Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:58, 22 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tulsi Gabbard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Other talk page banners

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message 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. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert! This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). 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 Hawaii High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Logistics / Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military logistics and medicine task force Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Politics: American Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections / State Legislatures 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 supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance). United States Presidents: Donald Trump This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s). Veganism and Vegetarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Polynesia: American Samoa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia 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.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American Samoa work group (assessed as Low-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Chang, Alvin (June 27, 2019). "Curiosity about Tulsi Gabbard spiked during last night's debate. And it was already simmering leading up to it". Vox. Retrieved June 27, 2019. Daisuke Wakabayashi (July 25, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million". New York Times. Retrieved July 29, 2019. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 28 to August 3, 2019 (5th) October 13 to 19, 2019 (10th) October 20 to 26, 2019 (15th) March 1 to 7, 2020 (23rd) August 25 to 31, 2024 (9th) November 10 to 16, 2024 (7th) 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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tulsi Gabbard. 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 at the Reference desk.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Update the party section to Republican

Tulsi just endorsed trump and became republic update the party section 178.250.251.35 (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

She's not a Republican, she's an independent. 2601:447:D185:3340:BC3E:22EF:E6F0:DFB0 (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in book section

The "Flippin Sweet Books" entry appears to be completely made up. 74.104.114.244 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried all the book search engines and found zero results. I agree, made up. I removed it. --Yamla (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Russia contradiction

In the 2020 presidential campaign section, the (currently) fifth paragraph starts with, "In October 2019, false and later corrected stories". The rest of the paragraph appears to deal with uncorrected stories. For example, the bit "who rejected Clinton's suggestion that Gabbard was a Russian asset" seems to still be implying that Clinton asserted Gabbard was a Russian asset, but that seems to be contradicted by the opening sentence. I'm not American and haven't really been following Tulsi, so it's unclear to me how to reconcile these contradictions or even if these are contradictions. Thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that needs to be rewritten. Seems likely (without looking through the article history) that the paragraph was written when the stories first came out (Hillary claims Russians grooming Tulsi for third party run) and was merely adjusted by the addition of that first sentence when corrections were run (Hillary claims Republicans grooming Tulsi for third party run). I'll attempt to revise this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, Muboshgu! Thanks! I'm no longer confused. --Yamla (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional source confirming vegan lifestyle in early 2020

Here's an interview of her from early 2020 confirming her vegan lifestyle: https://vegnews.com/tulsi-gabbard-on-veganism-climate-change-and-what-gives-her-hope

The 3rd sentence in her personal life section should be updated accordingly. Plantbasedvegan (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

More reliable cited sources, she has stated being a Vegetarian, not Vegan. Also, Veg News is not a Reliable WP:RS sources. RogerYg (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Current service priority

Most Wiki pages give priority to current serving position in the opening sentence per WP:LEAD.

Therefore, the current serving position needs to be mentioned first.

We have: She served as U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. Gabbard is serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S Army Reserve after 17 years of service with Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020.

Should be update to: Gabbard is serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S Army Reserve since 2021 after 17 years of service with Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020. She served as U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. RogerYg (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Short description should reflect accordingly: American politician and Army reserve officer. RogerYg (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Please discuss here for any improvements. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Improvement based on suggestions by Bourne Ballin (de-clutter & grammar)

Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/ TUL-see GAB-ərd; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and a military officer serving as a Lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve since 2021, having previously served in the Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020.

Lt. Colonel is current serving position hence should get priority in first sentence per WP:LEAD. Since the Lt. Colonel position is directly related to the previous service in Hawaii Army National Guard, that also needs to be mentioned along with. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Political Positions -> Healthcare and GMO labelling add a link to the following article in the phrase "loosely modeled after Australia's system" https://en.wikipedia.org/Health_care_in_Australia Lobsteregg (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added the link to "Australia's system" only, to minimize MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this needed?

In the part about her being the Director of National Intelligence, it says, Meanwhile, conservative foreign policy editor Tom Rogan wrote in the Washington Examiner that Gabbard is an "ideological sympathizer" of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, adding that Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence could endanger the safety of the United States.

How exactly is she sympathetic to the ideology of self proclaimed communist and Maoist Xi Jinping? Even in foreign policy, they are at odds, please let's not spread the Trump is anti-war myth any further. I don't think a statement with such a stupid premise should be included as if it were some insightful analysis. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Claims based on Washington Examiner need to be removed as per WP:RS and WP:BLP policies.

Washington Examiner is not a Reliable source as per Misplaced Pages WP:RS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Therefore, that it should not be used especially on WP:BLP ( Living person) pages.

RogerYg (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed the disputed content as per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The entry for the Washington Examiner at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources specifically states that it can be used as a source for attributed opinion columns. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi PoliticalPoint (talk),

It especially cautions against using Washington Examiner for making any strong claims, which the this edit is trying to make.

Also per WP:BLP, any libelious claims from poor /unreliable sources should be removed. Hence, this edit with strong claims is not per WP:BLP and WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

{There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled by following the appropriate guideline.}

RogerYg (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Awwww, is their editorial page too right-leaning for you? Let me guess, Vox, Salon, and Rolling Stone are totally okay, right? 2601:447:D185:3340:BC3E:22EF:E6F0:DFB0 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong Claims based on Washington Examiner need to be removed as per WP:RS and WP:BLP policies.

Strong Claims based on Washington Examiner need to be removed as per WP:RS and WP:BLP policies.

Washington Examiner is not a Reliable source as per Misplaced Pages WP:RS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Therefore, that it should not be used especially on WP:BLP ( Living person) pages.

RogerYg (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The entry for the Washington Examiner at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources specifically states that it can be used as a source for attributed opinion columns. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi PoliticalPoint (talk), It especially cautions against using Washington Examiner for making any strong claims, which the this edit is trying to make. Also per WP:BLP, any libelious claims from poor /unreliable sources should be removed. Hence, this edit with strong claims is not per WP:BLP and WP:RS. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

{There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled by following the appropriate guideline.} RogerYg (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing info on HASC in th lead

As per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the key information from the artilce body. Gabbard served on all her 4 terms in Congress on the United States House Committee on Armed Services, commonly called HASC, but this information is missing from the lead, and should be mentioned. Thanks . RogerYg (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I note that this suggestion on House committee on Armed Services has been up for a month. As there is no opposing view, I think we can add one sentence about HASC membership in the relevant fourth paragraph of the lead. Also, Gabbard introduced many bills in support of veterans, and I think we can mention at least one, the "Helping Heroes Fly Act", which got bi-partisan support and became a law. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Proficiency in gold

Saying she was awarded for "proficiency in gold" makes it sound like she worked with gold and made gold bars or something 2601:547:CB03:3D10:EE0F:7EA5:A950:A6FA (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Fixed it. RogerYg (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits in Lead need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP

Hi Bill Williams talk, Some of your recent edits in the Lead seem to be pushing a negative POV against Gabbard, and removing balancing positive parts. Please note that this is a WP:BLP article and unsubstantiated libelous claims against living persons need to be be avoided on wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is NOT NEWS. We need to follow WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP even more carefully in the lead, and discuss on TALK page as needed. Thanks for your cooperation. RogerYg (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

RogerYg: I would argue the exact opposite. WP:DUE demands that we cover arguments made against her, which the article failed to do. Not mentioning anything negative about her comments regarding Syria and Russia is a failure to follow Misplaced Pages policy. I did not add anything "pushing a negative POV against Gabbard," I neutrally stated that criticisms were leveled, which she responded to. Bill Williams 04:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While I agree that some of your edits are factual and good, but a few edits had issues of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Well, I think we should not misuse WP:DUE to overstep WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We need to have balance per NPOV and avoid slandering claims per WP:BLP. Thanks for your cooperation. RogerYg (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is always necessary to be careful in following WP:BLP. However, stating that she was criticized for making certain statements does not violate the policy. If you would prefer a different wording in the article, feel free to implement it. Bill Williams 04:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I appreciate your good contributions to the article. We just need some neutral language and balance. Currently, in the last paragraph of the lead, it seems that she only got scrutiny and concerns, and no support. To get more balance, I would like to add a brief line that several republicans have defended her. RogerYg (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article and indicate notability. Usually this means emphasizing what the majority of the sources and best sources say. We need to avoid "balancing" such summaries. --Hipal (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreign policy position § issues re Syria

Marincyclist, you have made several problematic changes, starting with

Gabbard has expressed support for Bashar al-Assad in the past, …

Gabbard has been an outspoken defender of the Assad regime in Syria.

You don't provide cites for these false defamatory claims, in violation of WP:BLP. Other edits are problematic as well. I have reverted. Please bring your proposed edits here so we can discuss rather than edit war. Humanengr (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr (talk) on this issue

Dear Marincyclist, I notice that you are a relatively new editor on Misplaced Pages. You are welcome, but please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. As Wiki editors, we have be careful and neutral to avoid making potentially libelious claims, especially on a WP:BLP article.

Also please note that Misplaced Pages is NOT a Newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS, and any smear claims from News articles cannot be added to Wiki article unless they adhere to WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV policies.

WP:BLP rules apply to this article. Thanks for your understanding. RogerYg (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Humanengr and @RogerYg,

Sorry I didn't mean to break any rules, or edit war—as you have alleged. I thought I was engaging in a co-operative editing process, where we were both incorporating the others revisions, I kept much of your changes.

I can see that the quick summary I wrote may appear unsourced, however it was a brief summary of the Assad section, which is all cited down below. I'm happy to tweak the wording to try and make it more neutral, or just leave it out. I can see your position that the two excerpts you mentioned are problematic, however I struggle to think of another to write it. Perhaps: "Gabbard has been outspoken on the Assad regime".

In my opinion, large parts of the article lack context, and take the subject's press releases and interviews at face value, even when much reporting from reliable sources categorizes things differently. I, reasonably, edited some of the phrasing in that section to say Gabbard characterized the visit as a "fact-finding mission", this is more accurate than your version. Only the subject herself refers to it as a fact-finding mission, the BBC, PBS, CNN, all call it either an unannounced visit or a secret visit. Secondly, the claim that the meetings with Assad were unplanned is only evidenced by Gabbard's own words, so I tweaked the wording to say she "claimed were unplanned". However I can see that a better way to write this would be to use the word: "said" per WP:NPOV.

Furthermore, I added some relevant context about the fact that the U.S. had no diplomatic connections with or recognition of the Assad regime, and that the U.S. has been funding groups fighting against Assad. This is accurate. This is important for the reader to know, otherwise her visit to Syria appears ordinary, when in fact it was highly unusual. And again, I added more relevant information that she was the only U.S. lawmaker who questioned Assad's use of chemical weapons. This is also true.

Yes, the article should be neutral, but uncomfortable facts or context should not be hidden either.

Many of her views are controversial, but none of that is mentioned in this article. Perhaps some kind of public image or controversies section is needed, if you don't want the "foreign policy positions" section edited. She has a lot of controversies that reputable news sources like the BBC, PBS, and CNN are reporting on. I can understand if you want to keep the policy positions section devoid of controversies, but they should be mentioned somewhere.

Clearly both of you editors have done a lot of work on this page, which I commend, but it is disheartening when good-faith edits get reverted, when you could've tweaked the wording and kept much of the content.

Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing "defamatory" about noting Gabbard's stances regarding Assad. It is easily sourced: Gabbard has been accused of repeatedly echoing propaganda spread by Russia and the Assad regime, including questioning U.S. intelligence assessments that the Syrian government carried out multiple chemical weapons attacks on its own people. Don't throw around legal terms like "defamation" when they do not fit.

I also find the comment any smear claims from News articles to be troubling. Misplaced Pages is based on RS coverage, including the countless articles that note the unease Gabbard's stances towards Russia and Syria have caused. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu

I agree. Marincyclist (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote in the undo, discuss here, one small edit or isolated issue at a time. Humanengr (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at what changes Marincyclist is trying to make, but I intend to later today when I have the time. Marincyclist, you can try telling us what you want to change and why, with sourcing, here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, the basic gist of the changes was that: I split the "assad regime" sub section into sections, at the top there was an overall summary that was fully sourced. I believe @Humanengr's main contention was that I labelled Gabbard an "outspoken U.S. voice on the Assad regime in Syria."

The first subsection was "Syria visit and Assad meeting", I made a couple of basic tweaks, changing "fact-finding visit" to "unannounced visit". I also added the word "dictator" to characterize Assad. I also removed the word "unplanned" so it just said "had two meetings with" Assad. Reliable sources all use these terms.

The second subsection was "Chemical weapons in Syria". All of the comments regarding chemical weapons were put inside this new subsection. I added: "U.S. intelligence agencies, the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons all concluded then-Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime was behind the attack. Shortly after the attack, Russia launched a disinformation campaign to try to deny Syria’s responsibility and promoted fabricated narratives, U.S. officials say." Citing to NBC news.

The third subsection was "U.S. involvement in Syria". I just moved the relevant quote into the section. No changes.

The fourth subsection was "Recent views". I just moved the relevant quotes into the section. No changes.

Best, Marincyclist (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Avoid long bold text and blockquotes

Emphasizing cherry-picked claims is generally restricted per WP:OR as wiki editors should avoid their bias.

Also unduly emphasizing potentially libelous claims may violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, if counter view is not included.

Discuss on TALK page to develop consensus of needed. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr (talk), I guess you had good intentions to clarify issues, but your recent additions in Russian invasion section on biolabs include undue emphasizing of libelous claims, and I had to make edits per WP:QUOTE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. We can discuss the content here to reach a consensus if needed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Avoid unduly long quotes per WP:QUOTE

Please follow WP:QUOTE: "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy and the "Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources" .

Quotes should be used sparringly and briefly to clarify specific points. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

'alleged' biolabs

Muboshgu, From my edit summary removing 'alleged': nothing 'alleged' about them; Nuland on 3/8/2022 in Senate Testimony in response to Rubio: "Ukraine has a biological research facilities". You reverted my edit and reinserted 'alleged' with no justification other than than stating in your edit summary biolabs in Ukraine are false.

The text I quoted can be found in this MSNBC Chris Hayes transcript (as well as in a clip Carlson played). As Gabbard indicated:

• A Pentagon Fact sheet (March 11, 2022) has numerous statements directly & indirectly confirming the existence of such biolabs: The United States, through BTRP, has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.
• CBS Face the Nation (March 13, 2022) correspondent David Martin said a Pentagon official told him they’re concerned about the existence of such biolabs in Ukraine: The concern is that the Russians will seize one of these biomedical research facilities that Ukraine has where they do research on deadly pathogens like botulism and anthrax, seize one of those facilities, weaponize the pathogen, and then blame it on Ukraine and the US, because the US has been providing support for some of the research being done in those facilities.”
• In April 2020, in refuting Russia’s accusation that U.S. is using biolabs in Ukraine to develop biological weapons, U.S. Embassy in Ukraine acknowledged there are U.S. funded labs in Ukraine working with pathogens for vaccine & other peaceful purposes.
• CNN fact-check (March 10, 2022): There are US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, that much is true.
• Furthermore, according to the DoD there are two biolabs in Ukraine that have been under Russian control for some time: Russia illegally took possession of two Ukrainian-owned laboratories that BTRP upgraded in 2014 and continues to deny Ukrainian access to these facilities.

References

1. "Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 3/11/22". MSNBC.com. 2022-03-12. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
2. Carlson, Tucker (2022-03-09). "Tucker Carlson: Someone needs to explain why there are dangerous biological weapons in Ukraine". Fox News. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
3. Kyiv, U. S. Embassy (2020-04-22). "U.S.-Ukraine Partnership to Reduce Biological Threats". U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. Retrieved 2024-12-10.

Humanengr (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I also included a link to this NPR article from March 2022 that mentions and refutes Nuland's testimony specifically. We have a whole page on the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thx, I had missed your cite. But that cite does not refute Nuland's testimony. It repeats what she said: Under questioning by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Nuland affirmed that Ukraine has "biological research facilities" and that the U.S. is concerned that Russian forces may seek to gain control of them. The refutations are not of the claim that there are biolabs, but of the Russian claim that the biolabs are manufacturing bioweapons. Nowhere in that article is there any counter to to Nuland's statement that Ukraine has biological research facilities. Humanengr (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The claim about the biolabs is about biological weapons. So in fact Gabbard, Carlson, etc. were then misconstruing what Nuland said. We can't end that paragraph on Gabbard citing Nuland as though it supports what she said. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this revision clarifies things. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That works. But allow me to address your claim that Gabbard was misconstruing what Nuland said as it also allows me to address Marincyclist’s and your comments below on media coverage.

On March 8, 2022, Nuland testified: Ukraine has a biological research facilities. On March 14, Gabbard wrote:

I'm not convinced there are biological weapons labs or biological weapons in Ukraine—that's not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the existence of the 25+ biological labs in that warzone. As I said 2 days ago: There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world. We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured & pathogens destroyed. “Biolabs”, “bioweapons labs”, and “bioweapons” are 3 very different things …”

She then defined those terms and said:

The danger of pathogens being released from biolabs in Ukraine is very real, and we need to take action immediately to prevent an impending catastrophe.

No misconstrual re what Nuland said. But here we are, 2 years 8 months later, when, as I wrote:

After Trump nominated Gabbard for DNI on November 13, 2024, Politico claimed "She also caused an uproar by suggesting Ukraine housed U.S.-funded bioweapons labs."

False.

The following day, pundit Tom Rogan (a foreign policy writer and editor for the Washington Examiner who "writes frequently on security and intelligence issues involving Russia, China, and the Middle East") claimed Gabbard "has repeated Russian propaganda claims that the U.S. has set up secret bioweapons labs". This quote was prefaced in The Atlantic by Tom Nichols (a "staff writer at The Atlantic and an author of the Atlantic Daily newsletter, … professor emeritus of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, … and an instructor at the Harvard Extension School, … writes about international security, nuclear weapons, Russia, and the challenges to democracy in the United States and around the world") with "Gabbard’s shilling for Assad is a mystery, but she’s even more dedicated to carrying Putin’s water."

False on both counts.

Two days later, The Guardian claimed "After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Gabbard accused the US of running biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine – a falsehood often touted by Russia."

False.

On November 21, The Guardian said "Gabbard’s foreign policy positions have long generated controversy. In 2022, she endorsed a Russian claim that its invasion of Ukraine was justified by the existence of US-funded laboratories on Ukrainian soil, supposedly creating bioweapons for use against Russia."

False. Re delegitimizing the media and whether the media is out to get Gabbard, kindly consider the above.

@RogerYg, in view of the above, perhaps some more of the original material should be added back in. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

IMO her usage of 'biolabs' appears to be a carefully worded dogwhistle. It's important to understand that the broader narrative about "biolabs" is centered on biological weapons. Bioweapons made in biolabs is the claim Russia has repeatedly made, and the claim that spread in far-right circles. The Biolab claim is usually always mentioned in addition to Russian claims of bioweapons. It seems to me that when Gabbard says "biolabs", she is signaling her support of those claims, and her support of Russian talking points, while maintaining plausible deniability. Marincyclist (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Your projections are irrelevant. Per March 9, 2022 Tucker Carlson Tonight:

Tucker Carlson (03:33): And at one point Rubio took a tack that we were not expecting at all. He asked Nuland, if Ukraine had biological weapons. … So it seemed like a pretty strange question, but it wasn't half as shocking as the answer he got. Watch what Victoria Nuland said.

Victoria Nuland (03:56): Does Ukraine have chemical: Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons? Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned. Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces."

…

Tucker Carlson (16:37): How concerned are you that Victoria Nuland who is overseeing this war has just admitted there are unsecured bio agents, dangerous bio agents in Ukraine?

Tulsi Gabbard (16:49): I'm extremely concerned as should be every American and everyone, one in the world. The seriousness of this situation really can't be overstated. First of all, she didn't say 'no' when she was asked by Marco Rubio about there being biological or chemical weapons in Ukraine.

So if … there were or are, obviously that would be a violation of the biological weapons convention.

Number two, … they're categorically been trying to hide this as you've laid out very, very well. And then once they were found out, rather than saying, 'Hey, you know what? This is a critical, an emergency. It's a crisis. We have these pathogens in the midst of a war zone. Yes. Not just in one location, but between 20 and 30 labs in Ukraine, we, this is a global crisis. We're gonna take action immediately.' This is how a responsible leader would react given the crisis of this moment.

Humanengr (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that interview show that the biolabs and bioweapons claim are linked? "unsecured bioagents", "dangerous bio agents" and "biological or chemical weapons" seem be used interchangeably by Gabbard and Carlson. Tucker asks Gabbard about "bio agents", yet her response talks about biological and chemical weapons. She then mentions "pathogens in the middle of a war zone" and it's unclear whether this means a weapon or something else. Additionally, Fox News (talk shows) are not a reliable source and are considered "generally unreliable", see WP:RSPSS.

Best, Marincyclist (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Kindly read it again. Humanengr (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Sakellariadis, John (2024-11-13). "Trump taps dark horse Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence". POLITICO. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
2. Rogan, Tom (2024-12-06). "Tom Rogan - Washington Examiner". Retrieved 2024-12-10.
3. Nichols, Tom (2024-11-14). "Tulsi Gabbard's Nomination Is a National-Security Risk". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
4. "Tom Nichols, The Atlantic". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
5. Nichols, Tom (2024-11-14). "Tulsi Gabbard's Nomination Is a National-Security Risk". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
6. Aratani, Lauren (2024-11-16). "'A Russian asset': Democrats slam Trump's pick of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
7. Pengelly, Martin (2024-11-21). "Nikki Haley criticizes Trump cabinet picks Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-12-10.