Talk:Nikki Haley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign into Nikki Haley and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles.

Most of the "Political positions during presidential campaign" section of the campaign article can just be merged with the similarly-focused section of Haley’s article. SecretName101 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per rationale of SecretName101, with no prejudice against restoring the article should significant coverage of Haley's campaign increase enough to warrant it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Hi. I've been withholding from editing this article because in the past I've been accused of just adding news sources as the days go on. While I see the rationale behind this proposal for most of the candidates, I would say Haley's an exception in that I can find multiple editorials/news stories relating to her campaign. I would like to be given, at minimum, a few days to add some examples of this to article to plead its case for being kept. Informant16 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Haley is clearly a prominent candidate in the GOP primary with the campaign article being well-sourced enough to support having a page independent of the Nikki Haley article. BlueShirtz (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, this candidate has and continues to receive sustained media coverage and reputably sourced support. Candidate pages for credible major party candidates are the rule rather than the exception for Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Add: This discussion should be closed, since the page is not a stub as defined as the main argument for merging. It is a fully sourced encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's not the main argument. The main argument is that it can be sufficiently summarized within a section of the main article.

  Nitpicking one word is not the way to go about this. SecretName101 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Not a stub. Since "Stub" and "stub-article" are major points in the nomination even though this is not a stub, and several of the other nominated campaign pages are not stubs, please consider striking the words (coding: striking the words) from the nominations. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the campaign is an independently notable and well-sourced legal entity. BD2412 T 20:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is in good shape, has gained significant coverage and is notable on its own right. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - as stated above there is not enough to warrant a standalone article at this stage. It can be accommodated in the main biographical page and be reinstated later if their is enough notable coverage to warrant a standalone page. Dueyfinster (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is well sourced and it does warrant as a standalone article. Not to mention in some polls, Haley's been polling at fourth/third place. A better discussion should be held once the primaries start and/or when she drops out. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a credible candidate running a substantial campaign. While the "political positions" section is something of a content-fork, the rest of the article has enough campaign-related content that merging back would bloat Haley's biography. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and her candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since he announced his candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Ms. Haley has raised millions of dollars, received substantive media coverage, and has garnered upwards of 5% support in countless national polls. She is running a substantial campaign and will certainly be on the debate stage. There will only be more information as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.145.80 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no prejudice expressed against re-creating an article at a later point if there is more to discuss. However; there is not really enough to necessitate many of this candidates having separate articles. Maybe later, but now is premature SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. John Hickenlooper and Tim Ryan presidential campaign's articles were very tiny before their own merge, it's not a good comparaison. Nikki Haley's article will be a mess if we merge it with her campaign's article, there's plenty of sources already, and there will be more in the future. --Deansfa (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not quite. Much of Haley’s campaign article either duplicates content from her main page, or fails the bar of WP:NOTNEWS and should be excluded regardless of whether in a merge or a revision to the article. SecretName101 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  And so what? Duplication creates headache, troubles of vision? there's lots of duplicate content on Wikipedia, because topics overlap when they're close to each others. there's duplicate content between Obama's main article and all its related articles as there is duplicate content between this one and her presidential campaign. not the end of the world! --Deansfa (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that most of it is duplicative evidences the lack of a need for a separate article and the easiness of a merge. SecretName101 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:BD2412 and the other opposers. Additionally, per WP:SS, moving the material from the Haley campaign article to the main Haley bio article would clog up the latter, and give the campaign undue weight in the latter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nikki Haley is still in the race. She still trails Trump, Vivek, and DeSantis, but she still holds strong, especially from her August debate performance. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nikki Haley's full name

I'm curious as to what Haley's full name is now, as her recent book With All Due Respect credits her as "Nikki R. Haley". Going off that, I'd assume her full name is Nimrata Randhawa "Nikki" Haley. Thoughts? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and edit it in. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm reverting your change. The source doesn't mention the Nimrata or the Randhawa and, since this is a blp, you'll need an ironclad source for her name.--regentspark (comment) 23:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I seem to have also reverted the content that you moved. Could you do that again? --regentspark (comment) 23:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have anything "ironclad" per se, but I remain in doubt as to whether we have Nikki Haley's birth name correct at all. Going off how she once posted on Twitter "Nikki is my name on my birth certificate. I married a Haley. I was born Nimarata Nikki Randhawa and married Michael Haley." I'm assuming she goes by Nikki Randhawa Haley now, possibly dropping the Nimarata, if that was her legal birth name at one point. [1] MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from her tweet described above, see ”Vercellone, Chiara. “Fact check: Nikki Haley didn't 'white-wash' her name. It's Punjabi”, USA Today (5 May 2021): “Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, was born Nimarata Nikki Randhawa….her yearbook photo listed her full name: ‘Nimarata Nikki Randhawa.’” Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence that her birth name included Nikki? A High School Yearbook doesn't count, I didn't go by my own birth name in mine. I can't find any evidence that this is an actual word or name in Punjabi. Outside of the context of Nikki Haley, there seem to be no references anywhere. No mention of girls being called nikki or niki. I can buy it as a diminutive of Nimrata, but as a common name or middle name I think it's a stretch to claim it has actual Punjabi origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.166.176 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Page Protection Needed

IP edits are incessant.Summerdays1 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Brothers and Sisters

A quick search on Google suggested that she has three siblings. Why is there no mention of them? If she has siblings, please add a little information on them. If not, please state that she is an only child. It's important to this content, especially since she is running to be president. NaturalEquality (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. NotAGenious (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

“But she did not mention”

I’m puzzled by the following passage:

”Haley also said that "It's hard to find a conflict or terrorist group in the Middle East that doesn't have Iran's fingerprints all over it", but she did not mention the U.S. role in Saudi-led intervention in Yemen and Saudi-led coalition's blockade of Yemen.”

I’m not a fan of these odd rejoinders/rebuttals that seem to be on almost every Wikipedia article I read about modern politics. Sure, she didn’t mention those things - so what? Why not just neutrally present what she did say?

I see way too much of this. One example I saw recently: “Political analyst X said that Ukraine will not win the war, but US state-owned media disagreed” (duh, of course they would disagree). Or this, “Ambassador Haley called out Iran, but she didn’t call out the USA too” (duh, she’s the USA’s ambassador, of course she didn’t.

Can we stop inserting the irrelevant or patently obvious political opinions of third parties into articles? It amounts to little more than editorialization and comes off as very awkward and tacky. Let’s just neutrally present the statements and opinions of the article’s subject, and leave these weird rebuttal statements out.

I’m not sure what guideline applies best to these situations, but WP:DUH, WP:BLUESKY, and WP:MANDY all seem relevant to varying degrees, besides the neutrality issues.

I propose that we remove “but she did not mention”, and everything following it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

i’ve gone ahead and removed it, it seems tangential at best. — isadora of ibiza (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @IsadoraofIbiza. Incidentally, are you really from Ibiza? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Indian name mispelled

It should be “Nimrata”, not “Nimarata” 106.215.87.159 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Haley's history as an underperformer

I think that a little analysis of her electoral history is appropriate. For example, Mark Sanford comfortably won his race back in 2006 (the biggest blue wave year in the modern era) and even McCain won the state by around 9%. So, during the biggest red wave in modern history, Haley winning South Carolina by less than 5% is something that should be mentioned. I suggest writing about how the state trended to the left relative to the national environment between 2006 and 2010, as well as her underperformance in 2014 vs Lindsey Graham, who shared the same ticket as her. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Allied Defense LLC

Can we add a paragraph addressing Haley's association with Allied Defense LLC -- a defense contractor connected with Haley and her husband? The Daily Beast reported on the shadier bits of the company (see here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haleys-husband-major-michael-haley-tied-to-shadowy-defense-firm-allied-defense-llc) and I couldn't find a reference to it on this page. ADistantEditor (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Daily Beast is a partisian, marginal source. Do you have a better reference for this claim? Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

I did everything asked and they still removed my edit. Why? SmashingThreePlates (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You've had a few edits reverted, so you'll need to be more specific. Your edit to the quote on sexual misconduct by Trump was edited because you edited it to be more ambiguous, as was noted in the edit log. If you're unsure of why an edit is reverted, please check the descriptions of the reversion rather than undoing a reversion and commenting that you weren't informed of the reason your edits were changed. If you're asking about the section on Haley being the first woman to win a county - it looks like it was removed by another user because the article you have cited does not state that Haley is the first woman to win a county on the GOP side. Landryoliver (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

Change

"Both of her parents immigrated from India to Canada in 1964 after Ajit received a scholarship offer from the"

To

"Both of her parents emigrated from India to Canada in 1964 after Ajit received a scholarship offer from the" Hopsock (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done General Ization ^Talk 05:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Her father worked as a professor in the 1950s? As she is 51 I find this hard to belive. From what I found he was born in 1941. Was he a professor while he was a teenager? Very suspicious. 24.188.53.120 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Father's work history does not line up with university founding year

The article says: Her father, Ajit Singh Randhawa, had worked as a professor at Punjab Agricultural University in the 1950s

However the page on Punjab Agricultural University states that it was established in 1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Agricultural_University 122.151.17.8 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 122.151.17.8. The page on Punjab Agricultural University contained some conflicting information on when the university was founded. Following some edits, the article now says the university was formed in 1962 and inaugurated in 1963. This information is verified by the University's own website (see [2]). Therefore, Ajit Singh Randhawa could not possibly have taught there in the 1950s. The source stating that he taught there in the 1950s (see [3]) appears to be incorrect. I have edited the Nikki Haley page accordingly. MonMothma (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Is this information discussed in the current version of this article? Source: https://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-old-affair-rumor-maga-new-attack-1862404 76.190.213.189 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, because of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NEWSWEEK. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, because it is gossip and would violate the policies set forth in WP:BLP AstralNomad (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Jatt background

Nikki's parents were Jatts. 2605:8D80:325:4532:BD25:DA3F:F8A:8C2D (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And? Wyliepedia @ 05:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Husband's current tour...

...is all over the media and should be added to his already mentioned previous tour. --2003:EA:E714:4E58:D0CB:2BA6:666:DDB5 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Voice: New recording in order?

I propose adding a new recording to Nikki Haley, as well as other politicians. More relevant voices are needed for politicians. I am not entirely familiar with the WikiCommons audio restrictions, so I’d have to find another one.

Suppose we use RFK Jr’s voice before his (condition/cancer?). Wouldn’t be very relevant.

Thoughts? IEditPolitics (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Haley states "the US has never been a racist country"

Hello, I'm a relatively new editor in wikipedia so if I'm missing something please lmk.

On January 16, 2024, Nikki Haley said, "the US has never been a racist country," this was widely reported in the media, the sources I included (of which there are many) were as follows:

First, an article dedicated to this topic literally titled, "Haley says US has ‘never been a racist country" from Fox News:https://fox59.com/news/national-world/haley-says-us-has-never-been-a-racist-country

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources , "There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards" so I included a CNN source as well from a few days later (https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/politics/nikki-haley-why-america-isnt-racist/index.html) which also states Nikki Haley's quote and gives further context if anyone is interested in her full thoughts on this.

***

GIman undid this revision as well as a similar one a few days prior because he believes "this reference does not support the claim you've made."

The only claim I made is that 'Nikki Haley said "the US has never been a racist country,"' both these articles support this because they both clearly state that Haley said, "the US has never been a racist country," that quotation is the literal title of one of the sources.

Happy to discuss further but honestly I'm not sure there's anything to discuss here -- what is the argument that an article titled "Haley says US has ‘never been a racist country" does NOT support the written claim that "On January 16, 2024, Haley stated "the US has never been a racist country"? The other article sourced also included that information as well.

Anyway I've undone GIman's undo, happy to discuss further with him or anyone else about this, imo this was one of the most publicized soundbites so imo is notable enough to be included in the wikipedia page. Again, relatively new at this so happy to learn. Thanks! GrandpaSurf (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Glman -- I left a note on your talk page to which you replied, "(This discussion) belongs on the article talk page, and I have responded to you there!"

I do not see your response on this page. If you (or anyone else) would like to discuss the statement, "On January 16, 2024, Haley stated "the US has never been a racist country"', please respond to the message prompt and we can have a further discussion here if needed. Thanks!

GrandpaSurf (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am honestly not sure what to do in this situation (see thread). A few days I made an edit to this page regarding Haley's widely publicized "the US has never been a racist country" remark (rev 1210145756) Glman undid the revision saying that the sources do not confirm this statement, then said to discuss on the talk page where he is nowhere to be found. Since his revisions, I left multiple notes (on his own talk page as well as in this thread), aside from an initial response where he claimed to have already responded on the talk page (he has not), he hasn't replied even though he continues to actively edit wikipedia.

If you look at his edit history, you can also see he did something similar on 23 Feb regarding the Lakewood Church shooting (revision 1209703512) where he told user MagicatthemovieS to "Stop edit warring. Take it to the talk page." after which MagicatthemovieS made a relevant talk topic which has gone completely unaddressed, even though Glman continues to actively edit that particular page.

So, I do not expect Glman will ever respond to this particular talk topic even though he was the one that requested it.

I'm also new here so not sure how to handle "disputes" like this when one party does not appear interested in discussion. So, sincere thanks in advance for whoever comes down to help me with this.

***

Anyway two broad questions:

1) Generally speaking, in situations like this, what should I do? Seeking dispute resolution doesn't seem appropriate here (one side doesn't appear interested in having a conversation), re-editing with the same edit also doesn't appear constructive, it would be exact same edit (not sure how to improve it), no one needs to see edit wars. Esp on a page like this which will likely have greater visibility given the timing of upcoming primaries.

2) Regarding this particular edit, is there something that needs to be improved? Glman is claiming things like WP:ONUS and BLP issues, I don't see how either of those apply, Haley's statement of "the US has never been a racist country" dominated an entire news cycle and is therefore clearly notable, it's not a BLP issue either it's a quote just like however many dozens of quotes are already on the page. Also re: article sourcing (this was the original complaint), the articles provided seem perfectly fine as sources because they state what Haley said, imo that's all they need to do. Just as importantly, the sources themselves contain varied enough perspectives to be valuable to those seeking additional information / context. Put a different way, even if the edit wasn't sufficiently high quality, I'm not entirely sure how to make it higher quality and would love to learn how.

Looking forward to hearing / learning from more experienced members about how to handle situations like this (and also what to do with this particular edit). Thanks!

GrandpaSurf (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally speaking, if I want to make a change, and the person opposed will not discuss the change, then I see that as a failure on their part, and thus it is not unreasonable to make that change. You could always request a WP:3O (but again, that requires the other party to participate first). Basically, if you have made the effort to discuss a change, and no one else wants to discuss that change, then make the change. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! Looks like the guy responded, we'll see if he continues the discussion. Either way thanks for the help! GrandpaSurf (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So sorry! I typed a reply twice and thought it was posted. I'm not sure what happened on my end. I am not opposed to the inclusion, but we need to include the full quote and context (both ways). Removing context besides the quote misrepresents just as much as excluding the statement. Your original edit pointed to a source that only quoted a spokesperson, which is why I initially reverted, your last link includes Haley. Let's work on some text and we can add. glman (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the sources have not changed -- and both of the sources have always included Haley's full quote and context. I have no idea where you are coming up with this stuff. Regardless, even if you had an issue with a previous edit, that is not a valid reason to repeatedly revert subsequent edits, I think that is common sense.

Sources listed below for reference:

CNN interview with Haley / Jake Tapper (Jan 19)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/politics/nikki-haley-why-america-isnt-racist/index.html

Initial high level summary from Fox news / The Hill: https://fox59.com/news/national-world/haley-says-us-has-never-been-a-racist-country/

Regardless, which parts of Haley's full quote do you (or anyone else) think are worthy of inclusion? From the Fox article:

“No. We’re not a racist country, Brian. We’ve never been a racist country,” Haley said in response. “Our goal is to make sure that today is better than yesterday,” she continued. “Are we perfect? No. But our goal is to always make sure we try and be more perfect every day that we can. I know I faced racism when I was growing up. But I can tell you, today is a lot better than it was then. Our goal is to lift up everybody. Not go and divide people on race or gender or party or anything else. We’ve had enough of that in America.”

To me the only notable part of that is "we've never been a racist country" -- I'm not sure a political candidate saying "our goal is to make sure that today is better than yesterday" or an Indian person saying she faced racism growing up in the South is noteworthy. Put a different way, to me everything after "racist country" doesn't pass the WP:ONUS test and the racist country soundbite is what got all the headlines anyway. Might be better to include part of her subsequent interview w Tapper, but if you read what she actually said in her followup town hall, she pretty much deflects the question and instead talks at length about the importance of providing hope and opportunity for black and brown minorities.

How about,

"On January 16, 2024, Haley stated "the US has never been a racist country." When asked about this statement a few days later (January 19th), Haley stated "I want every brown and Black child to... say, ‘No, I don’t live in a country that was formed on racism. I live in a country where (the Founding Fathers) wanted all people to be equal. And to make sure that they have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Arguably that's better than including just the top sentence, but in some ways it gives Haley too much credit because her actual followup was rambly and imprecise. I personally would rather just include the top sentence (and not the Tapper followup) but I could live with the above paragraph, at the very least it's verifiable and further explains her point of view. What do you (or anyone else) think? GrandpaSurf (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like no one is interested in discussing this. Ended up saying only, "On January 16, 2024, Haley stated "the US has never been a racist country."

After thinking about this for a few days, Haley's follow-up interview with Tapper is sourced so ppl can look if they want, and honestly I think the second (and later) sentences in the paragraph give Haley far too much credit, her Jan 19 statements were rambly and unfocused. It took some effort to try to summarize and I'm not even sure the summary is accurate. More relevantly, if ppl want to read Haley's comments about her own soundbite, the source provided (cnn) includes her full, unabridged remarks. GrandpaSurf (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Support for genocide

Nikki Haley writes ‘finish them’ on IDF artillery shells during a visit to Israel.

Sources:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/28/nikki-haley-finish-them-missile-israel
2. https://www.anews.com.tr/americas/2024/05/28/nikki-haley-signs-off-on-israeli-bomb-with-phrase-finish-them

This act of hers needs to be mentioned in the article. 46.31.118.94 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also another news sources

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nikki-haley-visits-israel-signs-artillery-shells_n_66563221e4b0f5ad559869a9 103.138.215.78 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)