Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

"Gabbard briefly launched her 2020 presidential campaign" claims the article prior to my deletion of the word "Briefly". Let's put this in context, comparing the 2020 Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris: Tulsi Gabbard's campaign was well over a year, started before Kamala Harris announced, and lasted almost four months after Harris dropped out. Harris didn't even run for a year and got zero delegates, and zero votes. Gabbard did receive votes as well as delegates. There is no mention in the wiki article of Kamala Harris as she ran in the Dem primary campaign for President, that her campaign was "brief" or "briefly" sustained. Granted, Biden's pledge to choose a person of DEI qualifications for his running mate resulted in Kamala being chosen. But her run as VP has nothing to do with her noticeably short and unsuccessful run for President in 2020. The double standard is glaring. Please, let's make wiki at least the bare minimum of unbiased. --Knowsetfree (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

She is the first female military combat veteran to serve as the DNI 137.246.135.85 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done (in Director of National Intelligence §) Humanengr (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A large number of WP:RS sources have noted that Gabbard had a big moment in the primary debate against Harris.

How Tulsi Gabbard's big moment with Harris is playing into Tuesday's debate (NBC 2024) In a 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, Gabbard gained attention for her stinging criticism of Harris' record. Now, she's helping Trump prep for Tuesday's big event.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tulsi-gabbard-big-moment-kamala-harris-tuesday-debate-rcna169234

‘You owe them an apology’: Gabbard’s attack highlights Harris’s complex death penalty record. (WaPo 2019)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/01/you-owe-them-an-apology-gabbards-attack-highlights-harriss-complex-death-penalty-record/

Given the wide coverage of this debate performance not only in 2019 but also in 2024, I think it is WP:DUE and needs to be included in the 2020 presidential campaign and briefly mentioned in the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Muboshgu (talk), I think the relevant content added for debate in the article body, especially when its cited from multiple high quality WP:RS sources such as Washington Post and NBC News is WP:DUE and does not violate WP: NPOV, as its factual. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you mean this, wording like "gained spotlight" adds nothing, and indeed we would not cover something at all if it wasn't covered. For the lead, I think you are mistaking the WP:RECENTISM of the debate performance, briefly mentioned again before the 2024 debate, with DUE. The 2019 debate performances were significant enough to cover in the body, but not such a key moment that it needs fawning POV language like this when the real reception was mixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, we can use more neutral language, though I was only following the NBC source, which is not even friendly to Gabbard, but still noted

How Tulsi Gabbard's big moment with Harris is playing into Tuesday's debate (NBC 2024) In a 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, Gabbard gained attention for her stinging criticism of Harris' record. Now, she's helping Trump prep for Tuesday's big event. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tulsi-gabbard-big-moment-kamala-harris-tuesday-debate-rcna169234 RogerYg (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you are missing WP:LASTING which indicates the notability of an event if it is reported in sources over multiple years, such as in this case in 2019 and 2024. It should not be confused with WP:RECENTISM. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All news goes for clickbait headlines. Their bias is to say whatever it takes to get us to click. It's our job to filter that out. What remains is that she got in some hits on Kamala at at least one of the 2019 debates, but this article doesn't go into the hits that she took in those debates. The RECENTISM is focusing on her getting in some hits on Kamala without considering the broadsides that she took, or even giving those 2019 debates all that much prominence in the first place. I didn't revert your addition of content on the 2019 debates from the body, just the words "gained spotlight when she". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I broadly agree with the gist of your argument. I am fine with removing Harris debate from the lead, but may add some more relevant content in the body in the 2020 campaign section. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"gained media attention as she won applause": Yes, she did, but we should not say "gained media attention" in any article, the existing media reference should be self-evident of that. And applause in a debate is hardly worth documenting, it's the RECENTISM of the debate itself that has no lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, how about at least mentioning that she gained attention over her attacks on Harris, since that is justified by WP:LASTING with reports from 2019 and 2024. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As I said, "gained attention" is implied by the references existing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking at the lead I see a hidden comment has been added saying "Do not add Hindu to the lead". Generally hidden comments would require some form of consensus being reached on the matter, and looking back through the archives I can see no consensus reached about this at all. I'm not quite sure why content is being repeatedly removed citing this note when it appears to just be one person's personal instructions rather than an actual consensus on inclusion - correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
On the content itself, I don't see the issue with including it as part of a religious first in the US, in that she was the first Hindu member of Congress (see similar in the lead of Keith Ellison) and of cabinet - not seeing the MOS:CONTEXTBIO issue which is invoked here at all. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. I also think it is quite relevant that she is the first Hindu American elected to Congress and to serve in a cabinet. If she had been, say, the 10th, then that would not be a relevant thing to include. I think MOS:CONTEXTBIO is being applied a bit too broadly, the religion of an ordinary politician is likely not relevant, but being the first to achieve these things surely is. You have cited Keith Ellison, and I will also mention Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It was added here. I've removed it. There's no evidence of any consensus for it being included. I cannot find any relevant discussion in this talk page's history. --Hipal (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

6 hours is hardly enough time for interested editors to respond. There is consensus on this point. She is not notable for her religion, therefore it shouldn't be in the lead per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Attempts to include it have been reverted on this basis for some time by different editors. Marincyclist (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It appears to be part of her notability. "Hindu" currently appears 40 times in this article. Can you find any in-depth, independent sources that don't mention it prominently? --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Notifying other interested editors @Humanengr and @Muboshgu. Marincyclist (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I presumed it was a more discussed consensus from somewhere in the talk page archives. Apparently not? If we mention religion in the lead for Ellison, Tlaib, and Omar, I don't see why we wouldn't here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Some factors to consider: 2/3 of the 40 mentions are not in the body but in the Ref list; two in "Early life," one in "House," one in "DNI," nine in "Personal life". Also arguably should combine Samoan and Pacific Islander. Maybe put 'youngest', 'Hindu', and 'Pacific Islander' at end of 1st sentence of 3rd para. Humanengr (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I mostly agree with Humanengr (talk) that these can be mentioned in 3rd paragraph, as it was more notable and covered in media when Tulsi first got elected to Congress.

Suggested third paragraph start:

In 2012, Gabbard was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii's 2nd congressional district. She became the first Samoan American and Hindu American to serve in the U.S. Congress. During her tenure in Congress, she served on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), where she introduced several bills related to veteran issues.

I would suggest to leave the Pacific Islander in the last paragraph, as there are some editors who strongly want it there.

I would suggest to keep the youngest state legislator in first para.

Meanwhile, MOS:CONTEXTBIO is widely used on WP:BLP pages to avoid unneccessary mention and association with religion, so it is relevant in some measure.

Also, comparison with Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar may not be entirely accurate, as they are more actively involved in Muslim causes such as Palestine, while Tulsi is generally less involved in Hindu issues.

Even Ilhan Omar has religion mentioned in 3rd paragraph. So, third paragraph mention should be reasonable. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm fine with the inclusion of the firsts in the third paragraph. On the topic of what started this discussion - RogerYg, could I respectfully suggest you ease off on adding hidden notes to articles? This isn't the first time a hidden note has caused an issue and they should be used lightly in general - mostly for things that are settled law after an RfC or things that would confuse an average editor (things that seem misspelled but aren't for example), not for individuals' readings of the MOS. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A past consensus does not bind current content, so we can discuss what if anything to add.

In my recollection there were discussions whether Gabbard was a real Hindu or a member of a Western cult that had appropriated some aspects of Hindusim and whether she was a Hindu nationalist fueled her by Islamophobia.

I think rs support referring to her as Hindu without qualifications. TFD (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, there are multiple reliable WP:RS sources that refer to Tulsi as a Hindu. Also, she refers herself as Hindu multiple times, recently in Senate confirmation, so there is no problem in that. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Agree with all this, should be included. Good eye on catching the editing note. Eruditess (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, it has been included in the third paragraph of the lead as per above discussion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In the first paragraph, the article states, "serving as the 8th director of national intelligence since 2025."

• What I think it should be changed: This is most likely a typo, and I am not aware of the correct year this should be changed to.
• Why it should be changed: The year stated is incorrect, most likely a typo.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The United States obviously can not have had 8 directors of national security since the year 2025.

50.202.130.78 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've reordered the words. According to Director of National Intelligence there have been 8 in total. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]