Talk:Ro Khanna/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ro Khanna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
COI?
Really? What COI? I do not know the subject of this article and have no connection to him whatsoever, beyond being a Democrat living in the Bay Area. Check my user page to see my record.
I do not appreciate the drive by tagging without any discussion. If you think there are important details that arent covered here, add them with reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It reads like a Campaing ad. Current event warning ? Perhaps? Address the open questions on why he took. Pass on Peter Stark . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.156.44 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted the bit on the fundraiser, because that is cruft. We can look into why he passed on challenging Stark, but I don't know that there's anything on that other than speculation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Related to Nitin Khanna?
Is Ro Khanna related to Nitin Khanna, the Portland tech CEO who was accused of rape and settled out of court? Article in The Oregonian.
Nitin Khanna's linked in page says he graduated from Purdue in 1993, suggesting a birthdate around 1971, which would make him 5 years old than Ro. This SF Chronicle article mentions Ro's younger brother, Vikas, who is a California prosecutor, but does not mention an older brother.
Is there any reliable source to confirm or dispel a family relationship? 192.55.54.40 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Should this section be removed? Seems like nobody can find a source proving either that Nitin Khanna is related or that his rape accusation is relevant to Ro Khanna as a political candidate. Having this here creates unnecessary speculation and could be perceived as a smear. Asaturn (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
One of 6 members who don't take PAC money
Not sure of the standards required to clear the "Citation Needed" marker on this, but the fact, along with the names of the 6 individuals, was mentioned on the Jimmy Dore show April 28th http://thejimmydoreshow.libsyn.com/april-28-2017 199.167.121.198 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's also misleading because he DID take hundreds of thousands from Wall Street CEOs... this article reads like a campaign ad which has been edited to coincide with his "launch" as a new progressive candidate everyone should suddenly love. Only 1% of his campaign contributions are what you would consider "small individual contributions" https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026427&newmem=Y Asaturn (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
He has used PAC money. Please refer to - http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/ro-khanna-mike-honda_n_5668038. I do think that it would be prudent for the statement concerning him not taking any money from PAC's was removed from the article FlyingBlueDream (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. Wikipedia is not a place for sterilized one-sided facts. My edits citing Ro Khanna's ongoing involvement in PAC money have been removed, and now I'm being threatened with unnecessary "warnings". This article needs to be locked so Ro Khanna fans are not allowed to continue to present a one-sided puff piece. Asaturn (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
While Khanna doesn't directly accept PAC money, his own finance chair Ash Chopra founded "Californians for Innovation PAC" and accepted millions of dollars from millionaires and billionaires.[1] This entire entry reads like a puff piece and needs a lot of cleanup.
- This article is from 2014 and Khanna's campaign denied any involvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- so because "it's old and they lied" it doesn't matter? it's FEC (federal government) record showing his own campaign chair running a PAC in support of him... what more do you need? this article is extremely biased and editors are acting in bad faith. Asaturn (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Ro Khanna, An Anti-Super PAC Democrat, Gets A Super PAC Of His Own". Huffington Post. Retrieved 13 January 2019.
Overt POV pushing
An editor, Asaturn, is engaging in overt POV pushing to denigrate Ro Khanna. This behavior is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and must stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I cited his FEC contributions, which are from outside of his own district, in a Wiki page full of puff piece misinformation. I made edits to remove downright invalid claims (such as that he has never accepted PAC money). If you view the history of the page, other users have pointed out how slanted the entire article is. Nothing I've added is from a point of view. Cullen is simply upset that I removed his attempt to distract from the FEC contribution analytics that show Khanna is not some sort of anti-PAC saint as some editors of this page clearly want to paint him to be. Ro Khanna is a controversial politician, and this article needs a section pointing out his contradictory behavior. Asaturn (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about accepting donations from outside one's district or receiving entirely legal $2,700 donations. You are engaging in innuendo. It is contrary to policy and it must stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I never said it was illegal, I said it is an important distinction to make for a politician who claims to be reforming those very behaviors in campaigns. To try to argue that pointing to his FEC (campaign finance) records (which show $2700 maximum contributions from out of his district, and a SuperPAC with millions of dollars, set up by his own campaign finance chair) is "pushing a POV" or somehow attacking him is downright ridiculous. Your editorializing and downplaying his hypocritical behavior is a perfect example of what's wrong with the entire puff piece article. It needs to be locked and cleaned up. Facts are facts. I'm personally on the "left" politically. I have no axe to grind with Ro Khanna. Asaturn (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you are editing this article in an effort to
point out the inconsistencies and contradictory behavior of Ro Khanna
, as you just said above, is itself evidence that you have an ax to grind with Khanna. The edits you've made clearly violate several aspects of policy, notably WP:WEASEL and WP:EDITORIALIZING. For example, in the section about Khanna's "NO PAC Caucus," your introduction of a primary-sourced "While..." juxtaposition is simply not on — that's not how we write articles. You personally might see a contradiction in that Khanna once took PAC contributions but is now opposed to them, but without a reliable secondary source commenting on the supposed "contradiction," Wikipedia editors cannot synthesize such a "contradiction" from two separate sources which do not consider it to be a contradiction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you are editing this article in an effort to
- I never said it was illegal, I said it is an important distinction to make for a politician who claims to be reforming those very behaviors in campaigns. To try to argue that pointing to his FEC (campaign finance) records (which show $2700 maximum contributions from out of his district, and a SuperPAC with millions of dollars, set up by his own campaign finance chair) is "pushing a POV" or somehow attacking him is downright ridiculous. Your editorializing and downplaying his hypocritical behavior is a perfect example of what's wrong with the entire puff piece article. It needs to be locked and cleaned up. Facts are facts. I'm personally on the "left" politically. I have no axe to grind with Ro Khanna. Asaturn (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about accepting donations from outside one's district or receiving entirely legal $2,700 donations. You are engaging in innuendo. It is contrary to policy and it must stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, this article, as said by many others, reads like a puff piece. One of the major upsells of Ro Khanna in this puff piece is that he is a reformer for out-of-control money in politics. The second paragraph is itself a lie—Ro Khanna does in fact accept PAC money. Pointing out biases in the article is technically pushing a point of view, but it is pushing the opposite point of view as what is being pushed by the rest of the article. My edits provide a balanced look at the facts. One of which is that Ro Khanna is not as clean, in terms of campaign finance, as he claims to be. Perhaps a new section on this controversy needs to be created? Reversing my edits when I did nothing but add facts and context reflects the inherent bias of editors, not a fair portrayal of Ro Khanna as a politician. Wikipedia exists to educate people, not to present a sterilized one-side look at certain people who are favored by the admins. In short, showing that Ro Khanna does in fact accept PAC money (and linking to a reputable source, such as OpenSecrets or the FEC website) should be allowed. I am not simply "inventing" a contradiction, there is one inherent in Ro Khanna's own FEC filings. A fair way to present his sudden change of attitude towards PAC money would be "While Ro Khanna accepted PAC money in the past (cite cite cite), he has since created the NO PAC Caucus." However, even in 2018, Khanna has accepted millions from PACs. Basically, those on the left need to be introspective and realistic, or simply not try to use Wikipedia as a place for puff pieces in the first place. One look at the IP ranges of past edits shows someone in congress wrote the majority of Ro Khanna's article. Give me a break. Asaturn (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's actually a textbook example of an unfair way to present his "shift," as you put it. You are a relatively inexperienced editor and I suggest that you need to take some time to understand our policies and style guidelines before editing biographies of living people, particularly BLPs of people you have a clearly-stated personal opposition to. Primary sources such as FEC filings are permitted only in limited circumstances in biographies of living persons, generally to reinforce secondary-source reporting. So you need to first find and introduce secondary sources which discuss your argument that Khanna accepts PAC money. If such sources don't exist, then what you want cannot be written here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I linked to OpenSecrets. As I have suggested many times, I believe a section about his new-found "no longer taking PAC money" way of campaigning deserves its own section where the facts can be presented neutrally. Simply stating that "he doesn't take PAC money" and having 3+ editors remove/revert edits of anyone pointing out the fact that he has in the past and potentially continues to take PAC money is biased and pushing a POV. I may be "inexperienced," but I also am coming from the regular world where people expect all facts presented neutrally, not trying to play mental gymnastics of Wikipedia Rules to excuse pushing a pro-Khanna point of view. And as said elsewhere, again, I have no personal beef with Ro Khanna. I personally agree with the majority of his policies. I just believe it is biased and misleading to say he doesn't take PAC money when he has/does, and that important fact needs to be presented here one way or another. Asaturn (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The FEC document you linked shows the formation of a Candidate Committee, not a Political Action Committee. See both the plain document you linked and this helpful FEC glossary. That you don't understand the difference between the two does not license or excuse you to translate that ignorance into inserting misleading and false information on Khanna's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The FEC says it is a SuperPAC (https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00566679/?tab=about-committee). What the committee is called isn't actually the problem here, though. Ro Khanna claims he has no SuperPAC, but he does, and his own campaign staffer, Ash Chopra, set it up. Ro Khanna thanked one of the largest contributors to the PAC, John Arnold (http://archive.is/K24Tn). John Arnold is a notorious anti-pension anti-worker activist and former Enron exec (http://www.truthaboutjohnarnold.com/). WikiPedia apparently needs to change its name to WikiPedantic. Asaturn (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- The page you linked is from two years ago. If you actually switch to the last two years (2017-2018) on that page, I see reported donations of $0.00 (zero dollars and zero cents) and expenditures of $2,241.21. And your stunt with the Open Secrets page is the same one David Sirota tried to pull, so falls flat, too.
- You're starting from a conclusion and working backwards to find stuff that fits. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- so "hi I'm a candidate and I don't take PAC money" is the same statement as "hi I'm a candidate and I stopped accepting PAC money" ? bad faith / disingenuous argument from Ro Khanna staffers using Wikipedia for self-promotion. sad! but luckily, not worth the time. hope Ro pays you guys well. Asaturn (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- The FEC says it is a SuperPAC (https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00566679/?tab=about-committee). What the committee is called isn't actually the problem here, though. Ro Khanna claims he has no SuperPAC, but he does, and his own campaign staffer, Ash Chopra, set it up. Ro Khanna thanked one of the largest contributors to the PAC, John Arnold (http://archive.is/K24Tn). John Arnold is a notorious anti-pension anti-worker activist and former Enron exec (http://www.truthaboutjohnarnold.com/). WikiPedia apparently needs to change its name to WikiPedantic. Asaturn (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- The FEC document you linked shows the formation of a Candidate Committee, not a Political Action Committee. See both the plain document you linked and this helpful FEC glossary. That you don't understand the difference between the two does not license or excuse you to translate that ignorance into inserting misleading and false information on Khanna's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I linked to OpenSecrets. As I have suggested many times, I believe a section about his new-found "no longer taking PAC money" way of campaigning deserves its own section where the facts can be presented neutrally. Simply stating that "he doesn't take PAC money" and having 3+ editors remove/revert edits of anyone pointing out the fact that he has in the past and potentially continues to take PAC money is biased and pushing a POV. I may be "inexperienced," but I also am coming from the regular world where people expect all facts presented neutrally, not trying to play mental gymnastics of Wikipedia Rules to excuse pushing a pro-Khanna point of view. And as said elsewhere, again, I have no personal beef with Ro Khanna. I personally agree with the majority of his policies. I just believe it is biased and misleading to say he doesn't take PAC money when he has/does, and that important fact needs to be presented here one way or another. Asaturn (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's actually a textbook example of an unfair way to present his "shift," as you put it. You are a relatively inexperienced editor and I suggest that you need to take some time to understand our policies and style guidelines before editing biographies of living people, particularly BLPs of people you have a clearly-stated personal opposition to. Primary sources such as FEC filings are permitted only in limited circumstances in biographies of living persons, generally to reinforce secondary-source reporting. So you need to first find and introduce secondary sources which discuss your argument that Khanna accepts PAC money. If such sources don't exist, then what you want cannot be written here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, this article, as said by many others, reads like a puff piece. One of the major upsells of Ro Khanna in this puff piece is that he is a reformer for out-of-control money in politics. The second paragraph is itself a lie—Ro Khanna does in fact accept PAC money. Pointing out biases in the article is technically pushing a point of view, but it is pushing the opposite point of view as what is being pushed by the rest of the article. My edits provide a balanced look at the facts. One of which is that Ro Khanna is not as clean, in terms of campaign finance, as he claims to be. Perhaps a new section on this controversy needs to be created? Reversing my edits when I did nothing but add facts and context reflects the inherent bias of editors, not a fair portrayal of Ro Khanna as a politician. Wikipedia exists to educate people, not to present a sterilized one-side look at certain people who are favored by the admins. In short, showing that Ro Khanna does in fact accept PAC money (and linking to a reputable source, such as OpenSecrets or the FEC website) should be allowed. I am not simply "inventing" a contradiction, there is one inherent in Ro Khanna's own FEC filings. A fair way to present his sudden change of attitude towards PAC money would be "While Ro Khanna accepted PAC money in the past (cite cite cite), he has since created the NO PAC Caucus." However, even in 2018, Khanna has accepted millions from PACs. Basically, those on the left need to be introspective and realistic, or simply not try to use Wikipedia as a place for puff pieces in the first place. One look at the IP ranges of past edits shows someone in congress wrote the majority of Ro Khanna's article. Give me a break. Asaturn (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Combating Hindu nationalism
@JesseRafe: the part of the section Ro Khanna#Combating_Hindu_nationalism I removed[1] violates several Wikipedia policies:
- It is not verified by the sources. ("Khanna was one of the first members of Congress to criticize Hindu nationalists in India. He describes Hindutva as a hateful ideology whose aim is to eliminate non-Hindus from India." "Khanna has not expressed any remorse and continues to amplify anti-Hindutva voices.").
- It uses exclusively primary sources and therefore gives them WP:UNDUE weight in the article.
- It contains original research by interpreting WP:PRIMARY sources. ("Khanna has not expressed any remorse and continues to amplify anti-Hindutva voices.").
- It uses unverified random twitter users as source. ("Some Indian Hindus have criticized his tweets.")
- It is based entirely on self published sources, thereby violating point 5 of WP:TWITTER.
- Twitter chatter is not encyclopedic content. Xenagoras (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Pronunciation–name mismatch
Does anyone else find it confusing/suboptimal that the article opens Rohit Khanna (/ˈroʊ ˈkʌnə/; born...
, i.e. it gives only his full name Rohit and not Ro, but then the pronunciation given is only for Ro, not Rohit? It comes across as saying /ˈroʊ/ is the pronunciation of Rohit. What about revising to something like Rohit Khanna (known as Ro Khanna, /ˈroʊ ˈkʌnə/; born...
? -sche (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- maybe the article should be renamed to Rohit "Ro" Khanna with pronounciations for both? his staffers, who monitor this article full-time, would probably claim that was some sort of racist jab though. Asaturn (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
NPOV
I lean towards Ro Khanna politically, and he's done a lot of great things, but even for me it seems to be so favorable and devoid of criticism that it violates WP:NPOV. It lacks any criticism, even for controversies like FOSTA-SESTA. Did any opponents of FOSTA-SESTA ever criticize Khanna for it? Archive 1 discusses this further. For example, did Khanna claim that he didn't take PAC money, when he actually did?
I'm not going to edit it myself, because I don't feel like getting into an edit war when I'm likely to be outnumbered, but if anybody else comes by who wants to make it more balanced and objective, I would encourage them. --Nbauman (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nbauman, what is "FOSTA-SESTA" and do you know of any sources that discuss Khanna's involvement with it? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, wikilink is FOSTA-SESTA. Lots of criticism on that page. I got it backwards. FOSTA/SESTA cut back on the protections of the Communications Decency Act Section 230 and made online services liable for "sex trafficking" by its users. Khanna actually criticized FOSTA/SESTA because it was overly restrictive, actually harmed sex workers, and has a chilling effect which caused services like Craigslist to end dating ads because of the legal risks it created. I think Khanna is taking the right position on this, but you wouldn't know it from this WP entry.
- Probably the best criticisms of Khanna are in an interview he did with Briahna Joy Gray: Ro Khanna GRILLED: A "NEOCON" on Russia? A Biden Apologist? Or a Humanitarian Pragmatist? This wasn't a hostile interview, and they were both progressives (supporters of Bernie Sanders), but Gray challenged him on the pragmatic compromises progressives make when they are in office. I think it's a WP:RS because of Gray's established credentials. But I don't want to edit this page if Khanna's fans come out to challenge even the most reasonable progressive debate, as they did in the Talk Archive. --Nbauman (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)