Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Why does this article say that she’s a Democrat if she supports conservative ideology?

Why does this article say that she’s a Democrat if she supports conservative ideology? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The article says she left the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the Conservative designation for someone who has a Liberal Ideology? 23.122.176.75 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) ObviousGuy 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

She is both. People can be both. 176.223.172.2 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right. None of her policy positions are deemed conservative. The labelling is completely biased and unsupported. The article should at least be consistent to what Conservatism is described as on Wikipedia. ZephyrTurtle14 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Misleading statement about ancestry/ethnicity

The article states: “Gabbard, who is of Samoan descent and 26% Southeast Asian”. However Gabbard herself has clarified repeatedly that she is of European and Samoan descent, with her parents being mostly European. The southeast asian reference relates to genetic studies showing that Samoans migrated from southeast Asia long in the past. This would be like saying an American native was of Chinese descent; perhaps technically true if considering ice age migration and genetic similarities, but completely misleading in regards to direct ancestry and cultural heritage. The statement is also redundant in that the southeast asian genetics refers to her Samoan heritage, and omits her majority European heritage. The statement should be changed to “Gabbard, who is of European and Samoan descent”. References could be updated to the 2012 Huffington Post article and/or campaign website where she clearly states her European and Samoan ancestry. 2601:600:8E00:666F:8C4D:40FA:39B7:A64F (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The category "Southeast Asian" in the genetic test included Samoans. The genealogical research found no Southeast Asian ancestry other than Samoans. We should therefore only mention European and Samoan ancestry.

This was discussed before btw. TFD (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

Add a line at the end of the opening description about Tulsi that states that after identifying as an "Independent," she has now become a supporter of Donald Trump and is helping prepare him for the Presidential debates. 2603:7000:9340:DCFC:5052:4415:7D18:1722 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also note that the "Departure from the Democratic party" section goes into (well sourced) detail how she became a Trump supporter. It's just not necessarily worthy of the lead. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Frame of Reference

"Gabbard has taken more conservative positions on issues such as abortion, foreign policy, transgender rights, and border security."

I don't doubt that there are sources that can support this, however I am concerned that the statement doesn't accept the possibility that the opposite could be true. What if her positions have been quite consistent, but her former party moved away from them?

The wording is quite strongly critical, yet it might not be that Gabbard actually changed her position much, given the political changes that have happened around her. SkepticNotCynic (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording of that sentence is factual. It is only critical if you dislike conservative positions and interpret it as criticism. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Muboshgu. I agree that my comment about the statement being critical was irrelevant to the main point, so I have applied a strikethrough to that part of the sentence.

Regarding the discussion, it seems reasonable to claim that Gabbard's positions align more with conservative views on some issues than with the current views of her former party. However:

• Abortion: Abortion is not mentioned in the body of the article, yet the claim of a shift in position since January 2021 is in the lede. Gabbard's recent support for third-trimester restrictions does not represent a new conservative shift. For example she supported the "Born Alive" bill in 2020.
• Foreign Policy: The Foreign Affairs section of the article does not support the idea that she changed positions since January 2021. Gabbard's critiques are consistent with her long-standing non-interventionist stance on foreign policy.
• Transgender Rights: The "Protect Women's Sports Act" was introduced in 2020 as the article clearly states. Gabbard began her career supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and has since moved towards supporting LGBT+ rights though not as far as her former party, particularly on issues like transwomen in sports.
• Border Security: Gabbard has supported stronger border security measures for years, which aligns with her consistent approach rather than a shift in position since January 2021.

Her views seem to have remained quite consistent while the political landscape around her has shifted. It might be misleading to claim that she has recently adopted more conservative positions on these issues, a claim that the article as a whole does not seem to support. SkepticNotCynic (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

You have her listed as conservative. She is not conservative. She left the Democratic Party because she believes they are going to start a world nuclear war. She is in fact left of center and liberal on almost all her policies she supports. She should be changed from conservative to liberal or at least moderate. She is in no way conservative 2601:982:300:3100:F8A9:DA66:B16F:15E9 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

You have her listed as conservative. She is not conservative. She left the Democratic Party because she believes they are going to start a world nuclear war. She is in fact left of center and liberal on almost all her policies she supports. She should be changed from conservative to liberal or at least moderate. She is in no way conservative 2600:1002:B187:7FF0:984F:3822:8BBF:4ABE (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Whoever first wrote her as conservative recently, did that person provide any sour es to support that claim? If not, why the inconsistent requirement? 98.45.134.246 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, done. Undue and debateable detail such as Conservative, not appropriate in lede.

as per TALK page - she has been a political commentator even before aligning more with conservative views. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

Change Independent to Republican— unfortunately she just announced at North carolina trump rally 2600:4808:6374:EA00:19EB:375F:BD49:39CA (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Marking as done, someone has updated it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So you’re saying Gabbard has expressed support for increased border security and voted with Republicans for it? 173.209.68.51 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reflected Image

There is an image with caption beginning "Gabbard in 2012, pictured wearing a lei,..." The direction of the overlap in her garment closure and the side on which her hair is parted show that the image has been laterally reflected. It would be simple matter to correct it, but I am uncertain of the Wikipedia rules regarding that sort of tampering. Let me point it out and let someone else deal with it.Geometricks (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

[1] – 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

Under Political Positions -> Healthcare and GMO labelling add a link to the following article in the phrase "loosely modeled after Australia's system" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/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 Wikipedia WP:RS:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

[Washington Examiner Not Reliable]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia WP:RS:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/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 Wikipedia: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)

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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: "Wikipedia 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

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. [omitting intervening events for brevity] 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, … [who] 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.[2] 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 8, 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 [Victoria] 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

Humanengr (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Media coverage

Humanengr, what's the reasoning for adding the media coverage section? I fear it's an attempt to call into question legitimate information, from verifiable sources, that I and others have been adding to the article. The media isn't out to get Gabbard, she just has highly controversial opinions that are newsworthy given her nomination and her potential position. Marincyclist (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this reads as delegitimizing the media, telling our readers to disregard what they have published on her. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither the fear it's an attempt to call into question legitimate information, from verifiable sources nor delegimitizing the media is policy-based. The cited sources for this § are RS.

@Muboshgu, your citing WP:UNDUE is inappropriate and not a basis for removal. If you can find sources that indicate opposing views regarding media coverage of Gabbard, kindly add those. Humanengr (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not posting a link promptly here; but as I presented in the alleged biolabs thread above, media coverage of Gabbard continues to misrepresent, as evidenced in the 7 'RS' cited in the block quotes. Humanengr (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored. As indicated in my ES: Restoring section on media coverage per WP:DUE; significant coverage exists from reliable sources. No policy-based opposition presented. Humanengr (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

DUE is the policy argument, you simply saying it's "inappropriate" doesn't invalidate the concerns that this section violates NPOV. Nor does it change the fact that the WP:ONUS is on those who want to include contentious information. Please respect WP:BRD. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[FN: The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.] You have not presented any valid policy-based reason for removal. WP:ONUS refers to WP:CONSENSUS which says: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have not provided any legitimate concerns that are supported by policies or guidelines and have therefore not satisfied the criterion that WP:CONCENSUS imposes. Hence, your cite to WP:ONUS is not on point.

I invited you to provide opposing cites; you did not.

It's not my fault that media coverage of Gabbard is so biased that multiple RS see it plain as day and are on record saying so.

Kindly restore. Humanengr (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr (talk)

I have a suggestion. Instead of adding a separate section on Media coverage, you can mention the information you have on media bias in the relevant sections. For example, in the section on her 2020 presidential campaign.

It looks difficult to get consensus on having a separate section on Media coverage.

The info below fits the 2020 presidential section.

In September 2019, Vanity Fair summarized the media coverage of Gabbard's presidential campaign as "the press hates Gabbard even more than it hates Sanders.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/which-democrats-are-secretly-running-for-second-place

Thanks. 06:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Apologies … I should have placed this between § Democratic National Committee and § 2020 presidential campaign. That would make sense time-wise as that is when these issues arose. Would that resolve your concerns? Humanengr (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you make Media coverage a subsection within 2020 Presidential campaign section, instead of a separate section by itself. That would make better sense, and I think we can get reasonable consensus on that. RogerYg (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What I'm struggling with is that not all of it fits under the 2020 Presidential campaign §; some also fits under the Nomination for director of national intelligence (2024) §. So, that would make it a subsection under each of those. Which makes more sense to you: a single section prior to the former or subsections under each of the two? I favor the former. Humanengr (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you can add a subsection under 2020 presidential election, and a paragraph in 2024 DNI section about media bias. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that for now. Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marincyclist: Did RogerYg's suggestion to, instead, add a subsection under 2020 presidential election, and a paragraph in 2024 DNI section and my noting that the cited sources are RS adequately resolve your concerns?

@Humanengr: I don't think the inclusion of this type of information is in the best interest of the article, because the article (and wikipedia as a whole) relies on WP:RS. The issue, as I see it, is the juxtaposition of a section/paragraphs attempting to label as biased the reliable sources the foregoing article is built on. See, WP:UNDUE. If this information is to be included, we should be careful to ensure the way it is written does not violate NPOV, and that we do not give it WP:UNDUE weight.

You already added this to the article: "After Trump nominated Gabbard for DNI on November 13, 2024, several news organizations misrepresented what Gabbard had said in 2022. Politico and The Guardian each claimed Gabbard had accused the US of running bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine, when as indicated above, her concern was not with bioweapons but with biolabs. The Atlantic cited a writer on Russian security and intelligence for the same accusation."

I think this is a more preferable approach—refute individual examples of inaccuracies, rather than label the media biased as a whole against the subject in a section or paragraph. Marincyclist (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Both are needed. But individual refutations are more challenging as the media doesn't present her perspective: it's either misrepresented, poorly covered, or no longer available (CNN 3/12/2019 Gabbard: My past Assad comments were misunderstood shows as Unable to load video).

You expressed concern re attempting to label as biased the reliable sources the foregoing article is built on and cited WP:UNDUE. As I noted above, what WP:UNDUE says is Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, … and that *supports* inclusion of this material.

Also re your the reliable sources the foregoing article is built on, WP:BIASED says [R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.[emphasis added]

And, in this case, it is abundantly clear that mainstream media *is* biased — and that bias has been abundantly recognized by other RS cites — with NO opposing analyses. Indicating such merits prominent display. To do so is all the more important as the sources used and cited in References to which readers are pointed are those, again as you say, the foregoing article is built on.

The effect of mainstream bias on general readership is exemplified (and I say this for general illustrative purposes here, as I WP:AGF) in your own edits, as I indicated on your Talk page:

[Y]our first edit, among other things, changed Gabbard met various political and religious leaders from Syria and Lebanon to Gabbard claims she met various political and religious leaders from Syria and Lebanon. For this you cited this ABC article. In your 4th edit, your edit summary said gabbard claims the meetings with assad were unplanned, but we don't know if this is true. changed to reflect this.

While individual refutations are needed to correct the record, a § on media coverage highlights systemic issues in how Gabbard's political positions have been portrayed. This would help readers understand the potential bias in coverage.

As WP:BLP stresses the importance of neutrality, if the majority of sources are biased, the article would not be WP:NPOV.

And here, a quick glance through the Reference list (particularly mainstream cites covering her political positions) confirms they present her negatively; cf. Kamala Harris.

Humanengr (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The main part of the Nomination for director of national intelligence (2024) §, ¶¶ 2 through 5 (after a perfunctory ¶ 1), is entirely negative. What is negative in the rest is followed only by defense. For anyone interested in what her positions are on Syria and Russia, they'd have to scroll down to those §§.

Not sure how to start to fix that other than by prefacing re media coverage.

And looking a bit more at those §§, I see that, while those now do a better job at presenting her positions before diving into criticism, the Russian invasion § repeats the 100 former diplomats accusations. Humanengr (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent here for a few days. This edit is OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Humanengr, your response in the article is not reassuring. Tat same day, Politico and The Guardian claimed Gabbard had accused the US of running bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine{ is using MOS:CLAIM to discredit the sources. The phrase {tq|her concern was not with bioweapons but with biolabs}} is your OR. The Politico source you use says She also caused an uproar by suggesting Ukraine housed U.S.-funded bioweapons labs. Gabbard later claimed her comments had been misunderstood, and she was expressing concern about the presence of biolabs handling dangerous pathogens in a warzone. The first Guardian source says After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Gabbard accused the US of running biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine – a falsehood often touted by Russia. The second Guardian source says 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. Such labs actually work to stop the creation of bioweapons. Gabbard has said she was calling for such labs to be protected. Something along the lines of "she said something about bioweapons and later clarified herself" would be neutral.

The next edit of However, as indicated below, she had instead expressed worry about the existence and vulnerability of U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine, not that they were developing biological weapons, as clarified in her statements from March 2022 where she called for a ceasefire around these labs to prevent the potential release of pathogens due to the war. is odd, this "as indicated below" statement is self-referential in a way we do not write on Wikipedia. And it's unsourced OR written with the POV of defending the subject of this article rather than neutrally presenting information.

I don't want to edit war with you, but I will follow the page restrictions and remove it in 24 hours if you don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, reread the notice. 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 You didn't follow BRD, you did not post a talk page message, and you did not wait 24 hours, so you're not following the arbitration remedies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I was merely trying to accommodate your ES "improperly claimed" is WP:OR for this edit. I'll start another thread so we can separate this out from the more general topic of this thread. Humanengr (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Reducing the length of the lead

I recently made some edits reducing the length of the lead. At present the word count is 651, which is quite long for a lead. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. The lead for this article is longer than the one for Joe Biden, and he's the current President and 82 years old!

I really did not mean to offend anyone, I apologize if I removed information that you think may be of importance. All information has some importance, but not everything belongs in a lead. The lead should be an introduction and summary of the article's contents. I approached this objectively and tried to ensure that I only removed information that was covered in detail in the body of the article itself. Please feel free to add or remove, but let's try and aim to reduce the size of the lead, as it makes the article more approachable to readers!

Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi , Marincyclist (talk)

Thanks for your good concern on length. However, different articles have different lead lengths, depending on the notable aspects.

For example Elon Musk is considered a good article and has 575 words.

Nancy Pelosi has 601 words.

With few minor edits, its now below 600

So, 600 is not unusually lengthy, and we should not misuse Length as a reason to make changes without consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. 11:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Addressing your concern, I have edited some details, which do not affect the consensus, and the updated length is under 500 words. Thanks. 13:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @RogerYg. I do agree that the length should, of course, vary based on notable aspects. But I felt the original lead was almost a carbon copy of the body. I appreciate your work, and the work of others, who have tried to summarize and make the lead shorter. Marincyclist (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Need consensus before changing stable Lead version per WP:LEAD and WP:TALK

Hi Marincyclist (talk), Thanks for your recent contributions to this page. I notice that you are a relatively new editor with around 500 edits I notice that you made changed a long time stable version that was developed after WP:Consensus and multiple discussions. Many senior editors with over 3000 or 5000 edits have developed consensus. To make changes to the lead, you need WP:Consensus per WP:TALK and WP:LEAD. Please discuss the changes on TALK page before making further changes to the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to comment, unless an article is under extended-protected confirmation such as an article under WP:ARBPIA, it doesn't matter whether you have 500 or 500,000 edits, your input is still weighed the same. Seniority doesn't matter in forming consensus in Wikipedia. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Stable lead version has been developed over months with Consensus by several editors per WP:CONSENSUS, who had made substantial contribution to article body, and then summarized per WP:LEAD. Any new editor making major changes to the lead needs to discuss on TALK page to develop reasonable consensus. Senority aspect was supplementary to stress the consensus aspect.

No disrespect to anyone. I welcome all to improve the article, but with some consensus and consideration to editors who have contributed a lot to this page, including myself. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation. RogerYg (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@RogerYg, Sorry, I saw that another editor had tagged the lead as potentially too long (I agree), and thought I would try to help. Much of what's written there is already mentioned verbatim in the body. I do appreciate, however, that you have worked with me constructively (and in good-faith) and have opened these talk-page sections. Please note, there is a lot to respond to, so it may take me some time. Best, Marincyclist (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on First paragraph

Current stable version: Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and military officer serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve since 2021, having previously served in Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020. In November 2024, President-elect Trump selected Gabbard for the position of director of national intelligence in his second term, starting January 2025. A former congresswoman, Gabbard served as U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021.

If you have any suggestions for changes, please discuss here per WP:CONSENSUS before making changes. RogerYg (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marincyclist (talk),

I notice that you have suggested that her Congresswoman credentials need to mentioned first.

It is a point that was discussed earlier on this page by several editors. Please note that it is her past position, which ended in 2021.

Standard Wikipedia WP:BLP pages often introduce with the current serving position, which in case of Tulsi Gabbard is Lt. Colonel, and the same has been mentioned in the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, many recent WP:RS articles such as The New York Times introduce her as serving Lt. Colonel. Her military experience is also being highlighted by multiple media reports. More importantly its her current serving position.

Therefore, several editors had agreed to introduce her with the current serving position Lt. Colonel, which is a reasonably good rank in the military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/us/politics/trump-tulsi-gabbard-director-national-intelligence.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trailblazing-political-army-career-tulsi-191604107.html

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested Sentence placement- move DNI to end of paragraph.

This will also bring Congresswoman details just after her current position of Lt. Colonel.

Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and military officer serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve since 2021, having previously served in Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020. A former congresswoman, Gabbard served as U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. She was the first Samoan American member of Congress. She was a candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. She left the Democratic Party in 2022 to become an independent. In 2024, she joined the Republican Party. In November 2024, President-elect Trump selected Gabbard for the position of director of national intelligence in his second term, starting January 2025.

Please let me know if any concern. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Politicians who are Military officers, often have that mentioned that in first sentence. For example.

Allen West (politician)

Allen Bernard West (born February 7, 1961)[1] is an American politician and retired military officer. A member of the Republican Party, West represented Florida's 22nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 2011 to 2013. RogerYg (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@RogerYg, I don't mind having her military service and rank mentioned in the first sentence, but I don't think that's what she's most notable for. I think she's most notable for her service in Congress and for her nomination to DNI. If her service is mentioned, I propose mentioning her current rank and branch, and omitting the clause: "having previously served in Hawaii Army National Guard from 2003 to 2020".

This is what my now reverted edit said:

Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician who served as U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. Gabbard is also a military officer serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. In November 2024, President-elect Trump selected Gabbard for the position of director of national intelligence in his second term, starting January 2025. Marincyclist (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yes we can remove the National Guard part.

Here is the suggested update:

Tulsi Gabbard (/ˈtʌlsi ˈɡæbərd/; born April 12, 1981) is an American politician, former congresswoman and military officer serving as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve since 2021. Gabbard served as U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would think we would lead with Congress. That's why she's notable. She's not notable because of her military service. DNI would go first if she is confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

While I would broadly agree, but Lt. Colonel is her current serving position, and she has been out of Congress for almost 4 years. Also, her military service is increasingly in news. Consider recent media coverage on support she is getting from many Veterans and veteran groups. Ofcourse DNI would go first, if she is confirmed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Third paragraph - foreign policy focus

The third paragraph is a bit long with dual focus, one of foreign policy and other on domestic career. I think, we can split the domestic career part and merge it with fourth paragraph. This will bring foreign policy focus on 3rd paragraph and domestic career in the fourth paragraph per WP:LAYOUT. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated 3rd paragraph to keep focus on foreign policy- Syria & Middle east; and domestic aspects- DNC in 4th paragraph. Please let me know if you have a differing view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Good work, I wanted to do something similar. Best, Marincyclist (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Lead's 2nd paragraph - military focus

Hi Marincyclist (talk), I appreciate that you also suggested to add some birth details to the lead. But, please note that many politicians Wiki pages do not have birth details in the lead. See Elise Stefanik , Nikki Haley

While, I dont think there is a need to add birth related info in the lead, still, if you want, I am okay with a line in the beginning of 2nd paragraph. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind whether birth related info is in the lead, but I felt like the paragraph needed something about her life before serving in the military. Perhaps it would be better to have the 2nd paragraph start with her service as a state representative in Hawaii, as this is quite notable (youngest woman ever elected to a U.S. state legislature), and the move on to a summary of her military service. Thank you for working on me with this. Marincyclist (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, currently the good thing about 2nd paragraph is that its summarizes entire military service, and focusses on military service.

I understand your goood intentions, but it will distrub the focus on 2nd paragraph on military service.

Actually, we had a line in the first paragraph about her being the youngest state representative in Hawaii. We could add a brief line there: She also served as the youngest state legislator in Hawaii from 2002 to 2004.

In First paragraph:

Gabbard served as U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021. She also served as the youngest state legislator in Hawaii from 2002 to 2004. She was a candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that her Hawaii state legislator role is notable to be mentioned in lead, and have added it to first paragraph. It was there earlier also, but somehow had gotten removed. Now, its restored in first paragrpah. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that we have to be concise in lead, we cannot go into details whether she was the youngest in Hawaii and also youngest ever state legistor in entire US. Those details can be mentioned under the section on her Hawaii House Rep service. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Letter to Thune and Schumer

@Muboshgu: Thx. So let's do this one point at a time. Re: Politico and The Guardian claimed Gabbard had accused the US of running bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine:

In the 3/9/2022 Carlson interview, she said: 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.

On 3/13/2022, she tweeted: 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.

Later that day, Mitt Romney tweeted: Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.

Gabbard responded to Romney [here produced in full]

@MittRomney, you have called me a ‘treasonous liar’ for stating the fact that “there are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world” and therefore must be secured in order to prevent new pandemics. Bizarrely, you claim that securing these labs (or even calling for securing these labs) is treasonous and will lead to a loss of life, when the exact opposite is obviously true. The spread of pathogens is what will cause the loss of life, not the prevention of such spread. Senator Romney, please provide evidence that what I said is untrue and treasonous. If you cannot, you should do the honorable thing: apologize and resign from the Senate. Evidence of the existence of such biolabs, their vulnerability, and thus the need to take immediate action to secure them is beyond dispute:

1. State Department’s Victoria Nuland acknowledged such labs containing dangerous pathogens exist in Ukraine in her testimony to the US Senate (March 8, 2022): “Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact we are quite concerned that Russian troops may be seeking to gain control of. We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”

2. 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.” link

3. 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.” link

4. 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. link

5. CNN fact-check (March 10, 2022): “There are US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, that much is true.” link

6. 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.” link

So, Senator Romney, you have a choice: out of pride, continue to deny the truth or admit you are wrong, apologize, and resign.

Aloha. And remember that without the truth, we can be neither safe nor free.

And remember that without the truth, we can be neither safe nor free.

Politico 11/13/2024: She also caused an uproar by suggesting Ukraine housed U.S.-funded bioweapons labs.

Guardian 11/10/2024: After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Gabbard accused the US of running biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine – a falsehood often touted by Russia.

Politico and The Guardian did claim Gabbard had accused the US of running bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine whereas Gabbard spoke of (U.S.-funded) biolabs as did the docs she cited.

Make sense?

Humanengr (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Gabbard's response to the criticism, which follows the same line as your argument, is mentioned in this Newsweek article dated 15 March 2022.[3] Burrobert (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)