Talk:Pete Buttigieg: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 19:52, 19 July 2010. The result of the discussion was Delete.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. LGBT studies: Person C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Indiana C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana.

	Wiki Loves Pride
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, [[Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/|]].Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Ashley Feinberg (December 20, 2019). "Pete Buttigieg's Campaign Says This Wikipedia User Is Not Pete. So Who Is It?". Slate. Retrieved December 20, 2019.

These should probably be solely listed in the section dedicated to his political positions. Am I wrong? SecretName101 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of families (680) made homeless by Buttigieg's "1000 Properties in 1000 Days" program led to a spike of a few dozen additional homicides annually (very significant for a city as small as South Bend). Perhaps more alarmingly, however, with regard to this article is that the most recent suppressed edit by User:DouggCousins was NOT an RD1 violation, so it should NOT have been suppressed. 172.58.227.230 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a reliable source that ties the increased homicide rate to this policy. That's been asked for repeatedly; general crime statistics should not be added to this article unless RS specifically tie them to an action or policy of Buttigieg. The edit in question did not do that, and was properly suppressed IMO. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DouggCousins directly copied and pasted from copyrighted sources. That is the textbook definition of a copyright violation per RD1. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because you're editing while logging out doesn't mean you count as more people. You're engaging it sock puppetry and could be blocked for that alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet - you 2 probably are though.. And logs indicate the most recent suppression was not a copyright violation. As far as tying an extra 30 homicides to over 650 homeless families - it's quite clear they are tied. I recommend you "2 different people" delete your accounts since you are not interested in making this website a legitimate encyclopedia. Crime rates under every Governor or Mayor are the responsibility of that Governor or Mayor. 172.58.227.184 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can tie them to a specific policy or action by the Mayor. For example, Rudy Giuliani discusses the broken windows theory he implemented in New York which reduced crime. Otherwise, general crime statistics should go in the article on South Bend. Posting then here without tying them to a specific policy of Buttigieg using independent reliable sources that draw that conclusion serves only to attempt to embarrass him.

And if you have actual evidence I am a sockpuppet, I'd love to see it, and I invite you to present it in a formal SPI. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, this is clearly Doug Cousins editing while logged out. Do you think we should bother filing? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably don't need to bother. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was my inclination as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

689 homeless families made homeless by Pete Buttigieg's "fix your house or lose it" policy is clearly tied to an increase in 30 homicides since desperate people take desperate action. Taking away someone's house is a hostile action and that was the reason for the retaliation. DouggCousins (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's "clearly" your original research. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, your belief is that a mayor has nothing to do with the crime rate in his city? And that 689 families who previously had homes being cast aside would not add friction to the city? Cause and affect is not original research. I see you also accused me of vandalism on my talk page. Please avoid casting aspersions and making personal attacks. DouggCousins (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say it's related unless reliable sources say it is. And you've been warned many times that you're editing disruptively and should stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief is that a mayor has nothing to do with the crime rate in his city? Both Vox and NYTimes explicitly mention Buttigieg's policies cause discord with the black community, so yes reliable sources have said they are related. Furthermore, the police chief, who is appointed by the mayor -- and in this case was even fired by the mayor -- is responsible for dealing with crime. Therefore, the edit is a good one. DouggCousins (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Causing general discord with the black community is very different than causing people to go out and commit crimes, and I haven't seen a source yet that makes that connection between crime and a specific policy of Buttigieg. There are possibly sources for the former, though. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buttigieg's specific policy was to appoint Ronald Teachman, then Scott Ruszkowski as chief of police. Under their tenure, crime rose. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/why-south-bends-police-department-has-become-a-campaign-issue-for-mayor-pete/ DouggCousins (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would have to show why the police chief was directly responsible for the increase in crime- and even then that would merit coverage in an article about the police chief, not Buttigieg. Overseeing something doesn't make someone directly responsible. You need to stop edit warring. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A city's crime stats are a mayor's responsibility. Period. You need to stop edit warring. Truth is life or death. 172.58.227.5 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. @172.58.227.5: Are you the same editor as DouggCousins? - MrX 🖋 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree? A mayor's responsible for crime in his city. That's a fact. That's like saying you disagree that Andrew Wiggins scored 33 points in last night's basketball game. It's just a fact. 216.130.236.20 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between overseeing an increase in crime and being responsible for it. The mere fact that Buttigieg is Mayor does not mean that he is responsible for the increase in the crime rate. He is responsible for doing something about it, but that doesn't mean he caused it- unless, as has been asked for repeatedly- you have a reliable source that ties an increase in any crime statistic to a specific action or policy of the Mayor. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wiggins scoring 33 points has nothing to do with this. A mayor is not able to control all the factors in the crime rate. It's also like how Donald Trump said the American economy was terrible, and then said it was great as soon as he was inaugurated. It's not solely up to the president how the nation's economy is, and it's not solely up to the mayor how much crime the city has. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crime statistics may not be a mayor's total responsibility, but that's not the question I think we need to ask. What we need to ask is whether crime statistics have relevance to Buttigieg's mayoralty. SecretName101 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think crime stats are relevant for any mayor. How else would someone determine how effectively a mayor keeps his constituents safe? Just like Giuliani/de Blasio had/have explicit plans for keeping citizens safe, not having a plan's just as noteworthy. The police chief reports to the mayor, not the other way around. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM. And I am greatly alarmed at your edit here. The text you added tells the reader that "violent crime increased in South Bend from 2012 to 2018" (leaving the unstated, but obvious, implication, that "it's all Buttigieg's fault"). But the NYT Upshot source cited conveys the exact opposite — that a "deeper dig into South Bend's crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime" and that attacks on Buttigieg related to urban crime are misleading. Please don't abuse sources in this manner, which is cherry-picking at best and can be viewed as deceptive. Neutrality^talk 04:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article's claim that it's [ˈbuːtɪdʒɪdʒ] seems likely to be right in view of the Maltese original, but if so, then the (perhaps generally reliable) source given for it is wrong, because it claims it's Boot-a-judge (that would be [ˈbuːtəˌdʒʌdʒ]) or Buddha-judge ([ˈbuːdəˌdʒʌdʒ]) or Boot-edge-edge ([ˈbuːˌtɛˌdʒɛdʒ]). As for the Politico article, it seems to be miscited, since I don't find any info on the pronunciation in it.--77.85.55.14 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The citation currently given says that he would pronounce it "Boot-edge-edge" or, more smoothly, "Boot-e-jej." Why isn't this pronunciation used? Rachel Maddow has interviewed him a few times and that is the pronunciation used -- 173.90.75.20 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is a need to find a place to put information regarding racial disparity in South Bend under Buttigieg's mayoralty. Seems like a gaping hole for us not to be including this, as significant media coverage has been attached to this topic.

Information regarding this includes information regarding racial disparity in marijuana arrests, as can be found in this article from The Intercept and this article from The Crime Report

Criticisms have been lodged on his "1,000 homes in 1,000 days" initiative for disregarding/harming communities of color, as is mentioned in this Vox article

Issue has been taken with the racial makeup of the South Bend Police force not matching the city's demographic makeup, as is mentioned in this Salon article and this The Hill aricle.

Data might also be found in the 2017 city-commissioned study on the city's racial wealth divide and the 2019 city-commissioned study on disparity.

SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, would like to propose some wording based on the sources relevant to Buttigieg, keeping in mind WP:DUEWEIGHT? - MrX 🖋 23:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what wording would be used, as I am not sure where/how we would format it to fit in to the existing article.

Other sources that might be useful include South Bend Tribune's "Timeline of events that escalated police tension in South Bend", The Guardian's article "Pete Buttigieg: police killing exposes mayor's troubled history with minorities", this article on Buttigieg taking ownership during a debate of the failure to achieve a diverse police force, and this article. SecretName101 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a potential look it might have, it could be a sub-section of his mayoralty

Racial inequality in South Bend

During Buttigieg's tenure, he and the city have had several criticisms raised about their actions in relation to racial inequality in South Bend.

Some have criticized Buttigieg's Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative for having negative impacts on minority communities.^[1]

Many controversies relate to the South Bend Police Department, part of the executive branch of the city's government.

As of the end of 2018, the South Bend Police Department's force was 88% white and only 5% hispanic and 5% African American, having a force which is notably less diverse than the demographic makeup of the city's population.^[2] Buttigieg has publicly declared personal accountability for his failure to diversify the city's police force.^[3][4]

During Buttigieg's time as mayor, a number of policing-related events have been credited with increasing strife between minority communities and the police force.^[5]

Buttigieg has declared that national racial disparity in rates of marijuana arrests are evidence of systemic racism, which has attracted attention to statistics showing this disparity to be significantly worse in South Bend than it is nationally.^[6][7]

Some efforts have been taken by the city to address disparity during Buttigieg's tenure. In 2017, the city released a report it had commissioned to study the racial wealth divide in South Bend.^[8] In 2019, the city released a report it had commissioned on disparity in general.^[9]

SecretName101 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a bit of work. My first question is why is this in seven paragraphs, rather than one or two?

• Combining all of this under a heading 'Racial disparity in South Bend' is not a fair representation of the sources. Perhaps something like "Criticism from communities of color" would be better.
• The Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative had aspects of gentrification, and is as much an economic disparity issue as it is a racial disparity issue. If we are going to attribute criticism to "some" then we also need to acknowledge that large majority of South Bend citizens favored the program.
• "Many controversies" seems like editorializing. How about "Some controversies"?
• I would reject the sentence that starts out "As of the end of 2018,.." as not relevant to Buttigieg's bio. Adding it to the other content is WP:SYNTH. The sentence "Buttigieg has publicly declared personal accountability for his failure to diversify the city's police force." is not really NPOV. How about "Buttigieg has acknowledged his failure to diversify the city's police force."?
• I would like to see mainstream sources that show the South Bend marijuana arrest stats meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. The Intercept is usable, but not by itself. I would have to be convinced that The Crime Report is a reliable source.
• I'm opposed to using primary sources 8 and 9. If this is noteworthy, we should be able to find a mainstream source for it. - MrX 🖋 17:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful here. Much of the coverage of this issue up until very recently has been dominated by stories originating with reporting by "The Young Turks," a highly biased and unreliable source. "Racial disparity" certainly exists in South Bend now, and has ALWAYS existed. Any discussion of this topic, as it relates to Buttigieg, should be couched in historical context. Data without trends is not useful or relevant. Also: there has been an incredible amount of misinformation and, frankly, propaganda, relating to both the demotion of the Police Chief by Buttigieg, and also the "!000 Homes in !000 Days" program. So reliability of sources is extremely important here. Jrwsaranac (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the page should say that Pete Buttigieg was honorably discharged due to "enlisting in the US military generally entails an eight year commitment, served with a combination of active and reserve service"^[1] (it wouldn't be a word for word quote but mentions the 8-year commitment). It would also include a link to the Military Discharge page (United States).

I was reading the Military Service section and it didn't click with me at first. I think an explanation would help clarify for the reader that Buttigieg wasn't discharged because of another factor such as unsuitability and/or misconduct.

It would probably read "...and was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2017 due to finishing his eight year commitment." (reword as needed).

FireSparkling (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) FireSparkling[reply]

We would need a source that actually says that about Pete Buttigieg. We are not allowed to use original research. - MrX 🖋 03:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t seem to find Petes height on here, there should be height listings for all- not just for all who want it, no? Some sites say 5.8” but we should probs go with a solid 5ft just to play it safe, yes? OwSiedits (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What source says 5.8 inches? - MrX 🖋 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any basis to include text cited to news articles that make little or no mention of Buttigieg? I refer specifically to this content, which I removed and which was restored:

During Buttigieg's first term, infighting on the Common Council^{[clarification needed]} became a problem.^[1] Former mayor of South Bend and former Governor of Indiana Joe Kernan held a press conference in July 2014 alongside other civic leaders in which he harshly criticized the Common Council's conduct.^[2][3]

• 2014 Stopczynski local TV article: no reference to Buttigieg
• 2014 local TV article on Kernan: no reference to Buttigieg
• 2014 local newspaper article: passing mention of Buttigieg (two sentences).

Is there any rationale for relying on these kinds of sources? The text strays from the core topic and use of these sources seems like WP:SYNTH to me. Neutrality^talk 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody has spoken up here in defense of this content, I will remove these two sentences. Neutrality^talk 01:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to argue this is original synthesis since the point being made's literally in the title of the article. I think 1 sentence as a kind of backdrop to South Bend's political operations during Buttigieg's tenure should be added; it's probably more relevant background than a lot of other information. A play by play of each debate, for example, is a bit excessive. Kindof like a dead IDF closet as we say in IT.. More important than that though - crime stats are an important indicator as to a mayor's effectiveness and that definitely should be added. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three articles make no mention about Buttigieg. The third makes a passing mention. That's precisely what WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is designed to prevent - editors seeking themselves to identify what is "relevant background" and then inserting into articles, rather than allowing the sources to make those connections. Neutrality^talk 16:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The common council of South Bend's relevant background to the politics of the South Bend mayor. If the edit said something like "Pete Buttigieg caused infighting in the common council", THAT would be original research. Noting that there was infighting on the South Bend common council, however, is just a fact relevant to the mayor of South Bend. And it's only 1 sentence long. Certainly a lot more relevant than a May 2019 decision by Alabama legislature.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not respond to the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issue. I believe at least two editors have removed or objected to this content, so again, please leave it out. If you have a source that directly and substantively speaks to Buttigieg's relationship with the Common Council, and would like to propose a summary of that content here, then I would definitely be open to that. Neutrality^talk 01:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindof a dead IDF closet from my forward point. I talked to the editor who did the deletion and he's ok with re-add. Seems you're the last open opposition, so majority want content re-added. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is not responsive to the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. I realize you are a new editor, but please take the half-hour to read through the policy carefully. Your last statement is also incorrect, as SunCrow, has just reverted your latest attempt to re-insert this content. Again, you lack consensus on this one, so please don't attempt to strong-arm it into the article. Thanks, Neutrality^talk 04:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new editor - I just started a new account because I couldn't remember my old account info. Based on this thread -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SunCrow#Pete_Buttigieg_Page -- it seemed SunCrow was cool with this re-add as it's just 1 sentence that adds good background to South Bend politics under Buttigieg as mayor. However, apparently he doesn't feel it's worth adding. I'm willing to compromise here and not re-add this content as it's not essential. But we still need the article to be as neutral as possible. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While not fluent, isn't Buttigieg proficient in ASL (American Sign Language)? RickKirkland (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article mentions several times that Buttigieg supports marijuana legalization, but his record says otherwise -- https://theintercept.com/2019/11/26/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-marijuana-arrests/ . Anyone wanna help with a NPOV explanation for the disparity? A person's record's more important than their rhetoric.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Intercept" is not a high-quality source, and material along the lines of what is included in that piece is undue weight for this article. Mayors don't create state drug laws in Indiana. Details about marijuana arrest rates and racial disparities are far better suited to the article South Bend, Indiana (which currently makes no mention of crime at all) or Cannabis in Indiana. Neutrality^talk 04:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be real. The intercept's a very high quality source. You've disparaged the hill and the Washington Free Beacon - are you accusing the authors of the 2 sources, the intercept and the crime report of lying? Wouldn't then Buttigieg have sued them for slander? For reference, here's the bit I think's needed to remove the new NPOV tags on that section -->

Though acknowledging the problematic nature of the disparity in black and white marijuana arrests, South Bend's black residents are 4.3 times likelier under Buttiieg to be arrested for Cannabis possession than white residents. This represents a rate higher than Indiana (3.5 times likelier) and the US (3 times likelier).^[1][2]

Our actions matter more than our words. You're editing the article in such a way to hide Buttigieg's record, which, as with all humans, is far from perfect. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks here. No, "The Intercept" and "TheCrimeReport.com" is not a high-quality source along the lines of the Washington Post, New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, etc. The Washington Free Beacon is a right-wing outlet and is similarly not good to use. And the link to The Hill that you tried to add was actually an op-ed blog post. Again, please actually read and understand the principle of undue weight. Neutrality^talk 15:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not nor will I make personal attacks on this site. According to this -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources -- the intercept's considered generally reliable. WFB, TCR don't appear on that list one way or another. And upon re-reading the undue weight article, I am only reassured that not reporting Buttigieg's record prosecuting Marijuana puts undue weight on his rhetoric.. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Accusing others of trying to "hide Buttigieg's record" is a personal attack. So are comments like "Be real." [2] WP:RS/P explicitly says that "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." [3] You still have no consensus for including this content, and as the proponent of new material the onus for establishing that belongs to you. If you want to go to an formal RfC, we could do that. It stays out in the meantime. Neutrality^talk 14:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are hiding Buttigieg's record User:Neutrality. He has a record of prosecuting marijuana users at a higher rate than others in his state. You deleted that record from this article. That's not a personal attack, that's just a fact. Furthermore, comments like "please actually read and understand the principle of undue weight" IS a personal attack. Ironically, considering you are the admin, User:Fifth Harmony Fanboy has a better understanding of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT than you. If anything, Buttigieg's rhetoric should be deleted and only his record should remain with regards to discussions about Marijuana. If I talked about how I was better than Michael Jordan at basketball, that would be less important than my history as a basketball player. Beyond that, you deleted a New York Times source which explicitly stated aggravated assaults had increased 130% because it was "misleading/deceptive". However, you ignore the fact that WP:RS/P has a giant green check mark next to The Intercept as well as the quote "There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news." And the potential bias in The Intercept generally slants in favor of and not against Democrats, so that's all there too folks 116.84.110.175 (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source is literally headlined "South Bend and St. Louis, Where Crime Statistics Can Mislead": "But a deeper dig into South Bend’s crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime. ... In other words, the evidence is telling us that South Bend didn’t become more violent; it simply changed how it counted assaults." So yes, citing this source for an "130% increase is aggravated assaults" is obviously misleading and deceptive. Neutrality^talk 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you didn't apologize to FHF for falsely claiming he personally attacked you, since you factually deleted Buttigieg's record on Marijuana arrests. You didn't acknowledge your fight against The Intercept took the idea of a potential bias (against Republicans) out of context. You instead talked about an article no one's trying to re-add, largely because it was written in Dec 2019 and acknowledges it has no 2018 crime stats available. Meanwhile, whereas Buttigieg has not sued The Washington Free Beacon for printing lies, its article, which does mention crime in 2018, was just deleted by another editor on purported grounds of it being libel. Odd. Please actually read and understand the principle of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A section discussing the Douglass Plan must include the public reaction to it. And discussions about Buttigieg in Marijuana must mention how it was processed under Buttigieg's mayoral term. Claiming these are not significant viewpoints is a violation of undue weight. 116.84.110.175 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: This is in reference to this edit, specifically the removal of the information that I added about the Douglass Plan rollout. I was wondering if you could explain why you think that the material is undue. You said in your edit summary that it had been challenged as undue, but I couldn't find anything about that on the talk page (sorry if I missed it), and it's frequently mentioned in mainstream sources: [1][2][3][4]. If material about the presidential campaign all belongs on the campaign page, that makes sense, but in that case, shouldn't the other minutiae about what exactly the Douglass Plan would do, how much money it would disburse, where it was announced, etc., be moved there as well? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can elaborate. The whole paragraph is undue because it is day-to-day campaign coverage inserted in a biography. The whole paragraph is about the clumsy "rollout" of the plan (campaign errors such as the "stock photo" and the wrong names on the press release), not critiques about the plan itself. Because there's little evidence of enduring noteworthiness to Buttigieg's biography, my view is that these things belong, if anywhere, at Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign.

I distinguish these from the substance of the plan (its cost, provisions, etc.), which seem to me to be at least somewhat more relevant. I would be OK with dropping procedural details like the specific location where plan was announced. If desired, I would also be OK with adding a sentence under "2020 presidential election" that says essentially that Buttigieg has struggled to gain support from black and Hispanic voters (with appropriate cites, of course). Neutrality^talk 18:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense to me. I went ahead and took out the overly specific location information. I think your other proposal about Buttigieg struggling to gain support from black/Hispanic voters is a good idea as well, it's received a lot of media coverage. I can add that in in the next couple days unless someone beats me to it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The public reaction to the Douglass plan's as important as the plan itself, since that's who it will affect. Packaging the plan with endorsements that don't exist, especially given the large number of sources that acknowledge this happened, is really noteworthy. 116.84.110.175 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both this edit and this edit present really serious problems in terms of a neutral portrayal of this article's content. The Douglass plan rollout was very controversial yet the article pretends it wasn't. And it's literally a mayor's responsibility to tell his police chief which types of crimes to primarily prosecute, which means Buttigieg's record as Mayor's far more important than flowery rhetoric. I see 2 NPOV tags are now appropriately displayed, and though I'm willing to make those edits myself so that those tags may be removed, I am unable to for reasons not clearly explained here (topic: Pete Buttigieg Page Requires Autoconfirmed Users Only). Q death hoax?? 2 month "protection"? How about the rationale for the previous 2 protections? 116.84.110.175 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you disagree with an edit does not mean that anyone should "retire". This page is for discussing disagreements, which you are free to do. I don't see how the article is nonneutral and it should not be rewritten to embarrass the Mayor, which would be nonneutral. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current article has the appropriate tags. Pretending the Douglass plan wasn't criticized by a large number of sources and that Buttigieg's record with regard to Marijuana arrests is less important than his record as mayor are both nonneutral. Both deletions are inappropriate edits User:Neutrality did 116.84.110.175 (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edits in question. This is not a WP:COATRACK.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You consider a person's actions to be less important than their words? Please actually read and understand the principle of WP:COATRACK 116.84.110.175 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC) @MrX:[reply]

Just thought that editors would be interested in an article that was just published about this page in particular.<ref>https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/pete-buttigieg-wikipedia-page-editor.html<ref> Catiline52 (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]