For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for Talk:Tulsi Gabbard.

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Can we get rid of the Conservative designation for someone who has a Liberal Ideology? [1] 23.122.176.75 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) ObviousGuy 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ (74th percentile) GovTract.us

Misleading sentence about imigration

[edit]

"Gabbard has expressed support for increased border security and voted with Republicans for vetting of Iraqi and Syrian refugees."

When I first read this, I interpreted is as saying that Gibbard went against her own party to support a Republican bill. But when I checked out the source, it turns out that this was a bipartican bill on which she voted yes along with 47 of her Democratic colleagues, and which only a small minority of her party opposed. I think this should be edited to avoid confusion. 2001:2020:C313:D2B8:0:0:56:B066 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you for bringing this to the talk page. Eruditess (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

[edit]

I would remove Footnote 25 and put "source needed." Cited article about Trump's potential Vice Presidential Selections does not even mention Gabbard and s not a source to back up the assertion. 134.197.135.158 (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Statement removed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be included?

[edit]

A close relative has just died in a shooting.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/06/01/prominent-gabbard-family-mourns-retired-uh-professor-writer-murdered-samoa/ 176.223.172.2 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it becomes relevant to her niece's biography. (I don't think it was a shooting btw.) TFD (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statement about ancestry/ethnicity

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Frame of Reference

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
{{bottomLinkPreText}} {{bottomLinkText}}
Talk:Tulsi Gabbard
Listen to this article

This browser is not supported by Wikiwand :(
Wikiwand requires a browser with modern capabilities in order to provide you with the best reading experience.
Please download and use one of the following browsers:

This article was just edited, click to reload
This article has been deleted on Wikipedia (Why?)

Back to homepage

Please click Add in the dialog above
Please click Allow in the top-left corner,
then click Install Now in the dialog
Please click Open in the download dialog,
then click Install
Please click the "Downloads" icon in the Safari toolbar, open the first download in the list,
then click Install
{{::$root.activation.text}}

Install Wikiwand

Install on Chrome Install on Firefox
Don't forget to rate us

Tell your friends about Wikiwand!

Gmail Facebook Twitter Link

Enjoying Wikiwand?

Tell your friends and spread the love:
Share on Gmail Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Buffer

Our magic isn't perfect

You can help our automatic cover photo selection by reporting an unsuitable photo.

This photo is visually disturbing This photo is not a good choice

Thank you for helping!


Your input will affect cover photo selection, along with input from other users.

X

Get ready for Wikiwand 2.0 🎉! the new version arrives on September 1st! Don't want to wait?