Talk:Neera Tanden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Voice

I heard her on NPR today (http://www.npr.org/2015/06/12/413849106/hillary-clinton-to-address-economic-issues-in-campaign-speech) and was astonished to learn that she is 35 years old. Her voice is that of a 6 year old. ---Dagme (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Viewpoints

The most interesting thing about Tanden, I think, is that she shows the debate within the Democratic Party, on appointing minorities vs. white guys, or not attacking Bernie Sanders,l for example. Much of this came out in Wikileaks in more detail than you usually get in politics. I think we should have more of it in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks "revelations"?

The section presents three different attempts to use Neera Tanden's stolen private emails to attack her. None of these attempts was particularly astute or on target, but Wikipedia is currently promoting them just as the Clinton-attacking team wanted to see them used, but omits context in which her emails were sent.

• Mentions the classy response from Lessig but not the date (August 11, 2015) of Tanden's email or the context, that Lessig just launched his own exploratory campaign for president at that time.[1] Let me also mention part of Lessig's classy response our article doesn't include: "Neera has only ever served in the public (and public interest) sector. Her work has always and only been devoted to advancing her vision of the public good. It is not right that she should bear the burden of this sort of breach."
• Pushes the "Israel is depressing" quote without informing our readers it was a response to email from Podesta about recent election victory of right-wing Israeli leader Netanyahu.
• Saying (again, in a private and stolen email) that HRC's instincts were "suboptimal"--how did this frank comment have any impact on HRC's campaign, on the career of Neera Tanden, or on anything else?

I am going to shorten this section drastically (WP:UNDUE) and change the POV title "Wikileaks revelations" to something more neutral. The point of this biography is to provide encyclopedic information to people who want to learn more about Neera Tanden, not to provide a COATRACK for people who hope to use it to embarrass her. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

CAP sexual harassment news

This April 27, 2018 BuzzFeed article provides context and NPOV account of a recent story that Aheezau wants to see added: [2] Here is a quote from that story: "In an all-staff meeting on Wednesday, Tanden named one of the women who reported Strong "unintentionally," according to a CAP spokesperson. But the name disclosure left some staffers questioning Tanden's ability to handle issues of sexual harassment at the organization."

This story belongs in the Center for American Progress article, but I am not sure Tanden's blunder in a staff meeting is going to be important enough to her career to be added to this article. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over "associated with the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party."

There's a revert war going on the heading of the page over this phrase. I find the characterization to be non-controversial and sourced, but perhaps it would be worded in a more neutral manner? I think it's an important detail because it gives context to her activities post-Obama. @User:Farlandia, what's your concern? Jonathan Williams (talk)

Tanden explicitly contradicts, in the article cited, the claim that CAP is "Clinton wing":

In a 30-minute phone interview with The New Republic, Tanden stood by the quality of CAP’s work and the organization’s ability to push a diverse set of progressive ideas, pointing to CAP proposals like paid family leave, which were adopted by Sanders and not Clinton. She noted CAP’s work on issues like income inequality, foreign policy, and education, some of which have not been picked up by Clinton...

If you want to "give context to her activities post-Obama" it makes sense to mention her support for Hillary Clinton, even in the lead. I have changed the lead so that it now says this. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Incoming flak

This article is seeing a surge of vandalism, probably as a result of a letter written by Bernie Sanders that called out CAP and Tanden saying she "repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas." It would be good if the article could be semi-protected for a week or so, so we don't have to clean up after edits such as "her masterful ability to troll earned her the epithet “Scumbag Neera”" snd "She is best known for her attacks against healthcare and working mothers on welfare." 02:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hawkish

"She was described as a "hawkish". In September 2013"

Reference? ---Dagme (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Just took a look at this. The word 'hawkish' is used by both references in the previous sentence, to articles in Salon and The Intercept. Mind you, neither is exactly a politically neutral source themselves. Robofish (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

CAP is widely characterized as "liberal" and/or "progressive"

Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. The article about Center for American Progress does plenty of deep diving into its politics and what critics say about it. But there is no excuse for censoring from the lead of the article that it is widely regarded as "liberal" and/or "progressive." For example: NYT "the Center for American Progress, the progressive think tank", Detroit News "Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank.", The Hill: "liberal think tank Center for American Progress". HouseOfChange (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, there is no question that CAP is widely seen as liberal/progressive User1956a (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Political Views

The recent additions made concerning foreign policy have been tendentious and hostile rather than neutral. If the leaked email - which did not lead to her or CAP endorsing the position she inquired about - is deemed by the majority to be crucial to describing Tanden’s views (I don’t thing it is a good representation of her views at all, especially because she has repeatedly clarified that she does not hold this position), it needs to be kept in a more neutral and less openly biased tone. Repeated edits to reverse it to a more leading description of her position do not seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia’s mission User1956a (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I restored the wholesale deletion of the paragraph so that people can make an effort at presenting the material from an NPOV. Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather than leaving two heavily POV paragraphs in the article, we should reach consensus here on the talk page before installing a version people agree on. The first paragraph, cited to InfluenceWatch, which is a wiki not RS, implies guilt by association for CAP. This is the article for Neera Tanden, not for CAP. The paragraph is not only POV but offtopic. It contains zero information about Neera Tanden. The second paragraph re-visits a controversy pushed back in 2015 by Intercept (hardly RS regarding Tanden), ascribing to Tanden opinions that she has disclaimed. There is zero evidence presented that she ever acted on or promoted these particular ideas she discussed in private emails. There is therefore zero evidence that these represent Neera Tanden's "Political Views." HouseOfChange (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, you reverted both of my edits in a single revert. One of the edits was to restore the original opening paragraph wording. I will be reverting that as I don't see having the description of CAP match the CAP article itself as being controversial. Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the list of CAP donors doesn't make sense on a page about a person. The intercept article, while certainly not from a NPOV, provides commentary on emails from Tanden. Many other publications have cited Tanden's comments on Libya's oil: Jezebel, Salon. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Propose rewording the introductory statement containing "hawkish" to be more neutral. We should unclude the Libya comments as their significance has been noted in a variety of publications. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Including that kind of libelous crap material cited entirely to partisan, fringe sources on an article like this (that has higher standards per WP:BLP) would be undue. There's also problems with the writing style of the content and the sources themselves (Jezebel for example is a problem source per WP:RSP). If you have to include this stuff into the article, then there at the very least has to be a qualifier for it. Flaughtin (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue if we include a reference to her Libya email, we should make it clear that this was a question she asked one single time, that she has made no similar foreign policy statements, and that she has expressed regret about asking this question. We should take care not to present it as “her foreign policy views“, as the original addition did, because there is no evidence this is an accurate reflection of her overall views.

I also agree that removing the paragraph about CAP’s donors is the right move as it is not relevant to Tanden’s political views. User1956a (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not think a question from a single email that had literally no impact on her or CAP’s argued position needs to be mentioned in her Wikipedia article at all, but once again if the majority thinks it is relevant enough to be included, we need to take great care to accurately convey the context and her statements expressing regret for even asking about this User1956a (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flaughtin: I agree 100%. I personally think, given Tanden’s own explanation and the hostile (to her) lean of the sources we should not include this at all, especially because it does not reflect her views on foreign policy. If we choose to include it at all, we have to take great care how to present it accurately and in a non-biased non-tendentious fashion. User1956a (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this topic is coming up again with recent edits: in my opinion it is not appropriate to include the leaked Libya email issue in the Political Views section, since those are demonstrably not Tanden’s political views, as she has repeatedly clarified.

I have also not yet seen evidence why this should be included at all, since it does not in my opinion rise to the level of relevance for her career to be part of her Wikipedia entry User1956a (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to repeat my suggestion that because of the repeated vandalism and hostile/misleading/tendentious edits to this page, all major changes or additions to the page should be drafted and discussed here before being published. This will ensure that the tone of the article remains neutral/objective and the content appropriate User1956a (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here except for @Jonathan Williams: argued against including the reference to the Libya email, I do not see how that justifies his repeated attempts to singlehandedly include them anyway. @HouseOfChange: suggested reaching a consensus here first, which we have not done. User1956a (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose we address the Libya comments separately – the above discussion also related to CAP donors and other parts things that have been mangled by your continued one-sided policing of discussion. No one else has specifically addressed the Libya comments other than us. Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well @HouseOfChange: has stated views on re the Libya email and so has @Flaughtin:, both in my opinion clearly against including it User1956a (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There has to be some standard as to what can be called a person's political views, and I don't see how a single question could meet any standard. Especially since she's flat out said that's not her position! Bewildered Oregonian (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Aren't political views sections only for articles of actual politicians? She is a strategist, is she not? ⌚️ (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Sections or major changes

Given the level of vandalism this page receives, I suggest we don’t allow new sections or major changes without first going through the talk page process User1956a (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

why wont user1956a allow a single piece of negative information? Jomalleyp (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be sections on the controversies involving her?

I can think of at least three off the top of my head:

1. Calling for Libya to repay the US for the invasion

2. Getting Matt Bruenig fired for calling her a "scumbag"

3. This latest sexual harassment stuff.

I came here to refresh myself on these and could not find anything on them. (Comment above by IP [3]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article is a place to find reliably-sourced information relevant to Neera Tanden's career, which is what most people want when they come to Wikipedia. If your goal is to review attacks on Neera Tanden, Google can help you. When/if some controversy becomes significant enough to win a place in our short narrative of Tanden's career, that controversy will show up in Wikipedia, with citations from reliable sources that think it is significant. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So HouseOfChange has a history of consistently removing all controversies related to all political figures they have personal admiration for. This is not how Wikipedia works. I added information about the sexual harassment stuff, and they deleted it instantly, and called for me to be banned from editing altogether, this despite the fact that I used multiple credible sources, including reporting from the Center For American Progress (where the controversy happened) journalistic arm, "ThinkProgress".

You should be banned from editing if your only goal here is to shove things down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezau (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Strongly agree! Seriously, the absence of controversies renders this article useless for anyone who actually wants to know what a person or an organization is all about. I thought "Controversies" was pretty standard as a section in biographies of living persons. When someone is professionally involved in political faction-fights, their omission is ridiculous. I've encountered dozens of criticisms and controversies concerning Ms Tanden while trying to follow American politics from abroad by means of skimming internet news and half-listening to panels and commentaries. I was never able to get a clear understanding of what it was about, other than its having something to do with her upholding Hillary Clinton's brand of corporate centrism—so I came here to review the basics, and found no clues, just the usual claim made by such people to being "progressive" and so forth. Surely someone knowledgable is capable of explaining Tanden's positions and the argumentation around them? Also, there seems to be a pattern in both this and the related article about her CAP PAC, of referring to any kind of criticism as an "attack" without any suggestion of substantive issues involved — as if it's all gratuitous and without merit, perhaps from hate groups. I'm not suggesting the article should be hostile or dismissive; it would be great to see some substantive and reasonably respectful summaries of both sides of various controversies so readers can make up their own minds. That would certainly show more respect for Ms Tanden than the current puff-piece. Do you believe she really wants to be written up as if she were a professional hostess for debutante parties, or a spokeswoman for a harmless ineffectual charity? If she does, she surely should have chosen some such line of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.74.218 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Neera Tanden is a controversial figure and her reputation as a "progressive" is highly debated. For example, she is famous for criticizing the progressive platform of Bernie Sanders (the most progressive platform in mainstream American politics). She has also assaulted a journalist for asking questions about the Iraq War. It's a serious offense, relevant to her career in politics, and should not be omitted. Yet it has been deleted from her Wikipedia page. That's not right. --Ummyaaaa (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there is an entire cottage industry out there manufacturing attacks on Tanden, misrepresenting her, or blowing her comments or actions out of prop, I am firmly siding with HouseOfChange. It’s a Wikipedia article. Unless you all plan to email Tanden and get her to tell her side of the story so it can be included, we shouldn’t include attacks either. Let me put it this way: the Wikipedia entries of a lot of more prominent and more "controversial" individuals do not have sections devoted to "controversies", this shouldn't be any different here just because the people with a grudge against Tanden happen to be Very Online. User1956a (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Not liking Bernie Sanders" does not mean her Wikipedia page has to include smears of her. This is personality cult level stuff. User1956a (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the above unsigned user was unable to find any details on controversies surrounding her, and in fact found a description of them incomprehensible, tells you how valid they are. Disagreeing with Bernie Sanders is not a controversy. Bewildered Oregonian (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

user1956a: why are you defending neera tanden so hard? its pretty clear that you have lost your objectivity. Almost Every single person involved in politics has controversy surrounding them. Almost every single one of those people have sections on wikipedia regarding controversies. why are you advocating so strongly to not include controversies for neera when they are included for everybody else? citing factual evidence of wrongdoing is not negative Jomalleyp (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References to relevant controversies are already addressed and included in the Tanden article, this is about a separate section titled "controversies", which is not relevant or appropriate in my opinion. User1956a (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

there are no controversies addressed in the article because you removed all of them. if there was actually a proper attention to her controversies there would be a whole dedicated section to them. from the 2016 aftermath, the 2008 reporter incident, sexual assault allegation leak, etc. It is pretty clear you have lost your objectivity when you say that a controversy section is not relevant or appropriate when i can list 4 significant controversies relevant to her political view and career. Jomalleyp (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed article about sexual harassment allegations at CAP is elaborated in the CAP article, as appropriate, and the fact that Tanden unintentionally used the victim's first name at a staff meeting is included in the Tanden article, as are references to Wikileaks. User1956a (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

you didnt address my valid point that there are enough controversies to validate a controversy section. especially since similar sections are so prominent amongst political figures and commentators. But why would you address that since you lost you objectivity and are incapable of acknowledging negative information about neera? your 24/7 support of neera by removing any negative information proves that. Jomalleyp (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing feud between Tanden and supporters of Bernie Sanders

Tanden supported Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for the presidency and remained her close ally in 2016. Many supporters of Bernie Sanders strongly criticize Tanden and CAP; the NYT goes so far as to call it "enmity." Tanden online is in frequent disputes with what her mom refers to as "Bernie brothers". Dislike of Tanden and CAP runs so deep among Sanders supporters that he uses attacks on them in fund-raising emails.

This article is repeatedly the target of editors who want to see Sanders' team criticisms expressed in Wikipedia's voice. It would be good if instead the article could describe the controversy itself in an NPOV way. (HouseOfChange said this but forgot to sign it.)

it is impossible to address the controversy without appearing to be negatively inclined towards tanden. it is also impossible to properly discuss neera tanden without addressing the controversy. Jomalleyp (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not impossible to do that at all. I support drafting a section here that outlines the controversy, as long as it is written in an NPOV way.User1956a (talk) 21:28 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The elephant in the room here is the ongoing bitterness from 2016. It is possible to address that without reflecting negatively on Tanden or on Sanders, by using neutral reports from reliable sources of the ongoing feud, for example the two NYT pieces cited above. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed again. In my opinion, this should be a new section titled something along the lines of "Aftermath of 2016", and not be included in existing sections, since it is not relevant to Tanden's career or political views, but is its own thing. User1956a (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

user1956a neera tandens clear and obvious work to criticize and attack bernie sanders and his supporters is absolutely relevant to both 2016 and 2020 elections, and the 2016 aftermath. saying otherwise is delusional. Jomalleyp (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This page is to discuss improvements to the article. I propose we try to collaborate on some text that describes the feud with Sanderss in an NPOV way, citing RS that describe this in a neutral way rather than a partisan way. I cited two sources above. Do have other relevant sources you think are non-partisan, User1956a, Jomalleyp--or other editors interested in this project?HouseOfChange (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

website: politico article title: Sanders’ clash with liberal think tank highlights divides in Democratic Party author: Katie Galioto Jomalleyp (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

user1956a defense of neera tanden is clearly partisan. i strongly suggest you carefully review any suggestions from someone with a clear loss of objectivity Jomalleyp (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I would consider this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/941634069 way less objective than any edit I have ever made or proposed User1956a (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

clearly i made a joke as my first edit on my first day, but what about the subsequent edits with clearly valid and relevant npov factual information? like these: New changes since new information wont be allowed to be posted no matter how relevant, factual, or how many cited sources: Despite labeling herself as a progressive liberal, she is a controversial figure among other progressive liberals. Source: current affairs

Despite supporting universal healthcare, many progressives have criticized Tanden for not supporting single payer universal healthcare. source: free beacon

In 2008, Neera Tanden encountered criticism when she pushed Faiz Shakir, a reporter who asked Neera Tanden a question about Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War. source:observer

Jomalleyp (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Current Affairs is run by a Bernie supporter who vehemently hates Tanden, Free Beacon and Observer are conservative publications with a clear bias against her as well. Calling her a “alt-right-wing war hawk” is not a joke but rather an attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for personal animosity and exactly the kind of thing I have tried to guard this article against. User1956a (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This piece provides some background on 2016 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/neera-tanden-2016-election-227494 User1956a (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That Politico story is useful background, dating from the time in 2016 between the Democratic Convention and the November election. This Vox article also covers the split in neutral terms. (Moving the reflist down to the bottom of this talk section.) HouseOfChange (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Hitting or shoving Faiz Shakir in 2008

This was not a controversy in 2008. We know about this utterly trivial event only from a NYT article published in 2019.[4]

This event is being discussed in 2019 only as part of the ongoing bad feeling between Neera Tanden and Bernie Sanders supporters including Faiz Shakir. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The conflict between Tanden & Sharkir is symbolic of the notable schism between two factions of the party, the Clinton & Sanders camps. Tanden has a long history working with the Clintons across campaigns & governance, and Shakir is now highly-immersed in the Sanders movement. Understating the backdrop behind this conflict is key to understanding what happened leading into 2016, what's happened since, where the organizing energy is in the party now, and where the party is headed in the near future. This schism is a real thing, is newsworthy, has been reported upon by mainstream, fact-checked, well-edited newspapers journals of record, such the NYT that conform to WP:RS. It was so notable, that the NYT article had a multiplier effect, and was covered by other outlets. This topic should be covered in some responsible way that adheres to WP:BLP & WP:DUE Critical Chris (talk)

I agree with Critical Chris and proposed this at Talk:Neera_Tanden#Ongoing_feud_between_Tanden_and_supporters_of_Bernie_Sanders, where I also listed several sources that seem to give a neutral presentation of the backstory. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this event, which as HouseOfChange mentioned was first discussed as a second hand report in the NYT in 2019, is not relevant to understanding Tanden’s career or political views and does not warrant being mentioned in the article User1956a (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think so far nobody has disagreed that the conflict should be addressed in some way, without demonizing either side. The problem so far has been Sanders supporters trying to edit their POV into the narrative. I agree with HouseOfChange that we should draft a section that describes the conflict in a neutral, NPOV way. I do not think this incident specifically belongs in the article, specifically not in the career section User1956a (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Association with the Clintons

Tanden has 24 years of notable, and well-sourced professional ties to the Clintons, from a 22 year old working on BC's 1992 run, to, as a 46 year-old advising HRC during her 2016 POTUS run, with various work in between in the BC WH, HRC's senate office, and her 2008 nomination bid. Would any editors dispute this, or believe its in any way controversial, or that it hasn't been responsibly covered here as per WP:BLP? Please discuss here if you believe the current prose is problematic. Critical Chris (talk)

I personally don’t think her close association is disputed or controversial in the least and as far as I have seen Tanden has never denied or disputed it herself.

My only remaining comment concerns the word “largely”, as in “her career has largely been defined“ by work for the Clintons. She worked for the Obama administration and campaign and has worked for CAP almost since its beginning, which are important career elements independent of the Clintons. I would argue “her career has in part been defined” is more accurate, given the totality of her career trajectory. User1956a (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest we endeavor to adhere to WP:NOR in our work here; "largely been defined" is the work and writing of Alex Shepard over at the New Republic. I would be open to the inclusion of a contrast of sources that provide relief to this characterization. Critical Chris (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house/think-tank-post-puts-spotlight-on-veteran-democratic-operative-neera-tanden/2011/11/01/gIQAn6fpjM_story.html emphasizes the prestige of the role as CAP president within the Democratic Party as a whole as well as her close association with Obama, who introduces her as a “friend”, which I think shows that she has had important career milestones independent of the Clintons. But I don’t actually have very strong feelings about this, I personally think “largely” is an exaggeration but this is not the hill I would die on, as her close ties to the Clintons are undisputed. User1956a (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Should lede say "lawyer"?

The first sentence of the lede says Tanden is an American political consultant and lawyer. But there is no reference to her work as a lawyer in the body. Has she worked as a lawyer, and if so is that work sufficiently defining to be in the article's first sentence? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Cuts

@HouseOfChange: reverted the fragment, claiming WP:UNDUE:

In 2012, during a C-SPAN she suggested to address long-term deficit reduction by possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare for the Affordable Care Act. ("Neera Tanden on the Progressive Movement". C-Span. 19 February 2012.) She also talked how her think-tank was thinking about reforming the beneficiary structure of Social Security, adding that "some of our progressive allies aren’t as excited about that as we are".

Not sure how is this undue if she is clearly expressing her views on the subject. Let's not do things that might look like whitewashing. BeŻet (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources reporting on this C-SPAN interview? That would help to show whether it is DUE or not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There is for example one Jacobin article. Surely if this is not due, I am free to remove sentences that are supported by just Tanden's tweet or primary sources like CAP itself? BeŻet (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@BeŻet: The question is if this was a genuine policy position it wasn't) or even a statement that was taken seriously by the mainstream press, as opposed to one random comment molded into attack fodder. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not "attack fodder" but rather an attemptt to accurately describe her positions that aren't obfuscated by mainstream media. But like I said, if this is just a random comment that is undue, surely we can remove the fragment that relies on a tweet of hers? BeŻet (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet, Jacobin helps, although I'm not sure how much an openly partisan source like that helps to show whether weight is due. And yes, I had my eye on a fair amount of the primary-sourced material as well—I would support getting rid of those bits, unless there is third-party reporting about them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair, in that case I'll go ahead and do that. BeŻet (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: her publicly stated position on potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Political consultant"

… is she a political consultant? I don't know of any clearly WP:RS that refer to her as such, and I don't really know what to call a non-academic think tank person. Following Susan Rice, I recently changed the lede of Michèle Flournoy—also a think-tanker who's been in and out of government—to advisor, which I thought was slightly better. Anyone have any ideas here? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of her role in the closing of ThinkProgress

Could someone add the detail of her role in the closing of ThinkProgress and her views on a living wage. There is a connection and this has been some of the criticism of her should she take a position in Biden's White House. It relates to the unwillingness to pay the employees at ThinkProgress fair wages. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

She shut down ThinkProgress, because it unionized. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

According to RS reported in article ThinkProgress, staff there unionized in 2015. In 2019, CAP put it up for sale because readership and donations were sinking. Nobody else wanted it and ThinkProgress was closed. I am not aware of RS saying that Tanden opposed the unionization in 2015, but if you are please give the URLs. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Update, Politico has a recent article that covers this and some other antique anti-Tanden claims being revived, e.g. "The Center for American Progress remained neutral during ThinkProgress' unionization drive, the person said, and the site shut down because of declining ad revenue and social media algorithm changes, not due to the union."

References

HouseOfChange (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"She has also been the target of criticism by Sanders's supporters"

The statement "She has also been the target of criticism by Sanders's supporters" is not supported by sources, which seems to be WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.

When looking at the three sources:

• In the first one Tanden's mother says that "Bernie brothers are attacking her all the time". Not a credible source, and would require attribution, but then it would be WP:UNDUE.
• In the second source we learn about a progressive blogger being fired. Nothing about Sander's supporters. Even if that person was a Bernie supporter, that's one person.
• In the third source doesn't really talk about anything related to this at all, apart from saying that Tanded attacked Clinton critics.

Therefore, I would like to suggest we remove this statement, unless better sources are found. BeŻet (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The only thing these sources clearly support is Tanden being a "target of criticism" by Matt Bruenig in a single tweet. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it now. More sources are needed to establish prominence. Other sources suggest that she was defending Clinton from critics online, therefore it is difficult to establish whether he has been a target of attacks, or simply a vocal person involved in confrontations online. Regardless, more sources should be added. The latest source, an interview with her, contains her opinion and not a third party statement about the matter. BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection

FYI: I have tried twice recently to get this article semi-ed at WP:RFPP with no success. I don't know why; a quick look at the history reveals BLP violations and vandalism galore. I find this both concerning and exhausting. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Without looking at RFPP (been too busy to patrol there this week), I don't know why. I looked and saw sufficient BLP violations to protect the page for one week. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Libya comments

Attempt to reach consensus on the inclusion of content related to leaked emails about Libya? - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Neera_Tanden&type=revision&diff=940512694&oldid=940500705

• For: I think the material is notable. Including or summarizing CAP's response to the Intercept article seems like decent way to avoid POV? “We’re a think tank, and we have internal discussions and dialogues all the time on a variety of issues. We encourage throwing out ideas to spur conversation and spark debate. We did not take a position on this, but ThinkProgress covered it. The posts certainly did not endorse the idea.” --Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Against Tanden has repeatedly said she does not hold these views; the sources about it are written with a negative tone and the intention to ascribe views to her that she does not hold; have I mentioned she repeatedly stated she does not hold these views? How does something she asked about in an internal email one single time almost nine years ago and has repeatedly refuted since then rise to the relevance of being included in her Wikipedia page, especially under "Political Views", since those are not her political views.

Neither Tanden nor CAP have ever adopted those views; not even the leaked email shows her defending this stance after her initial question. Including it at all represents a POV because it elevates this as representative of her views when she has consistently and repeatedly made it clear that she does not support this position. User1956a (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content - while the tone of the source cited may be biased, it remains factual. Are we supposed to evaluate, based on Tanden's statements if she holds such views –– or should we simply report that she stated that she does not hold those views? To take her at word rather than merely report on her statements is an NPOV violation. Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We would be ascribing views to someone based on one single statement (in form of a question!) from a decade ago, something that is not backed up by her work or her other expressed views. User1956a (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence she's ever advocated for this? Because a question isn't advocating for it. If we declare something to be a person's political views, we should have at least two incidents of it being mentioned at all, especially for a political figure who presumably talks about their views all the time. Bewildered Oregonian (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Against The Libya kerfluffle has been discussed only in articles (like that in the Intercept) that attack Tanden by exaggerating comments made in one private email in 2011. Tanden, responding to an email titled "Re: Should Libya pay us back?", cited the US deficit, said "having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me." Compare and contrast what Tanden said to what the Intercept claimed:[5] "Other emails [sic.] show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S." This never rose to the level of public interest, despite the best efforts of Tanden foe Glenn Greenwald, and there is no reason Wikipedia should be lending him a hand. No public policy or statements ever reflected this long-ago random email. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly agreeing with HouseOfChange; only sources discussing this are fringe and have an agenda User1956a (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• For - the authenticity of the email is not disputed, the issue has been covered in reliable sources, and the statements certainly brought her into the spotlight. It is disingenuous to pretend such comments did not exist and not put them in the article when there is a specific section for her political opinions. As far as I am aware, she hasn't exactly done a 180 and joined the anti-war movement or repented for supporting such wars. Fighting a well-sourced mention of those comments is pure censorship to polish a politician's image, and nothing less.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. The only two sources I could find were the Intercept and [Salon https://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/trump_proposed_taking_libyas_oil_in_return_for_bombing_it_just_like_clinton_ally_neera_tanden/], both of which I would consider partisan outlets. If there is nothing in the mainstream press, I would oppose inclusion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither of those sources are officially blacklisted. While those two sources may be considered partisan, the lack of coverage of her controversial statements in some of the more "mainstream" outlets that have clear pro-Clinton-wing bias like WaPo and CNN is hardly unexpected nor is is grounds for censorship of undisputable information. Just because outlets politically aligned with Tanden are engaging in self-censorship isn't a good reason to do the same - after all, the issue is quite viral and a hot topic in the mediums that are less controlled by political elites (like in social media).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    Do you have evidence that CNN and the Washington Post are biased towards Clinton, are "politically aligned with Tanden", or "are engaging in self-censorship"? I read their lack of coverage as, instead, indicating that a single email in 2011 is not worth reporting about. And I think the community agrees with me: Wikipedia:Perennial sources says, with regard to the Intercept, [a]lmost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. While Salon is not blacklisted, [e]ditors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Assessments of CNN and WaPo are far more sanguine. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• For All that really matters is that its been covered in reliable sources which ipso facto establish its noteworthiness. As far as I can see it has been.PailSimon (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• For per above, if they sourced it from wikileaks and it is there in the emails it should be attributed to her. --Cs california (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I am inviting PailSimon and User1956a to contribute to this discussion, given their recent edits. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I had not seen this, thank you for informing me.PailSimon (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve contributed here before; I maintain that a single email posing a question is not relevant if it does not lead to further statements and actions, which in her case I am not aware it did. If we are describing her political views, it should contain positions she actually holds User1956a (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What she stated in the email is a position she holds. Just because she refuses to respond directly (as expected for a politician) to the numerous questions about what she said in her emails doesn't render them irrelevant. She made the statement, it became public, and it ended up raising a lot of eyebrows. Ergo there is no good reason to not mention it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Neera Tanden vs. progressives

Here are some of the many stories on many WP:RSs about the conflict between Neera Tanden and people who identify and are described in the media as "progressives," and/or the "Bernie Sanders wing" of the Democratic party.

Matt Taibi and others argue that Tanden is not a progressive, because she raises money among corporate interests such as health insurance companies and defense contractors, that are opposed to progressive policies such as single payer health care, a military approach to foriegn policy, reducing the Pentagon budget, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzC5ow3ytqs
Matt Taibbi: Biden's Neera Tanden Appointment Is A SCREW YOU To Bernie Supporters Dec 6, 2020
The Hill

Author, Matt Taibbi, discusses how Joe Biden's nomination of Neera Tanden to lead the Office of Management and Budget is a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders supporters.

Here's another story that accuses her of proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/joe-biden-neera-tanden-social-security-omb
Joe Biden’s Neera Tanden Pick Is Even Worse Than You Thought
BY WALKER BRAGMAN
Jacobin
11.30.2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/29/us/politics/biden-cabinet-tanden-rouse-adeyemo.html
Biden Expected to Name Top Economic Officials This Week
President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is expected to nominate Neera Tanden, a divisive figure within the Democratic Party, to lead the budget office. He also named an all-female communications staff.
By Alan Rappeport and Jim Tankersley
The New York Times
Updated Dec. 3, 2020

But they could fall short of hopes within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which has been frustrated that their views are not being sufficiently represented in early personnel decisions. In particular, the decision to select Ms. Tanden, a divisive and partisan figure in the Democratic Party, could culminate in an intraparty fight, as well as a confirmation battle.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/30/bernie-supporters-seethes-neera-tanden-441603
Bernieworld seethes over Tanden as OMB nominee
To former Sanders staffers and allies, Tanden is one of the Democratic elites who helped sink his 2016 campaign behind the scenes.
By HOLLY OTTERBEIN
Politico
11/30/2020

Progressives have been able to live with most of Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks.

But to many of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ staunchest supporters, Biden’s decision to tap Hillary Clinton loyalist Neera Tanden to lead the Office of Management and Budget is just too much — the equivalent of rubbing salt in the wound.

--Nbauman (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about "multi-payer healthcare"

Someone wikilinked this phrase to Universal healthcare, but that article has nothing about it. In fact, Multi-payer healthcare is a re-direct to Single-payer healthcare, a page that in fact says nothing about multi-payer. Surely there should be some information somewhere about what Tanden prefers to single-payer. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, The evidence as to Tanden's own views is not super clear. I recently removed material ascribing the multi-payer view—which is apparently synonymous with "Medicare Extra for All" to Tanden. That edit was reverted on grounds that Tanden spoke in favour of the policy as head of Center for American Progress. I still don't think we should ascribe this view to Tanden herself without better sourcing. The best I could find about Tanden's own views was this op-ed which does not mention multipayer or Medicare Extra for all, this article in Jacobin which ascribes some views to Tanden by citing her tweets, and this NYT longread, which doesn't ascribe much to Tanden personally either. I would be inclined to remove the material about her health care views because the most definitive evidence we have is CAP's position (which need not be identical to Tanden's in her personal capacity). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Thanks for clarification, and for the good edits I can see you have been doing to this article. It is a tough job, because most of the news coverage of Tanden comes from those who dislike her opposition to Bernie Sanders. It is hard to know how to balance that with the fact that her tweets also criticize Republicans. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bruenig

I (and others) have tried a couple of times to include a section on her conflict with Matt Bruenig and it keeps getting reverted with the suggestion it is minor and unimportant. If I wasn't assuming good intentions I'd suspect someone of making a dedicated effort to prevent the subject from being mentioned. This conflict is central to understanding Progressives objection to Ms. Tanden, which is a source of a great deal of coverage about her. I would like to achieve consensus that this conflict IS significant enough to include here. Litch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Litch, Please provide some reliable sources to show that this conflict is appropriate for inclusion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few articles from major news sources discussing the issue at the time:

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/21/11724298/bruenighazi-matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-demos

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/breunig/

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-joan-walsh-hillary-clinton-223439

Here is a recent article from WaPotwo weeks ago discussing it again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/05/neera-tanden-biden-omb-cap/

Litch (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Litch, your edit on November 30 did include a reliable source, but was problematic. You imply that Tanden had something to do with Bruenig's firing, which is what Bruenig implied, but not at all what the Vox piece you cite says. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

In the vox piece Demos, his former employer, stated that the reason for him being fired was they "have agreed to disagree on the value of the attack mode on Twitter" immediately after his conflict with Ms. Tanden. And to quote from the last graph of the article "powerful members of the center-left political establishment colluding to get a vocal leftist fired" sounds very much like what I implied in my edit. Whether she actively attempted to have him fired or organized such an attempt or simply had powerful friends who organized such an attempt on her behalf it nonetheless illustrates the danger of publicly saying something about her she doesn't like. Litch (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider and centrism

Twenty-Sixty-two recently added text calling Tanden a "centrist" that is attributed to the following source:

Relman, Eliza (2020-11-30). "Biden's decision to pick Neera Tanden for a top economic role exposes an ongoing rift with Bernie Sanders-allied progressives". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-12-11.

I have two potential issues with this, one nitpicky and one not. The nitpicky issue is that the relevant portion of source says Sanders-aligned progressives have for years been critical of Tanden's centrist politics …, which could be taken as a characterization of Sanders supporters' views and not Business Insider's views. The second is that there is no consensus at WP:RSP about the reliability of Business Insider. Of course, an absence of consensus is just as much support for inclusion as non-inclusion, so I'm not sure what to do. I am personally wary about including this, but wanted to see what others think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally would not include for the reasons you noted. More reputable/trustworthy sources have generally tended to describe her as liberal or center-left, not centrist User1956a (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Label as an "American conspiracy theorist"

Numerous reliable sources exist to support Tanden being categorized as an American conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist label has been applied to various members of Congress and the threshold for the label is rather low. For example, John Barrasso is labeled an American conspiracy theorist based off a single Washington Post article describing his support for what is described as a conspiracy theory. Tanden has been cited by at least three reliable media sources for support of what is described as an "unverified conspiracy theory" as well as by Glenn Greenwald (who is reliably cited numerous times in this article).173.63.84.145 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The text that you added was quite slanted with a right-wing WP:POV. Labeling as an "American conspiracy theorist" would be a BLP violation. Sending out some tweets hardly makes one a "conspiracy theorist". If it makes you feel any better, I took the category off of Barrasso's page because that was inappropriate too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Especially since the tweets in question were phrased as questions User1956a (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Neera Tanden's corporate contributions

Here's a good summary of the progressive case against Tanden for serving corporate influences. The Hill, like Politico, is a WP:RS, and although this may be an editorial, it is heavily documented with other WP:RS. But even if it is an editorial, it represents a widespread-enough POV to give it WP:WEIGHT. This piece also goes into CAP's and Tanden's relations with Bernie Sanders, AIPAC, Michael Bloomberg, and foreign countries that were hoping to use CAP to influence the upcoming Hillary Clinton administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHoAItMg3IU&list=PLLri3HDD8DQu-P7ula7Wfo7SKzP7MQ8gE&index=2

Krystal Ball: NO ONE Should Vote For Neera Tanden, Hillary's Corrupt Hatchet Woman
The Hill
Feb 10, 2021
Krystal Ball reacts to the confirmation hearings for Neera Tanden.

"Nera's long record of selling out to corporate interests..."

New York Times' Ken Vogel documented some of that hypocrisy noting that while Nera claims to abhor the influence of corporate special interest in politics now, she was happy to take checks for her think tank the Center for American Progress or CAP from Amazon Facebook Google Bank of America Wells Fargo etc. etc. etc. To his credit Senator Josh Hawley actually bothered to raise these concerns:

Josh Hawley: $665,000 I think from the personal foundation of Mr Zuckerberg, uh millions of dollars from Wall Street financiers, big banks, foreign governments, Silicon Valley, a million dollars from the managing partner at Bain Capital, two and a half million dollars from the UAE, that was between 2016 and 2018. Given this record uh how can you ensure us that you'll work to see that the Silicon Valley and Wall Street firms don't exercise undue influence, frankly, influence that they've already got in the making of government policy and the control of our economy? I mean what, how can you assure us that you're going to be an independent actor when you've been so close to them to have raised so much money over all these years?

Krystal Ball: There is no good reason to confirm one of the worst actors in Washington and one of the most devoted enemies of the political left.

Here's the source from Kenneth Vogel, which includes a table of CAP's contributions:

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1359204114211692545
Kenneth P. Vogel
@kenvogel
NEERA TANDEN, today: “…corporate special interests have too much power in our discourse.”

In 2019, under @NeeraTanden,
@amprog accepted $100k-$500k each from:
@Amazon
@Facebook
@Google
JP Morgan foundation
@Microsoft

--Nbauman (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Find some RS discussing this, not editorials, YouTube videos, and tweets. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. If it's truly "a widespread-enough POV" as you claim, this should be no issue. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thirded. Find sources, not tweets and YouTube videos. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Editorials are a POV, which meets WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." especially when they are supported by fact.

WP:RS: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..."

If Tanden calls herself a progressive, but a significant minority disagrees, then WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should ... mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Therefore, you're violating WP:RS if you do not have sources saying that she is not a progressive.

Furthermore, WP:RS: "video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." The Hill is definitely a WP:RS, including editorials whose purpose is to represent a progressive viewpoint.

Can you cite a WP guideline or policy statement that specifically says Youtube videos are not WP:RS?

--Nbauman (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur – there are currently (better) sources in the page right now arguing that Tanden is not a progressive. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you agree that the Hill video is a WP:RS.

Can you please quote the text in the article that gives reasons why Tanden is not a progressive?

Right now, the text merely says that "Briahna Joy Gray, strongly dislike[s] Tanden," without explaining why. And that Bernie Sanders accused Tanden of "maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas." What are the issues? Why is she not a progressive? You're treating it as if it were simply a personal dispute.

Matt Taibi, in contrast, gives the reasons: she raises money among corporate interests such as health insurance companies and defense contractors, which are opposed to progressive policies such as single payer health care, a less military approach to foreign policy, and reducing the Pentagon budget.

Kenneth Vogel, the NYT journalist, also gives reasons: @amprog accepted $100k-$500k each from @Amazon, @Facebook, @Google, JP Morgan foundation, @Microsoft.

I think a better source would be one in which a progressive clearly states that Tanden is not a progressive, and gives the reasons why.

Do you agree that if we quote someone saying that Tanden is not a progressive, we should also give the reasons supporting their claim? --Nbauman (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how you got the idea that I agreed with you from my comment. But to answer your question: a random person's viewpoint on Tanden is not nearly as relevant to the article as how Tanden defines herself, or how reliable sources like non-editorial newspaper coverage mentions her. As the article states, she has variously been called a centrist, a liberal, and a progressive by reliable sources. She has, at points, accepted each of those terms, it seems, and at points, various people have denied the relevance of each of those terms to her. Their reasons for doing so are tangential and undue. This is not a page for people to air out all of their various grievances against Tanden, be it from left, right, or center – it is a place for people to better understand the political views of a complex and influential figure who could very soon be making important decisions in Biden's Cabinet. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You think it helps people to better understand the political views of Tanden if we say that people have called her a centrist, liberal, and progressive. But you don't think it helps if we give the reasons why people say she is or is not a progressive. Is that correct? --Nbauman (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Briahna Joy Gray on Democracy Now

For the record, here's another WP:RS which argues that Tanden is not a progressive.

I would summarize this with something like:

Briahna Joy Gray said that Tanden is not a progressive, because of her corporate funding, her aggressive foreign policy, and her undermining progressive democrats.

Note the word "because". Gray is giving the reasons why she believes that way.

I'm posting it on Talk to hear any objections first.

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/2/biden_cabinet_picks Where Are the Progressives? Briahna Joy Gray on Neera Tanden & Other Biden Picks for Economic Team Democracy Now DECEMBER 02, 2020

While Tanden would be the first woman of color and the first South Asian woman in the role, critics oppose her organization’s cozy relationship with corporate funders, her record of antagonizing and undermining progressive Democrats, and her aggressive foreign policy positions. Briahna Joy Gray, former national press secretary for the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, says there has been “a lot of emphasis on the identity of the individuals picked” for Biden’s incoming team, but representation alone is not enough. “Several of these individuals have real problems, and none of them truly represent a progressive in the mindset of most Americans, especially those who identified with Bernie Sanders.”

--Nbauman (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The Neera Tanden page should not and will not be a place to pile on opposition research. KidAd talk 21:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

As I noted elsewhere on this page, WP:RS says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

The question of whether Tanden is a "progressive" is a viewpoint.

Do you have any reasons based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines why Democracy Now should not be used as a source of a viewpoint? --Nbauman (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RSP is how conspiracy websites and loosely edited blogs are filtered from The New York Times. It's a hallmark of Wikipedia decision-making. And seriously Nbauman, what info on Tanden's political stances do you think is not provided by (nor can be added from, within reason) these sources already in the article, all of which detail criticism she has received from progressives?

• Business Insider
• CNN
• The Intercept
• Jacobin
• The New York Times
• Mother Jones
• Politico
• Salon
• Vox
• The Week

AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RSP is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy, and doesn't even represent a consensus of the Wikipedia community. Nor is WP:HALLMARK a guideline or policy, because it hasn't been vetted either. For what it's worth, RSP isn't a Hallmark either. WP:HALLMARK says, "This results in phenomena such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources (a guideline) being taken as robotic instructions, regardless of damage to the articles."

You write:

And seriously Nbauman, what info on Tanden's political stances do you think is not provided by (nor can be added from, within reason) these sources already in the article,

I keep repeating: Please quote me the text in the article that gives the reason progressives think Tanden is not a progressive. Please show me where it states a progressive policy that Tanden doesn't follow. Please answer that question in a spirit of Wikipedia cooperation and comity. --Nbauman (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was not referencing policy – I was merely using "hallmark" as a word. As for your question, as I've said previously, I just don't think it's relevant to the article why other people don't think Tanden is a progressive. What's important is very generally that there is dispute among her political identity, one which she has provided little help in. More broadly, though, I think what's the most concerning to me is that you keep pushing additions of content based on what other editors (including an admin) have identified as unreliable or at best questionable sources without providing anything else. If you keep that up, you really shouldn't expect to get your way here. On Wikipedia, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You are making claims about Wikipedia policies, including WP:RS, that aren't supported by the text of those policies. I think you are editing the quotes and paraphrases of sources like Briahna Joy Gray to make her arguments seem weaker than they are, by eliminating her reasons, and to protect Tanden from criticism. A majority is not consensus. Three editors is not a consensus. RSP is not a binding Wikipedia policy; it's merely the unofficial opinion of some editors. All of the sources I cited were WP:RS, according to the clear language I quoted from WP:RS. The Hill and Democracy Now are WP:RS certainly for purposes of providing viewpoints, according to the clear language of WP:RS. I'll have to wait and see if there are other editors who support my position. --Nbauman (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine, but please refrain from personal attacks. Your behavior has made it clear we are at an impasse, meaning as per your suggestion, you'll simply have to wait for more people to chime in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

Since there is significant controversy surrounding her possible appointment, there should be a section discussing the issue. She has issued a public apology for past partisan statements and that needs to be mentioned in this article, as it is also her most newsworthy accomplishment thus far.2601:182:4381:E60:E4D7:59E5:6C71:33A7 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles should not have sections devoted solely to controversy. What information specifically do you think is missing from the article? Provide sources if you can. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Beware of acute manipulation and activism from Tanden "controversy" spin doctors. As above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They are discussed under Neera Tanden#Office of Management and Budget nomination. Following the vote on her confirmation, we can assess what degree of detail is required. It will be interesting to see whether she returns to tweeting. TFD (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You write, "Articles should not have sections devoted solely to controversy." That is your personal opinion, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. According to WP:CRIT, which you cite:

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

WP:CRIT also says:

"Criticism" section

A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location.

You can argue that negative material should be in one section, or whether it should be distributed throughout the article, but you are violating WP:NPOV if you delete all negative material in the article. I don't think you have enough negative material in the article now. --Nbauman (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not deleted all negative material from the article, and I'm not the owner of it. If you think some specific pertinent information is missing, feel free to add it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Edited to remove bias and clarify misleading statements

I've made some edits because this entry still is biased and not NPOV. I clarified the statement that simply stated that Tanden had punched a man. This was a very misleading way to phrase it with no further context. First, in the article, it was stated that a source said she punched him in the chest. Any ordinary person reading the statement that she punched someone would think it was to the face, and I suspect that's exactly why it was phrased that way. Second, when introducing such a claim, it behooves the author to include any response to that incident from the person being accused. Otherwise, we're just putting together a case against them and removing any nuance. Tanden stated that she pushed him in the chest. While we can debate whether she should have done that to someone, I think it's clear that it's very different from what the editor was trying to imply. The original version was simply intentionally misleading. I also removed a tag clause stating that Hillary Clinton's policy was unpopular. It's enough to explain the incident to say that the reporter asked her a question about it. Stating that the policy was unpopular, even if clarifying which group it was unpopular with biases readers to also see the policy as unpopular. 97.114.183.113 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add that while I thought it might be worth mentioning that the source was unnamed, I refrained from doing so since I felt it would be too biased in the other direction, implying that an unnamed source was untrustworthy. It would especially serve no purposed since Tanden essentially agreed that the incident took place while she disagreed with how it was characterized. 97.114.183.113 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn at Tanden's request

Jonathunder RS say that Tanden's request caused the withdrawal. Most consider that fact important enough to include in their headlines, that important fact deserves to be mentioned in the lead.

• Neera Tanden withdraws from nomination as Biden budget chiefCNBC 2021/03/02 › neera-tanden-withdraw... Mar 2, 2021 — Neera Tanden withdraws from nomination as Biden budget chief ... President Joe Biden said Tuesday that he is withdrawing the nomination of ...
• Budget nominee Tanden withdraws nomination amid opposition AP Mar 2, 2021 — Budget nominee Tanden withdraws nomination amid opposition ... WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden's pick to head the Office of ...
• Neera Tanden Withdraws As Biden's OMB Nominee : NPR Mar 2, 2021 — Neera Tanden, President Biden's controversial nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, has withdrawn her nomination. Biden ...
• Tanden withdraws as budget nominee in Biden's first Cabinet ...www.washingtonpost.com › politics Mar 2, 2021 — Tanden withdraws as budget nominee in Biden's first Cabinet defeat. Neera Tanden, President Biden's nominee for director of the Office of ...
• Neera Tanden withdraws as Cabinet nominee after facing ...www.theguardian.com › us-news › mar › neera-tanden-... Mar 2, 2021 — Joe Biden's pick to head the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, has withdrawn her nomination after she faced opposition from ...

Tanden's decision is much more relevant to this article than the precise date of the withdrawal or the complex reasons behind it. Given your edit summary point that "It's often a polite fiction that nominations are withdrawn at someone's request",[6] Wikipedia should not give implicit support to the "polite fiction" interpretation which is not the case here. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Podesta email hack

The Podesta emails hack is in a section about CAP, but it belongs instead with the 2016 presidential election campaigns. Wikileaks dropped the private Podesta emails (spearfished by Russian team Fancy Bear) with a tweet referencing Podesta's role as Hillary's campaign chairman, a half hour after Trump's Access Hollywood recording was published.[7] The point for Wikileaks of embarrassing Tanden as well as Podesta was their connection to the Clinton campaign, not their connection to CAP. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)