Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign

Media coverage: NPOV and DUE weight

I've pared this back again. The previous version cited six different people all claiming that Gabbard has received unfair press coverage. It doesn't look like we're even attempting to appear neutral here. We can't use Wikipedia's voice to argue about whether or not Gabbard deserves better press. We need to cover her the way that mainstream reliable sources cover her. Its true that she has received negative press coverage and that some of her supporters have criticized that fact, but we can express that debate without taking sides.

The criticism of NPR's coverage here seems particularly unwarranted, because we're not discussing anything related to the actual substance of NPR's interview with Gabbard: she was asked about her ties to Chris Butler and the accusations of cult ties. I think that discussion might be undue for this page, but its absolutely undue to accuse NPR of bigotry without discussing what they said. Nblund ^talk 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I just edited related material before I saw this post. Please let me know if you disagree with the information I restored about the substance of the NBC story. I also removed some campaign cruft. The wording I restored was settled in July.- MrX 🖋 22:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

CNN snubbing

CNN failed to invite Tulsi Gabbard to their Feb 6–7, 2020 town hall, while inviting Deval Patrick, who's polling lower then Gabbard. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletions of content by MrX and WMSR

MrX deleted several blocks of content. He claimed [1], the text Gabbard receiving little news coverage relative to her polling position were a "poorly sourced and blatantly false claim. Her polling is around 1% so one would expect her media coverage to reflect that." I added several sources. MrX unfortunately did not consider the meaning of the important word "relative" in the original text. The "prosaic" text sources as well as the tabular sources [2] [3] show that the claim Gabbard received little news coverage relative to her polling position is obviously correct. MrX also claimed [4], the sub section "Campaign advertisement defacing" were undue for inclusion. I added several sources to prove that it indeed is due for inclusion and also note that political vandalism is unusual and has not been reported for any other candidate's campaign in the 2020 primary, thereby supporting due weight of this topic. MrX also claimed [5], Who cares who commented in Gabbard's defense [against Hillary Clinton's "Russian asset" accusations]? This is another instance of MrX's several violations of the neutral point of view pillar of Wikipedia. The defense against Clinton's accusations by journalists and Democratic and Republican politicians was very widely reported and so strong that it caused Clinton to ask the corporate media to "correct" their reports one week later. [6]

WMSR deleted [7] the same content that MrX had deleted and more. He claimed, The content MrX deleted did not belong in the article per WP:DUE. This article is not about other candidates. Above I already showed that the content is indeed due for inclusion. Thank's to SashiRolls for replacing mentions of names of every Democratic candidate who defended Gabbard against Hillary Clinton's accusations by summarizing text. I believe this is sufficient coverage of them in this context. WMSR additionally deleted a report of CNN's exclusion of Gabbard from their town halls leading up to the New Hampshire primary. I added several sources for this to show it is indeed due for inclusion. WMSR also deleted a report on Clinton refusing to accept delivery of Gabbard's lawsuit. I shortened the text and moved it to the lawsuit article. WMSR also deleted [8] an op-ed from the Boston Globe about low number of qualifying polls preventing Gabbard from qualifying for the December debate. WMSR claimed, this were NPOV, not notable, unproven allegation. Notability does not apply to article content. I wrote the text stricly follwing WP:NPOV policy (attribution to author, neutral tone, etc), therefore the objection "unproven allegation" becomes irrelevant. I added several sources and additional voices and reasonings and also added the DNC's response to remove any doubt that the text is neutral. The very low number of qualifying polls between the November and December debate was widely reported and caused upheaval among candidates, including a request to change the qualification rules. Of course this topic is due for inclusion. Xenagoras (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the first source you listed and it does not say that Gabbard received lest than 1-2% of news coverage and it certainly doesn't say "Gabbard receiving little news coverage relative to her polling position". Axios.com is not a reliable source. You don't make the case for WP:DUEWEIGHT by cherry picking sources like PJMedia and articles written by Gabbard fans. This article should reflect the reality that her campaign simply had very little impact on the political landscape like so many also-rans. There's just much encyclopedic material about her campaign, because it's really not going anywhere. - MrX 🖋 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Look harder. "Gabbard has received little news coverage relative to her polling position" summarizes the first source [9] which says, Tulsi Gabbard receives disproportionately small media coverage. ... Gabbard is polling at 1.4 percent as the ninth highest. ... she ranks 13th in online media coverage and 14th in cable news mentions. ... The Axios study reports that ... Gabbard has received under-indexed media coverage. ... The discrepancy between demonstrated voter support and the level of media coverage... My other sources corroborate this with tabular data and text descriptions. Axios is a reliable source. You again exhibit your long standing [10] pattern of disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. I am not cherry picking sources. If you find sources that claim the opposite of the sentence in question, add these sources as contradicting sources to the article. You call all sources/content which you delete "written by Gabbard fans". This has occurred on several articles and is a pattern of systematic violation of neutral point of view. Even if any source I used were written by "Gabbard fans", they would still be eligible for inclusion because I only use sources allowed by Wikipedia policies. The sub section "Media coverage" describes the media coverage of Gabbard's campaign. Analysis of media content (e.g. in newspapers/television) is also called media criticism [11] [12] or media critique [13]. Can you explain why "this article should reflect the reality that her campaign simply had very little impact on the political landscape." Can you describe how this "reflection" should occur? Xenagoras (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Op-eds by non-notable people do not belong in articles. Lots of people have opinions about things, and WP articles do not list them all. --WMSR (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, you are wrong in error about the policies for op-eds. WP:BIASEDSOURCES states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states, biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution, which is what I did. WP:RSEDITORIAL states, editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, which is how I used them. Xenagoras (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but every example on that page is attributed to a notable author. That's where the issue lies here. If whoever wrote the opinion piece is not notable enough to have a WP page, more often than not, their opinion is not notable enough to be included in an article. Side note: productive discussions rarely begin with you are wrong. --WMSR (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, your claim, If whoever wrote the opinion piece is not notable enough to have a WP page, more often than not, their opinion is not notable enough to be included in an article is not supported by any policy or guideline. Regarding productive discussions: The definition of what "Bad Faith" Is NOT states, telling someone that they have made an error, or misunderstood a policy ... is creating a collaborative working environment. I rephrased my first sentence above. None of your arguments in this discussion have been supported by any policy or guideline. While I discuss every objection in detail and continuously improve my contributions [14] and adapt them [15] to objections of other editors, you have not tried to fix the problem via repairing the article content you find problematic and you did not propose an alternative text version to the content you object against. Therefore your article edits and talk page comments seem to be creating a WP:STONEWALL against my bold editing in the article. Please don't do that. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I raised this content editing issue on your talk page. Xenagoras (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Calton "justifies" his revert [16] of my edit [17] by saying, make your argument for each piece. "media bias" and "campaign sign defacement" really don't belong here. This does not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I already adressed [18] all objections against every part of my edit in detail. Calton's reasoning is blatantly illogical because the name of the sub section "Campaign advertisement defacing" already contains "campaign", which is the topic of this article. "Media bias" also obviously belongs to the article because an election campaign is conducted by a politician advertising her/himself to voters with the help of the media which covers the politician. Critique of this media coverage obviously belongs to the article. Calton's deletion reasoning shows that he does not like it. He is WP:UNRESPONSIVE as he did not explain his revert via engaging in the discussion which I started here on talk and his edit summary did not refer to any policy or guideline problem. He did not try to fix the problem and he exhibits ownership behavior because he reverted a change simply because he finds it "doesn't belong" / "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental, and because he reverted a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Xenagoras (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: I would caution against making accusations like this. From what I can see, Calton has edited this article only twice. This itself contradicts any claim of ownership of the article. You have not posted to his talk page, and only now pinged him here, so the idea that he is WP:UNRESPONSIVE is similarly baseless. Removing content that one sees as not belonging is attempting to fix an article. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors, and invite them to talk before labeling them unresponsive. Please strike the above comment; casting aspersions here (or anywhere) will not help to improve the project in any meaningful way. --WMSR (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I striked a part of my comment and raised my issue with Calton's editing on his talk page. If Calton has only edited this article twice (which i did not look up), his unexplained full revert is also worrisome. Calton's way of reverting matches exactly what policy describes how not to revert. Also the chronological order of events is important: First I addressed [19] all objections from MrX and WMSR, then I made my edit.[20] Afterwards Calton fully reverted [21] my edit without using the (existing discussion on the) talk page and without a useful edit summary. WP:EPTALK requires: Discussion is called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit which was given because Calton fully reverted me. That means Calton needed to discuss before his revert without me asking him to discuss. WP:UNRESPONSIVE requires: Explain your changes. Leave a comment about why you made the change ... an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes ... leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Calton did not do that. "This content does not belong to the article" is an invalid argument. Fully reverting instead of fixing the problem is not following policy. I was not casting aspersions but pointing to the failure to follow several policies. WMSR, please don't lecture me about assuming good faith or casting aspersions because you falsely suspected me and 8 other editors of being sock puppets [22] and the admins threw your suspicion out of the window because you offered zero evidence for your very severe suspicion against me and many other editors.[23] WP:IRONY. Xenagoras (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Let's make very clear the difference between making an accusation and suggesting that editors listed by a banned editor as being on their side should perhaps be looked into. I did not raise the initial complaint, and I was very transparent about the fact that, other than that list, I had no evidence against anyone. Regardless, this is not about you or me or any individual editor. Making a revert is not vandalism nor is it evidence of any behavioral issue; any editor has the same right to make reverts that you do. But as others have said here, the content you seek to include here is tenuously-sourced and is undue, even as an attributed POV. If you want to make a case for that content's inclusion, you are free to do so, but not by attacking other editors. --WMSR (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: Please focus on content and read my reply [24] on your talk page. Xenagoras (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, the Federalist citing Axios still adds up to poor sourcing. Three editors have now opposed this content, yet you still continue to push it. Collaboration means listening, and sometimes conceding when consensus is against you, much like I did on the American Samoan material in the lead of Tulsi Gabbard. - MrX 🖋 16:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, please read my reply [25] on your user talk page. Xenagoras (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• INCLUDE: I see no basis for considering Axios unreliable. In RS/N, it has been deemed ‘Usable' or ‘Generally reliable’ here and ‘hard to argue with’ here. Are any other critiques extant? AFAICS, Xenagoras has responded and adapted appropriately to all criticisms. This material is DUE. Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if Axios in this case was reliable, not saying it is. It still does not support what was written for this page. Let alone the reference was about Yang, not Gabbard. ContentEditman (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What was written for this page: "Gabbard has received little news coverage relative to her polling position.” The cited Axios article: "By the numbers: Along with Yang, Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg have also under-indexed in media coverage, relative to their polling positions.” Humanengr (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that my latest version [26] which Calton deleted [27] contained 10 sources for the statement, Gabbard has received little news coverage relative to her polling position. Several of these sources are tables/charts, others are descriptive text and some are audio/video. Xenagoras (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Xenagoras you suggested that ignored you questions. Please ask them, one at a time below and I will try to answer them. - MrX 🖋 00:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, since there are a few relatively inexperienced editors here, I wanted to point out that there is a  dispute resolution process that works pretty well and should be followed when dialog become stuck. Discussions about editor behavior really don't belong on article talk pages.- MrX 🖋 00:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I asked you: Can you explain why "this article should reflect the reality that her campaign simply had very little impact on the political landscape." [28] Xenagoras (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Because there is simply not much more to say about it. She has only participated in a fraction fo the debates; she is polling in 9th place in national polls, with aggregate results under 2%; she is in 14th place for fundraising; she has received a tiny number of endorsements; and she left Iowa with less than 0.01% of the votes, and no delegates. Her message of touting her military experience while still being a dove is lost in the wind. Her appearances on Fox News are not resonating with many voters. The mainstream press is mostly ignoring her, but that is to be expected given all the above. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you linked to the aggregate polling showing Gabbard receiving 1.8% nationally and you said, the mainstream press is mostly ignoring her. [29] You contradict your own deletion [30] justification that Humanengr inserted [31] a blatantly false claim by quoting Axios with Gabbard has received very little news coverage relative to her polling position. Xenagoras (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

She isn't one of the frontrunners, who receive most of the coverage anyway, and when you're polling in the low single-digits in a crowded race, you aren't going to get much attention. There is no rule saying that a candidate must receive coverage proportionate to their polling average. Different stories about different people make the news for different reasons. --WMSR (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, please stop using straw man arguments like There is no rule saying that a candidate must receive coverage proportionate to their polling average. Nobody claimed that such a rule exists. Xenagoras (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no straw man here; the point is that Gabbard's lack of coverage, given her standing in the polls, is not all that surprising or notable. --WMSR (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "Gabbard has received very little news coverage relative to her polling position." it says "Along with Yang, Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg have also under-indexed in media coverage, relative to their polling positions." "received very little news coverage" is not equivalent to "under-indexed in media coverage", and neither can be stated in Wikipedia's voice anyway. - MrX 🖋 02:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Laymen do not understand the statistical term "under-indexed", therefore we should use a commonly understandable wording like Tulsi Gabbard received disproportionately small media coverage in relation to her polling position [32], and that can of course be stated in Wikipedia's voice because it is neutral wording that describes the numbers found in a study of cable news "airtime" minutes vs polling percentages. Xenagoras (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We could (I still don't think we should) say: "According to Axios, as of September 2019, Gabbard and Yang had received proportionally less media coverage than expected from their 1.4 percent and 2.5 percent polling." - MrX 🖋 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, my second question to you was: Can you explain how "this article should reflect the reality that her campaign simply had very little impact on the political landscape" ? [33] Do you want to have info about her only participated in a fraction fo the debates; she is polling in 9th place in national polls, with aggregate results under 2%; she is in 14th place for fundraising; she has received a tiny number of endorsements; and she left Iowa with less than 0.01% of the votes, and no delegates in the article? I could create and insert wording for that. Xenagoras (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think these types of articles should capture polling performance, fund raising, significant events, primary performance, and platform. I would be interested to see what you could come up with, keeping in mind that you should use the best available sources. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I updated [34] several sub sections of the article and included some of your proposals [35] [36]. To describe her primary platform here would probably result in something highly redundant to her political positions article. But perhaps I can create a concise summary for this article. There exists more material about Gabbard's media coverage and other topics which I have not yet condensed into concise wording. Xenagoras (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)