with retaining negative information from the Daily Beast, which is rated as "no consensus" under Perennial sources, yet you removed reliably sourced information that Kamala Harris's "has been met with opposition by fellow members of the African American community...." You wrote, "It does not matter if it was sourced, it is highly biased and the person who originally made the edits appears to have an agenda against Harris. Some random singer opposing Harris is not relevant information." Is there any reason why we should apply a different standard to Gabbard than to Harris? TFD (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No, they should be held to the same standards, but I don't consider the scenarios to be the same. The person who added the edits to Harris' page legitimately had an agenda against Harris. He had made numerous edits that were thinly-veiled insults on her main page and her campaign page (for example, he added a comment saying something akin to "she only supported legalizing marijuana after it became popular", which is clearly meant as an insult). I also did not feel as though the "criticism" that the user added is on the same level as the info about Gabbard. He literally said that a single musician opposed Harris. Like... so what? That isn't enough to make a sweeping claim that she's unpopular amongst many black people. The accusations against Gabbard are actual news stories that are being pushed by the media, and I'd consider them an important chapter of her campaign, especially since so little has occured. With Harris, the editor made some comment about Harris' actions as attorney general of Cali, not as a presidential candidate. I feel that those comments would better fit her main page, where her tenure as AG is actually discussed. I'd also like to note that I gave the editor who made the edits advice on how to incorporate the info into the article in a more neutral way, but he never did so, and instead resorted to insulting me on my user talk page. Silver181 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The contributions by three "Russian sympathizers" is not being pushed by the media, it's being pushed by a highly partisan source with dubious reliability, according to Misplaced Pages editors,. Also, using your criteria, I don't see how three out of tens of thousands of donors are really, really important, while a named singer is not. Besides, you also removed that Harris' actions as AG had been criticized by a number of Democratic politicians and the ACLU. In any case, it does not matter what editors consider to be important but what reliable sources do, per weight. TFD (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Harris's presidential campaign has been met with opposition by fellow members of the African American community..."

That is what the editor typed. Would you not consider this to be a loaded statement, given the fact that he only cited a musician as evidence? Notice how he didn't even say some fellow members of the African-American community, he just said members. That's an incredible stretch that gives a clear implication of Harris having received widespread condemnation from African-Americans.

"In particular, her actions concerning police brutality against minorities under her tenure as Attorney General of California are of concern."

A single opinion article. A few weeks ago, the conservative (and, to some extent, neo-liberal) media was really pushing the whole "Bernie Sanders went on a honeymoon in the Soviet Union in the 80s, which proves he's a communist!" narrative. I could easily take an opinion article from, say, Fox News and add it to Bernie Sanders' page with a message like "Sanders' visit to the Soviet Union in the 1980s is a matter of concern", even though it's a mostly unimportant opinion piece being largely spread by people who are openly opposed to Sanders. I agree that most of the Gabbard controversy is overblown. However, some in the (supposedly) "neutral" media are legitimately accusing Gabbard of having Russian support, just like how some in the media accused Andrew Yang of having alt-right support. Progressives dislike Kamala Harris, sure. A non-opinion article stating something like "Progressives are pushing back against Kamala Harris" or something would be much better than an opinion piece.

"In 2015, Harris opposed a bill requiring the Attorney General's office to investigate officer-involved shootings. She then objected to enforcing California law regulating the use of body cameras by law enforcement. These moves were criticized by many left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a San Franciscan elected public defender."

Something that occurred while she was AG. This could possibly fit into a policy section, but there would have to be some relevance to her current campaign. If I recall correctly, Harris opposed weed legalization as AG, but has made support for legalization part of her 2020 platform. This situation is pretty common with 2020 candidates, but virtually all of their pages state their current position on the issue. Has she addressed the issue of body cameras again on the campaign trail, or since she even became a Senator?

"A much more accurate statement would be something like "Harris has received criticism from some progressives for her criminal justice record" or something along those lines. At the same time, if you make a statement like that, you also would need to cite examples of people or groups that have supported her. Only mentioning criticism of her (while also greatly exaggerating the extent of that criticism) without mentioning support that she has received is why I removed your edits in the first place. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to vent your frustration with candidates or promote your agenda. If we're going to talk about criticism of her- which, don't get me wrong, we should, as some progressives have, indeed, already targeted her- we need to balance it out with mentions of support."

What I said to the editor on the talk page. I gave him or her advice on how to phrase it better and even encouraged him or her to add info about it. But he or she thought it would be better to vandalize my talk page. An as for the "balance it out with support" thing, that's what's been done on this article. We have articles from journalists denouncing the allegations as hit pieces/smears/etc. and Gabbard's own response. I'd say the article is currently very neutral in that regard and doesn't give more credence to either side. We could maybe add a quote or something from one of the articles that specifically addresses a part of the allegations. Silver181 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. "Kamala Harris Was Not A 'Progressive Prosecutor'". The New York Times. January 17, 2019. Retrieved January 23, 2019.

Back to the subject, which is TG, not Kamala Harris: I'm glad you appreciate the balance added to the "New Knowledge" and Larkay/Stein narratives. There was no balance in either case when they were first added to her BLP.

I notice the words "opposed to regime change" are not mentioned anywhere on this page, despite them being the centerpiece of her candidacy. Neither is the fact that TG was on the foreign affairs committee from 2013-2019 (which was deleted from her BLP with a deceptive edit summary) and on the armed services committee from 2013. Just to be clear why I think it is important to get this terminology right: anti-interventionist is not a precise synonym for opposing regime change. Many were opposed to intervening in Kuwait during the first Gulf war, though it was not a regime change war.

Now that there seems to be agreement that we are here to write an encyclopedic entry and not simply to repeat placed DNC-pieces, perhaps I'll start editing the mainspace page again and add some sources about her well-known opposition to regime change in Venezuela and Iran. 🌿 SashiRolls 08:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying you were wrong in your position in the Harris article, but that you appear to be applying a different standard to this one. In this arguing, you are supporting the inclusion of an article in a publication which Misplaced Pages has found no consensus for reliability and which mainstream media have ignored. If you applied the same standards to Kamala Harris, it would read like a National Enquirer article. TFD (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked about in on NPOVN. TFD (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Beast isn't considered a reliable source. Silver181 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the key to writing a neutral article about any person in the news is to begin with mainstream sources, by which I mean the network news channels and major broadsheets. For CBS for example you can do a search for "tulsi gabbard" and sort it by date, more or less. Then you summarize what the articles say in proportion to the coverage they give. While media have their own biases, it is the standard that we follow.

The alternative is to put in whatever information we think is important. The problem is that different editors will find different things important. Typically that leads to long discussion threads, edit-warring and use of content boards and RfCs, even ANI and AE requests.

TFD (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can begin with major media sources, but that is not where we end. You have not provided any evidence that coverage of the Daily Beast story should be given no weight in this article. Seven RS report on this story. Like I asked above in #Daily Beast & NBC hit pieces, how does the coverage of this story compare to other stories about her campaign? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fox Business News story

"Gabbard has scheduled a June fundraiser with Wall Street executives." This was reported only in Fox Business News, although it was retweeted by Ana Kasparian of TYT and commented on in alternative media. As it turns out, the story was misleading. I will remove it and suggest we keep it out unless it because a campaign issue reported in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I added the content a few weeks ago. Where is your reliable source for "the story was misleading"? I don't care at all about tweets.- MrX 🖋 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Two weeks ago you wrote, "Fox News being the most watched cable news station merely confirms that The Masses Are Asses....we are not here to repeat obvious falsehoods on behalf of the most watched news station. The way around it is to not use the trashy source....Fox News has shown us that they cannot be relied on for accuracy, or truthfulness." Can you explain why you would use it as a source?

The Fox article calls the breakfast "a fundraiser sponsored by Wall Street executives...according to an invitation reviewed by FOX Business." But the invitation says nothing about fundraising. And the term "Wall Street executives" is misleading. Wall Street is defined in Webster's as "the influential financial interests of the U.S. economy." Farvahar Partners which happens to be located on Madison Avenue in Midtown Manhattan is not a major financial institution. And why not quantify the number of executives (there are only two partners at Favahar)? The problem is that once the story is properly reported, it has no more significance than any of the other meetings Gabbard holds every day.

TFD (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I added the Fox Business News-sourced content to this article before commenting about the Fox News-sourced content that you cited. My comment on May 28 reflects the revelation (to me) that Fox News could be so blatant with their misreporting. Until that point, I cited Fox News pretty much without reservation.

The Fox Business News article says "In recent weeks, Gabbard has been meeting with financial types to raise money for her campaign, and has scheduled a fundraiser sponsored by Wall Street executives to take place the first week in June, according to an invitation reviewed by FOX Business.". Your link to thecoreclub.com does not disprove that at all. If anything, it bolsters Fox News' reporting. You do realize that a Wall Street executive does not literally have to be located on Wall Street, right? Mr. Malik sure seems to be a Wall Street executive according to his bio. If you dispute that the "breakfast" is not fundraising, I'm afraid your disagreement is with Fox Business News (212-601-7000). I suppose you think Mr. Malik just decided to share some hash browns and eggs with Mrs. Gabbard for the fun of it, or to throw Fox News off the scent? Sure.

If we are going to be so selective about what to include in this article, then there's little reason to keep a separate article and we should just fold it back into Tulsi Gabbard. Without capturing the little reporting being done on this candidate, there's almost nothing that is not already covered or could easily be covered in the main article. I think this material adds to the understanding of the subject and should be restored.- MrX 🖋 20:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The link I provided is the source that Fox used. As I mentioned the invitation does not say the purpose of the meeting is to raise money, but is included as part of CORE:'s cultural programming: "CORE: produces over 200 thoughtfully curated events every year, exposing our members to emerging trends in the media, the arts, cuisine, travel, commerce, and thought. By fostering shared transformative experiences, the programming at CORE: enriches the intellectual and social lives of its individual members."

I didn't say that Wall Street meant the actual street necessarily, but that it referred to major financial institutions, or at least that is what most readers would think. Institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Bank of America that paid Hillary Clinton.

It may be that there are insufficient sources to write a neutral article about the campaign.

TFD (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Webster's defines a fundraiser as "a social event (such as a cocktail party) held for the purpose of raising funds." Here is a link to an invitation to what the media described as a fundraiser for Joe Biden. Note that attendees were required to contribute $2,800 in order to attend. But when Biden met with voters in a restaurant and did not charge for attendance, it was called a "meet and greet." TFD (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED

We cannot insert allege/alleged/allegations into material to cast doubt. That violates WP:ALLEGED, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The fact that Russian media ran stories favorable to Gabbard is not an allegation. It's an easily verifiable fact. - MrX 🖋 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the insertion of "reported by NBC News" into the heading reflects a non-neutral POV.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, MrX... You've (rather subtly) gone from Russian media ran stories to the nominal (rock-like) "Russian support". I remember the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran some stories favorable to Mr. Macaron before the first round of the French election, does that mean that he had US support? Should we write up a page about US interference in the 2017 French election? Is there a helpful WP:RUSSIAGATE policy or guideline en.wp could point us to? 🌿 SashiRolls 18:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem to be related to the issue at hand. I'm sorry, but I have no idea how to respond to it.- MrX 🖋 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The NBC 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." That Russian channels ran positive stories about Gabbard is a fact, that they "support" her is an opinion.

It is not helpful when editors cite WP:RANDOMPOLICIES without explaining their relevance. WP:ALLEGED in fact says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." WP:NPOV says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." No idea what relevance WP:NOR has.

Also, and it is supported in policy, when accusations are made against people, the source and weight of those accusations. should be stated. Your approach reminds me of Fox News Channel, where hosts will use weasel-wording, such as "some say Obama was born in Kenya." Their highly partisan viewers then interpret this as "Obama was born in Kenya." And I and a number of other editors spent a lot of time arguing with editors who were convinced Obama was not really the U.S. president.

TFD (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The article says a lot of things. In the lede, it says:

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.
— 

It then goes on to say that the experts believe it "may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard." So we have NBC making a statement of fact, and supporting it by citing experts. The very next paragraph that begins "since Gabbard announced..." explains NBC's synthesis. The word alleged or its equivalent is no where in the article, so its use is indeed OR, but more specifically WP:WEASEL and editorializing. Editorializing is a form of introducing an editor's POV into what should be an NPOV article.

There is no accusation against a person, unless you consider the Russian Propaganda Machine a person. No crime has been committed. Unless you can point out in the source where the equivalent of "alleged" appears, I intend to remove this from the article. If you feel that the wording misrepresents the article, we can work on that, or we can just use the direct quote in the green box.- MrX 🖋 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comrade! If we are going to have "Russian media support" section, we need actual examples... this op-ed compares her to Henry A. Wallace. This news story discusses her criticism of Democratic party. This squib mentions Daily Beast sources & methods. Meanwhile, this Counterpunch contributor thinks she's Democratic sheepdog. But we do tend to omit such articles, don't we? Which one would you say is best example of fine-tuna propaganda machine, MrX? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

нет, we don't actually need examples, but if you wanted a few hundred, it's not hard to find them: Gabbard >> Inslee | Warren | Booker | Buttigieg - MrX 🖋 14:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I would like to see the data that the NBC news analysts used. Adam Johnson in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for example in his article, "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours", lists all sixteen articles and provides links. And note that although the article mentions Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post it does not say "Bezos propaganda machine attacks Sanders" presumably because the author does not want to make unfounded accusations. TFD (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to put the various statements in context. The first three paragraphs read:

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.

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.

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.

It's presented as a finding not a fact. Whether or not the Kremlin propaganda machine is promoting her is a matter of opinion, unless we have evidence of discussions by the KGB.

In an RfC on whether the article on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign should mention that the father of the Orlando murderer supported her (a story separately reported in the New York Times, CNN, The Guardian and many other news media), you wrote, "This embarrassing incident received a brief burst of coverage after it happened and then quickly faded from interest. It would violate WP:NPOV to include this because it has not enjoyed sustained media coverage; it's only tangentially relevant to the campaign; and it would tend to unfairly associate the campaign and the candidate with a mass murderer." (19:34, 28 August 2016) Obviously you understand that associated a campaign with a criminal act - however tangentially - reflects on the candidate, which takes it into BLP. Also, I would be interested if you could explain how the "brief burst of coverage rule" applies to Clinton, but not Gabbard.

TFD (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Russia propaganda machine is now promoting". That is a declared fact in NBC's voice.

Your comparison of a story about Russian news coverage of a candidate to a story about a mass murderer's father is absurd. Let's leave other stuff out of this. First, I don't think this makes Gabbard look bad at all. Maybe it makes the Russian state media look bad, but it is not criminal. They can publish as many news stories as they like about anyone without breaking any laws. I've said it before: there is very little coverage in the news about Gabbard's campaign. She's just not rising to the top. That's why this episode stands out as noteworthy. Now can we get back to the word "allege". Did you insert it because you don't think any of this material should be included at all? - MrX 🖋 14:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. What is the difference between saying Clinton was supported by a murderer's father and Gabbard was supported by the Russia propaganda machine? TFD (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I did. One is a murder and the other is a news story. That's the difference. Also, we're not talking about Clinton any more. Please let it go.- MrX 🖋 21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

s you are aware, a number of Russians have been indicted for interfering in the U.S. election. TFD (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this. Surely you must know that.- MrX 🖋 00:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that the indictments were for the 2016 presidential election campaign not the current one. And could you please point to the policy that says allegations of foreign support in an election should be mentioned, while support from a murderer should not be. TFD (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to go backwards in time to re-litigate content debates about Hillary Clinton's bio that I don't even remember. If you are against including this material in any form, I wish you would just state it plainly, rather than deflecting any attempt to reach a compromise on wording that satisfies NPOV like we did at Tulsi Gabbard. - MrX 🖋 00:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not against including it in any form, just against misrepresenting sources. That is particularly important in a BLP. TFD (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit is not supported by the source. The was an experiment, not a false flag operation agains a republican. Also, it was not done by the firm; it was done by the CEO of the firm. - MrX 🖋 20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you say the article says the opposite of what it does? Both articles cite an internal company report saying: "“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet” The NYT adds: Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse “does not ring a bell,” adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report. Please self-revert in the face of this evidence or provide evidence of your claim.🌿 SashiRolls 05:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Funny you omitted a quote a few lines further down: “The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.” So no, I don't think your attempt to rewrite history is going to stick. If you change it back to your version, I will revert you. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly: the guy said the report about the "false flag operation" that his company wrote "didn't ring a bell" and then says that what he didn't even know about was supposed to "have almost no effect"... Also, the NYT article does not mention Tulsi Gabbard, obviously, since the first propaganda campaign was conducted and written up before NBC decided (unwisely IMO) to consult with them.

I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading that I am not the one making an "attempt to rewrite history" here, so please cut out the personal attacks / aspersions. TLDR; The text is currently massaged to be misleading. I will be changing it, if MrX does not do so now that it has been demonstrated that both articles say nearly word for word what I wrote (and we should really be basing ourselves on the article which is actually about Gabbard). 🌿 SashiRolls 09:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that you don't force your preferred edit into the article, when several other editors have consented to the wording currently in the article:

Greenwald also criticized NBC's use of the cybersecurity firm as an expert source, because its CEO participated in an experiment that emulated Russian troll accounts.

The New York Times wrote:

Headline: Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics
An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

“The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”

Greenwald opined:

The New York Times, when exposing the scam, quoted a New Knowledge report that boasted of its fabrications: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.'”

That fraud was overseen by New Knowledge’s CEO,

Greenwald was simply not objective in his reporting. We can't use similar language in this encyclopedia article.- MrX 🖋 11:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard wins polls after first debate

From a quick glance, this doesn't appear to have been added. petrarchan47คุก 19:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• AP/Haaretz: "Google searches during the debate, a popular metric to gauge interest in candidates, showed Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard peaked the most interest during the debate"

• *: "By the end of the debate, Gabbard had clinched 40 percent of Google searches in the U.S., compared to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 17 percent and the 19 percent claimed by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, according to Google Trends. Gabbard had somehow also managed to come out on top in Australia, where she secured 36 percent of Google searches."

• The Hill: "Drudge instant poll shows Gabbard winning first Democratic debate in landslide"

And more sources for the top Google search spot:

• USA Today

• The Hill

I think we have to be careful not to conflate Drudge saying she "won" the debate and Google search trends. The later could just be indicative of people who have never heard of her. - MrX 🖋 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should mention that the debate resulted in a spike of google searches, more than any other candidate. I would leave out the Drudge unscientific poll for now. No doubt MrX will argue to add it once his sources claim it was all caused by Russian bots and far right deplorables. TFD (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Humor? At Misplaced Pages? On a political article? This is a first for me. Thank you TFD. petrarchan47คุก 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't make this stuff up: Trolls target online polls following first Democratic presidential debate- MrX 🖋 21:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Internet Trolls Are Raving About Tulsi Gabbard’s Debate Performance—And They’re Calling Her “Mommy”. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics