Talk:Nikki Haley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

did knotts apologize or not?

Wikipedia states on the Haley bio that Knotts did not apologize, and on the Knotts bio it says he did.

Sandeylife (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle Name

Nearly all newspapers are reporting that she was born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa. She took her middle name and her husband's surname to be called Nikki Haley. Why does the wikipedia page just state "Nimrata Randhawa" as her birthname instead of including her middle name? -- Thoreaulylazy (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

First?

The second sentence of this article says: "She is the first Indian American Republican state legislator in the United States." (with a cite to a broken link... From her current bio page, I don't see that claim there).

And above, it says that A fact from Nikki Haley appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 January 2007. "Did you know... that Nikki Haley of South Carolina is the first Republican Indian American state legislator in the USA?"

However, Nimi McConigley (R) was elected to the Wyoming State Legislature in 1994 (ten years before Nikki's election in SC). It's true that Nimi is actually from India, while Nikki was born in the U.S. - but Nimi would still be considered an Indian American, if she was a U.S. citizen when she assumed office. Pacificus (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

She's not the first Asian American Governor, Governor Loche of Washington is Chinese America and he is currently the Secretary of Commerce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.106.60 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian?

Haley claimed to be a sikh as recently as 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.140.193 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That was then this is now. lol Nikki Haley states that she is a Christian and attends a Methodist church with her family. The wikipedia article has sources. She says that she converted to Christianity at age 24.

This is from her website

Question: Is Nikki a Christian?

Truth: In Nikki’s words: “My faith in Christ has a profound impact on my daily life and I look to Him for guidance with every decision I make. God has blessed my family in so many ways and my faith in the Lord gives me great strength on a daily basis. Being a Christian is not about words, but about living for Christ every day.”

According to a CBN article Her spokesman says

“She attends Sikh services once or twice a year in respect for her family.”

“Like millions of others, she honors her mother and her father and has great respect for their faith and the way that she was raised. Her faith in Christ guides her throughout her personal, professional, and public life, just as it has for many years.”

That article has a pretty good discussion of Nikki's faith. It is understandable if she wanted to ease her parents and community into her decision slowly. 71.251.185.108 (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been considerable cleanup going on in the talk page. Not the main article, but the talk page. It is obvious from the Revision history that it was performed on 6 January 2011 by Kasbee. And by an incredible co-incidence all the deleted talk relates to governor Haley's religious and ethnic heritage. I wonder why.

69.120.85.11 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The stuff removed from the talk page on 1/6 didn't really belong here from what I can see. A bunch of OR. If you have some accusation, then make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Preferably at an appropriate venue such as WP:ANI. This page is for discussion of ways to improve the article, something severely lacking in this section. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Folks allegations

It appears that something of a deletion war has been going on here during the last couple of days as people have updated this article with references to the potential Will Folks imbroglio. As of this morning (5/26/10) the story is being reported in the mainstream media, e.g. NY Times, not just on blogs, so it's about time for someone to put a "current news" template on the bio and add a factual section on the matter. (Me, I'm just passing through.) --David Sewell (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• There's no need for a current tag. However, continued removal of information regarding her alleged affair on the grounds that it is sourced to a blog is incorrect. Yes, Will Folks said on his blog that he banged her, but saying this is sourced to a blog is like saying Deep Throat was sourced to a parking garage; the allegation has been reported by major media outlets and it will never go away. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the article or at least personal life section needs a current tag. The event is ongoing, both parties denying others' statements. This is an important election in South Carolina and the outcome will most probably depend on who is being truthful. Until someone provides a conclusive proof or a rebuttal of allegations, a current tag on Wikipedia is warranted. Kc27 (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Current tags are not for topics that happen to be in the news, they are for articles such as Deepwater Horizon oil spill that are getting hundreds of edits an hour. Abductive (reasoning) 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a very big story, so it's incredible to me that there is no mention whatsoever about it on Haley's Wikipedia page. If the story is true, it needs to be there. If it's false, it also needs to be there because it was something that brought her to national attention. If it's still unsubstantiated, then it needs to be there so that people are kept abreast of the situation. It seems obvious to me that Republicans are deleting the story from her page in the same way that they've changed the page on Paul Revere to make Sarah Palin look more informed, and changed the birth/death dates of John Quincy Adams to make Michelle Bachmann's comments on slavery look correct.

This is nothing like those other stories. Rumors such as this have no place in WP. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. This was a major media event, reported on by respected sources (including the NY Times and Politico), properly sourced on WP, and a section about the reports of allegations, which received widespread coverage and raised national awareness of Nikki Haley. This material should not have been removed without a discussion regarding consensus.Grandpallama (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, until there is some sort of consensus discussion that such a major piece of information should be removed, I am restoring it to the article.Grandpallama (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle Name - Continued

Why do you say that she was born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa? To my knowledge, her birth name is “Nimrata Kaur Randhawa”; and Nikki is a self-appointed nickname with no legal authority behind it. Birth name is the one which is shown on original birth certificate; this is not something that can be manipulated. User:Look4171 —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Two sources have her name as Nimrata Randhawa Haley, with Haley added as a result of marriage, making Nimrata Randhawa her initial name. Fat&Happy made a lazy reversal, but I will fix the article accordingly. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A reversion using the longstanding New York Times reference is not a "lazy reversal", and "Nimrata Randhawa Haley" in no way implies, let alone establishes definitively, that she didn't also have a middle name of "Nikki" at birth. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Truth or consequences. Her birth name also needs to be corrected under the sub-heading of “early life, education and career”. Look4171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. You could help by registering as a user, giving you further edit rights; and by providing sources for your claim. There is no strong evidence that Nikki is her middle name, but then again I know of no evidence that Kaur was part of her birth name. Perhaps you can provide that evidence? Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fat&Happy uses a nonsensical basis for reversal. Two formidable sources have been provided whereby her name is "Nimrata Randhawa Haley", without a Nikki middle name. Fat&Happy opportunistically sources Haley's campaign material and paraphrases thereof. The balance of evidence is that Nikki is not her middle name, and probably never was. Perhaps Fat&Happy can come up with a credible source. Otherwise, what he does is plain NPV violation.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes what Fat&Happy has done is violation of encyclopedia’s policy and guidelines. I will make some correction. I have depicted six sources below. One of these sources (third from top) even says that her middle birth name is “Kaur”. Other sources say that her real full name is Nimrata Randhawa Haley; but she started going by ‘Nikki Haley” when she entered into politics.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-04-02/nikki-haley-south-carolina/53957632/1 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/nikki-haley-10-things-you-didn.html http://www.sikhchic.com/people/sikhborn_nikki_haley_elected_governor_of_south_carolina http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/11/09/nikki-must-pay-obeisance/ http://www.fitsnews.com/2012/08/31/nikki-haley-tells-her-biggest-lies-yet/ http://www.navapanga.com/2010/06/09/nimrata-nikki-kaur-randhawa-haley-runs-for-u-s-state-governor/ Look4171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So using The New York Times, The Washington Post, the New York Daily News and the BLP subject's own web site as sources for her birth name is a violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines? But citing an article from Monsters and Critics reprinted at sikhchic.com and two articles from "fitsnews.com: unfair. imbalanced." is a WP:reliable source? And on exactly what planet would that be true? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is from USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-07-28-south-carolina-governor-racial-ID_n.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Look4171 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source that confirms that her birth name is Nimrata Randhawa.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904888304576476150355000250.html The whole point is that birth name is unique and remains the same throughout life. It can "not" be changed even if the person does not like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Look4171 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

However, why is her birthname "Nimrata Kaur Randhawa" fused with "Nikki Haley" in the lede? Hari7478 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Political and Legislative Record?

Some folks are more interested in knowing a politician's record than smear allegations about her personal life. So now the voters have set the smear campaign on its ear, let's have some substance. (xperrymint) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xperrymint (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Xperrymint (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This page reads more like a press release from Haley's office than a factual representation of her tenure. Hallertaur (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why would you revive a 3 year old thread? Especially when you're already involved in your own drama below? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Mark Sanford

The parenthetical reference to Mark Sanford in the following statement has no relevance in an article on Haley.

In a June 2010 interview, Haley said that if she were elected governor and the claims were later validated, she would resign the office (her immediate predecessor as governor, Mark Sanford, had been caught in an extramarital affair with an Argentinian woman, which he eventually admitted to).CFredkin (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He's her successor so it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.104.22 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a bio of Nikki Haley, not Mark Sanford. This phrase is absolutely not relevant.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is also no reference to this in the source provided.

Per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Also: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

This phrase is both contentious and unsourced and should be removed immediately.CFredkin (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of the statement do you contest? That he is (1) "her immediate predecessor as governor," (2) "was caught in an extramarital affair with an Argentinian woman" or that he (3) "eventually admitted to" the affair? I can get you sources for them all, if you'd like. In fact, lucky for me, it is already sourced elsewhere in the article! 108.28.104.22 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(2) & (3) above are not relevant to this WP:BLP, as well as not currently being sourced.CFredkin (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is based off of a statement she was only forced to make in the context of Sanford's issues. Adding those facts add much-needed context to her promise and is therefore clearly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.104.22 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly a plausible interpretation of the situation. Do you have any reliable sourcing that it's factual? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've fully protected to article to encourage discussion here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sanford's affair isn't relevant. This is Haley's bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Press

Interesting, why the information about the comment of Dick Harpootlian, South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman, who predicted that predicted next year’s Democratic standard-bearer would “send Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dick-harpootlian-nikki-haley-90918.html#ixzz2wG0HqxWO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.201.6 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Arzel continues to delete information that was widely reported about Haley's refusal to respond to a reporter's questions. His edits appear to be based on his personal political biases not on objective facts. First he falsely claims WP:SYNTH violations. Then he claims that a story reported in every major news source in the state was reported in only one and uses that false statement as an excuse to delete information. His talk page demonstrates he spends an inordinate amount of time violating Wiki standards for the purpose of promoting a Tea Party agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallertaur (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess there's absolutely nothing going on in South Carolina? In the section on her governorship, you've got a quote from her on low taxes, two sentences on other policies, and then lengthy sections on two minor skirmishes with the press. I'm not sure on what planet that's appropriate. --B (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what planet it's appropriate for a Governor to act so childishly as to refuse to answer the questions from a reporter working for the largest newspaper in the state. Hallertaur (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is appropriate for editors to come here and push their political biases so obviously. You have not multiple times added a section which received almost no coverage outside a minor paper. I provided you links to show that this even received exactly one news story. You have yet to provide any reasoning for why this does not violate WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, your personal attacks on a living person violate WP:NPA and your edit comment violates good faith. Your comment regarding Haley, in particular, show that you are incapable of editing this page from a neutral point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The State )newspaper) is not a "minor paper". It's the largest newspaper in the state where she is Governor, located in the capital of the state. It's ranked as 90 on the top 100 newspapers in the country. It was reported in every other major news source in the state. I've already shown you that yet you ignore those facts. It's not a personal attack to report facts. This was a widely reported and discussed event in the state. She took to her own Facebook page to address it yet you want to act as if it's not newsworthy. It is inappropriate for you to remove things that you simply don't like and make false claims about the material and motives. You do the Tea Party no favor with your dishonest tactics. Hallertaur (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not a member of the Tea Party, and if you make another personal attack against me I will report you. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like UNDUE to me. I've reverted it. Since it has BLP implications, it should be left out while being discussed and not forced back in. WP:RECENTISM might be helpful here. Just because a lot of sources wrote about it, the incident doesn't get an express ticket to inclusion. BTW, where did that 90 out of 100 stat come from? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also support removing the whole "little girl" section for the same reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Little Girl" section is moderately more notable and was covered nationally. I agree that it does not apear to be that notable though. However, this issue recieved ONE news report in "thestate" newspaper and ONE tv report on a local TV station which was then rebroadcast across several local stations within SC. A google news search of the issue shows exactly ONE story regarding this event during the 5 months after the event happened. Hallertaru seems to think that since there are some blogs that mentioned it and that the same story has multiple links on several local tv stations that this equals a lot of stories. However, a simple examination shows that they are all the same exact story linked to a different TV station website. Bascially, for one day this was a news report and that is it. Arzel (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks minor to me. Even "national coverage" doesn't mean it merits inclusion.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So a sitting Governor telling a reporter at a press conference that she won't answer her questions for the sole reason that she didn't like an article about her nepotism and hypocrisy is minor? The largest newspaper in the state is minor? It doesn't matter if it was covered nationally or not. She's the governor of the state and it was covered widely in the state. (And Arzel, get yourself under control please. I'm growing tired of your tactics.) Hallertaur (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a minor incident. So what if she doesn't answer. She's really not required to. As for the "biggest paper in the state"... It really doesn't matter what paper. Nobody is disputing the reliability of the paper or whether or not the incident happened. The dispute is whether or not refusing to answer a question, for whatever reason, is notable. I say no. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the core principles of WP is WP:NPOV, of witch WP:WEIGHT is a function such that we do not give excessive weight to minor incidents. This particular incident, which you feel quite strongly about, received very little coverage. One newspaper ran one story about this. One TV station did one story about it. This story is linked to additional TV stations in SC. This happened over a period of 2 days. Since that time this has received zero coverage anywhere in reliable sources. If the same standard were applied to everything that Nikki Haley has done or said, this article would be unbelievably long. As a side note, would you please comment on the issue and not the editor. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion that it's minor is not based on facts but emotion. Your emotions have no place here. Why do you keep lying and saying it was reported in only one source? It was reported in every major news source in the state. Just because you aren't familiar with it doesn't mean it's minor. The fact that you don't know about a widely reported event about a well known governor is all the more reason it should be included here. Hallertaur (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you presume that just because someone disagrees, they must not know about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a presumption. It's based on his comments. Hallertaur (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with you. Does that mean I don't know what I'm talking about too? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a google news search for the story from July until January. It simply did not receive much coverage, in fact the whole issue regarding her daughter received very little coverage in the media. Now, this is not to say that the left blogosphere did not make a big deal about it...they did. But those are highly biased sources and not considered reliable by our standards. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

++ http://www.wistv.com/story/19341984/governor-haley-refuses-to-answer-reporters-question-at-press-conference http://www.thestate.com/2012/08/22/2409336/haley-refuses-to-answer-reporters.html http://charleston.thedigitel.com/politics/gov-nikki-haley-i-am-not-going-answer-any-your-que-40719-0823 http://palmettopublicrecord.org/2012/08/22/nikki-haley-vs-the-state-round-2/ http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/gov-nikki-haley-vs-the-state-continued-132851.html http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/08/22/3013212/haley-in-myrtle-beach-to-tout.html http://www.wyff4.com/news/columbia-statewide-news/Gov-Haley-to-reporter-I-m-not-going-to-answer-any-of-your-questions/-/9324106/16236368/-/ue6nlr/-/index.html?absolute=true http://www.live5news.com/story/19341984/governor-haley-refuses-to-answer-reporters-question-at-press-conference There are dozens of others that can easily be found with a proper google search. Your claim that the State newspaper is minor newspaper was false. Your statement that it wasn't widely reported was false. Your accusation of the WP:SYNTH violation was false. Your statement that it didn't belong in the category was corrected. So the real question at this point is what's your real motive for censoring this event? Hallertaur (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Three experienced editors have opined that it doesn't belong. So far, I keep seeing you repeat how important that paper is and that it was widely reported. Wide-reporting doesn't equal notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said that "thestate" was minor, I said that the event was minor. It was not widely reported outside of SC for two days. This was a minor blip on the radar that resulted in 2 maybe 3 different stories which were then re-linked in some additional sources. You seem to be confused about multiple stories versus a single reported story having that story rebroadcast without any additional information. Some of the sources you show above are blogs, and most are the wistv report linked back from another tv station. You did have a synthesis violation which you did remove during one of your edits. There is simply no way that this passes WP:WEIGHT with regards to her entire political career, and the fact that it recieved no additional coverage after the 2 days of the "thestate" report shows no long-lasting nature to this. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Trying to force it back in while the consensus is clearly not in favor of it make it look more like an agenda than trying to improve the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Two people hardly make a consensus. Hallertaur (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I count 3. Arzel, User B and me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Wiki has strict policies about controversy section, and this article is in clear violation. Most of this seems unnecessary and unwarranted. Things that have little or no relevance are expounded upon in an apparent attempt to create controversy for political purposes. 1- The fine is relevant to the election section. Agreed it should be in article, disagree it needs its own section.

2- The racist comment really doesn't have relevance here as you can find racist comments about any politician of color by another politician - it certainly doesn't require its own section. This should be removed as its not relevant to her article.

3- This isn't TMZ. These claims are nothing more than hearsay that hasn't been substantiated. Should have no inclusion.

4- Not sure that this statement is relevant enough, but perhaps deserves inclusion in her tenure section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MavsFan28 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We should add a "political positions" section

As governor of an American state, we should have a section about her political positions. We ought to increase the amount of content we have on politicians' stances. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Indian citizenship?

Over at Wikidata, Haley is classified as an American and Indian citizen. According to Indian nationality law, this should be true as long as her father was still an Indian citizen when she was born. Can we confirm or deny this? As a potentially contentious claim about a living person, this should really be sourced, even in a less prominent place like Wikidata. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Vice President

Where does this information come from? Washington Post? Not able to see whether this was opinion or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeyandsugar (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Added an article on this from The Economist, it's appearing pretty widely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Article needs major expansion, update

This: [1] could be a good place to start.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Name in lede, in personal life

I have changed opening to Nikki Haley for the simple reason that this is the name she uses, and that is used by pretty much everyone who writes about her. Of Course her birth name belongs in the article, but since it is not the name actually in use by her or almost anyone else, it should be in the personal section. Where it is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BIRTHNAME. Her name at birth belongs in the led. I'm going to re-add it now.FFM784 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:FFM784, that's fine. It was not the the format that was on the page when I changed it. I suppose that the name in the lede is an aspect of this article that will need ongoing monitoring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nikki Haley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928140112/http://www.nriworld.com/achievers/display.asp?achname=Raj%20Randhawa to http://www.nriworld.com/achievers/display.asp?achname=Raj%20Randhawa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061210185304/http://nikkihaley.com:80/bio.htm to http://www.nikkihaley.com/bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721062027/http://www.governor.sc.gov/about/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.governor.sc.gov/about/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626041058/http://www.thestate.com:80/2010/06/22/1345251/ap-republicans-tap-haley-for-gov.html to http://www.thestate.com/2010/06/22/1345251/ap-republicans-tap-haley-for-gov.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Obamacare

I came to this article to find out what Haley's position on Obamacare is, and whether she expanded Medicaid in her state. WHY ISN'T THAT INFORMATION IN HERE? This confirms my long-standing opinion that the articles in this faux encyclopedia are filled with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.157.175 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that information is missing feel free to edit the article to update and include it.IrishStephen (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nikki Haley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111101213917/http://www.wyff4.com:80/news/29643630/detail.html to http://www.wyff4.com/news/29643630/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100621065507/http://www.thestate.com:80/2010/06/18/1337860/plans-to-work-with-legislators.html to http://www.thestate.com/2010/06/18/1337860/plans-to-work-with-legislators.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussed as VP candidate

I just reverted an editor who had deleted mention of the fact that Haley is being considered as a Republican candidate for VP. Deleting editor gave that the fact that Haley had recently said that she was not thinking of running for VP as reason for deletion. That's not how this works. Note that I am not defending the specific text as it stands, simply asserting that the fact that she has been talked about for months as a potential/likely prospect for VP is a significant reality and belongs in her bio. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Bless your heart

I created the stub "Bless your heart" following Haley's use of the phrase at Donald Trump. Feel free to help with the article's expansion! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Allegation from blogger that he had an affair with Haley

Should the allegation from blogger that he had an affair with Haley really be in this article? There's apparently no evidence and Haley has denied it. It seems very tabloidish. Also, to immediately follow this allegation with text regarding her husband being deployed in Afghanistan seems to be intended to lead the readers to believe this is when the alleged affair took place, even though none of the sources provided suggest this. I think the text regarding allegations from a blogger that he had an affair with Haley should be deleted from the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the text regarding affair allegations from blogger in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons--DynaGirl (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nikki Haley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

About Nikki Haley: Haley is not the first Indian-American Republican state legislator. She's the 2nd. The 1st was Nimi McConigley of Wyoming, who was elected state representative in 1994 and served one term, losing in the 1996 U.S. Senate primary to Mike Enzi.

Last edited at 05:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the "Early life and education" section of this page included a lot of information on the background of Haley's family. I noticed that her father's former occupations before immigrating to the US were listed, however nothing about her mother was mentioned before that time. I was just wondering if it could be possible to find this information and list it? Also, under the "Elections" section, it is mentioned that Larry Koon "had served since 1975" and that he "was the longest-serving member of the House". I think this information needs to be cited. The "Tenure" section of this page seemed quite short compared to the other sections. Is there anything more that could be added to this section? The same goes for the "Potential Vice-Presidential candidacy" section and the "Personal life" section. I was wondering if both of these sections could also have some more information added? Also, the "Potential Vice-Presidential candidacy" section sounds a bit biased when describing Haley as having "high approval ratings". Would it be possible to phrase this in a different way or maybe even omit this in order to keep from seeming biased? Elsieparmar (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Haley

Editors interested enough to be on this page may, or may not, be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haley (South Carolina).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know what ethnicity Michael Haley is? Is he African-American?, or part African-American? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.41.243 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been scouring the internet since reading Nikki had converted from Sikh to Michael's Christian faith. But I find nothing. I'm sorry no one has answered that here. I have seen the write ups of his travel to his inlaw's homeland of India with her and some type of a mix up of his being handed a sword during a religious reading at a Sikh worship of some sort. It seems he may not himself had been familiar with the practices. He would seem to be an Indian himself by the photos. But I would be curious to hear the answer as to his own ethnicity.

My tendency would be to guess at it that he's Indian.

Infobox & navbox

We should not be showing Henry McMaster as Governor-desigante. Haley must first be confirmed by the Senate for the role of US Ambassador to the UN, to take that role. She likely isn't going to resign as governor, unless/until she gets that confirmation. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Is she the nominee?

Is she actually the nominee for the UN post? Is she actually nominated before Trump takes office? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Trump cannot formally nominate anyone for appointment until he takes office. He has merely stated an intention to do so. General Ization ^Talk 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• That was what I was thinking....yet we've changed the info box already to reflect being the nominee. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It is customary practice here on Wikipedia to place official offices into the infobox of individuals who have been nominated to a post. Fewer than 2% of appointments to executive-level positions are rejected by the U.S. Senate, and it is perhaps more uncommon to see an incoming president's nominees rejected. The Office of President-elect has announced that Governor Haley is the President-elect's choice for the position and she will be nominated. To follow precedent on Wikipedia, placing UN Ambass. nominee in the infobox is prudent and acceptable.   Spartan7W §   02:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• And when she is actually nominated, I'd agree, it would be prudent. You know what else is customary here on Wikipedia? Not making incorrect statements in articles. Even you own reply says "...she will be nominated", telling us that she has not, in fact, been nominated. Since she hasn't been nominated, calling her the nominee is factually incorrect, regardless of the straw man 2% number you've cited. (Doesn't matter how many nominees are rejected since she isn't yet a nominee). I get it, you like the topic and want to be proactive. Proactive is good, incorrect information is not.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, neither she or any of Trump's cabinet picks are nominees. They become nominees at 12:00 Noon, 20 January 2017. I'd have no problem with hiding these nominee tags until that date. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out, that these nominations are being shown in the infoboxes of others (see Jeff Sessions) & so this discussion should be expanded to include all such effected articles as Trump continues to make more announcements for his future cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information being shown in other articles doesn't make it acceptable or correct here. I'd agree it should probably be bigger. Where would you suggest the broader discussion take place? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

They should all be consistent, one way or the other, IMHO. WP:United States Government perhaps? not sure. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it's displayed, knowing that that they will be displayed warrants the text being hidden at a minimum rather than making us have to start from the beginning in two months when the rush of anons comes in. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hidden is reasonable. It's not being displayed to most readers. I know it sounds minor, but things can happen in 2 months. It certainly won't hurt us or violate any policy to actually wait until she is nominated. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I've hidden 'nominee' tags at the other articles, for consistency with 'this' article. It's likely these disagreements will continue across the board. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicities and Religions in Infoboxes

I've verified that Ethnicities and Religions have been removed from the Infobox, in compliance with the community-wide RfC decisions regarding Ethnicity in Infoboxes and Religion in Infoboxes. Both ethnicity and religion may be covered encyclopedically in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The religion parameter has not been removed from Template:Infobox_person or from Template:Infobox_officeholder (not yet at least). So, it can be used in infoboxes that meet the criteria, and I believe that this one does. And it should not have been removed from this article until consensus has been found to do so. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is incorrect, on several counts. The community-wide RfC decisions regarding Ethnicity in Infoboxes and Religion in Infoboxes were to remove the fields from the Infoboxes, by clear community consensus. So yes, "consensus has been found to do so." Some templates, as you have observed, have not yet had their fields completely disabled, because we are still verifying that the Infobox content in articles is properly present in the article body, and we are manually removing the fields as we verify each article.

As a side note, Haley isn't famous for her religion and her ethnicity - she's only famous for her politics - so even before the community decided to remove the fields, they shouldn't have been used. For example, regarding religion, rather than it being a defining characteristic of her public notability, it is something personal and private unless she is pressured to answer publicly about it while campaigning:

She did not mention that she and her husband, Michael Haley, wed in two ceremonies, one Sikh and the other at St. Andrew’s by-the-Sea, a Methodist church in Hilton Head, where Mr. Haley’s parents live. Back then, though, Ms. Haley seemed comfortable publicly embracing both religions. Nowadays, she talks of having “converted to Christianity” before her wedding in 1996, when she was baptized at St. Andrew’s. She has also changed the wording on her Web site under the heading, “Question: Is Nikki a Christian?” from an answer that references “Almighty God” to one that references “Christ.” “I still find these things to be very private,” she said about the change. “However, when people question you, you do have to answer to them.” Tim Pearson, her campaign manager, said that the campaign grew more specific in response to questions. “We got a lot of e-mails and whatnot from people saying, ‘She’s talking about God, but what God?’ ” he said.
— New York Times

And while she is one of the very few Indian-American Sikhs elected to public office in the United States, the |ethnicity= field shouldn't have been used because that also was not a defining characteristic of per public notability. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about finding consensus on this page as to whether it should be removed according to template instructions. That's what we follow. This whole thing of wanting to remove a parameter from articles that have been there for so many years is so ridiculously unnecessary, when having it there does no harm (and is actually helpful for some). And, if mentioning her religion violates WP:BLP (which I don't think it does) then it should be removed from the entire article, not just the infobox. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about finding consensus on this page as to whether it should be removed according to template instructions. That's what we follow. --Musdan77

Per Wikipedia Policy (not just a "suggestion", "essay", "guideline" or "helpful tip"): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

If you wish to override community consensus and use the reserved Infobox template fields for uses that are not permitted, you can present the community with a new RfC and formally request it.

... having it there does no harm (and is actually helpful for some)

That indicates a fundamental ignorance of the lengthy consideration and many reasons presented for removing the problematic fields from Infoboxes. You really should spend some time to review the RfCs, especially the well-considered arguments, if you intend to re-open another community-wide RfC to give you permission to use reserved Infobox fields for reasons other than what is allowed.

As noted above in the NYTimes, Haley is like many (most?) people who consider their religious beliefs a mostly personal and private matter, and certainly not something for which they strive to be famous enough to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia tends to side with the living article subjects (like Haley) over the wishes of enthusiastic Wikipedia editors, when it comes to handling sensitive subject matter in our articles. Please do provide reliably sourced, encyclopedic coverage of her ethnicity and religious beliefs in the body of the article -- but leave the neon-light billboarding of ethnicity and religion in Infoboxes to the subjects which qualify for its use, like, for example, the 'Jimmys' of the world (Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, Jim Bakker, etc.). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You keep twisting (or reading things into) what I say! I didn't say to "override community consensus"! I said to "find consensus as to whether it should be removed according to template instructions." It's not up to you (or any one person) to decide to go to an article (which you have never edited before) and remove something that you have determined that it goes against "community consensus".

I have read much of the RfC (there's no way I can read all of it – I do have a life), but I fail to see a good reason for such a radical change. I can understand it on an individual basis – if there was edit warring – but not over the whole site.

And then you ignore other important things that I said. Please explain why it's fine to be in the body but not the infobox (which is supposed to be a reflection of the main article). I think that you (and those who agree with you) have it backwards; it's redundant/superfluous to put the religion of famous religious leaders in the infobox, but is helpful to give it for those who are well-known for their religion, but are not clergy. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You keep twisting (or reading things into) what I say! I didn't say to "override community consensus"!

Please read again, but more carefully. I never "twisted" your words or claimed you said that. I said: Per Wikipedia Policy: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

And then you ignore other important things that I said. Please explain why it's fine to be in the body but not the infobox...

Please read again, but more carefully, and you'll see that I have never "ignored" what you have said. If you'll recall, I recommended: "You really should spend some time to review the RfCs, especially the well-considered arguments...". But if you'd rather ask others to look it up and explain it to you, because you are uniquely busy "having a life"... maybe I'll explain it again at one of our other concurrent discussions. We're straying from Haley-specific article improvement discussion, and into site-wide Infobox convention.

...is helpful to give it for those who are well-known for their religion, but are not clergy.

Haley is neither of those. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What good does it do to repeat exactly what you wrote in your previous comment – and again in bold?? That's about annoying as it gets (the only thing worse would be it it was in all caps). And stop talking to people with a know-it-all attitude, like you're always right and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot! Once again, you make false accusations and not respond to things I say. Your whole last entry was worthless, adding nothing to the discussion – rather making it worse. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

What good does it do to repeat, you ask? The answer is simple. When I see that a fellow editor is having difficulty understanding something, I will sometimes "repeat" previously mentioned policies or explanations to help facilitate a more thorough understanding. That you find that annoying is unfortunate; you shouldn't take it personally. You've recently had several of your misperceptions corrected, which can indeed be a frustrating experience. I suppose it can certainly feel like everyone correcting or disagreeing with you is a "know-it-all", or you may feel like "an idiot", but you must know that neither is true. Of course I'll never "make false accusations" or "not respond to things you say", but if such lashing out works for you in some beneficial way, feel free to vent.

I think everything has been covered here. The community has decided overwhelmingly remove the problematic fields from Infoboxes. Links to the community discussions and decisions have been provided. We've discussed your suggestion about trying to override that community consensus locally, against Policy. Your concern that template documentation has not yet been completely updated has been addressed. If you have anything else to add to the discussion (aside from more comments about your fellow editors), I'm all ears. Pax vestra revertetur ad vos, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"Pro-life" or "anti-abortion"?

This entry uses the term "pro-life" rather than than "anti-abortion". I changed it to "anti-abortion" but it was reverted.

"Anti-abortion" is a neutral term. "Pro-life" is a term used almost exclusively by the anti-abortion movement. According to Anti-abortion_movements#Terminology, the Associated Press uses "anti-abortion". So you will almost never find a WP:RS that uses the AP style book using the term "pro-life" in its own voice. The exception that proves the rule is NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2010/03/in_the_abortion_debate_words_m_1.html

NPR may be alone among major news organizations in how it identifies people who support or oppose abortion.

I checked with NBC, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer and not one of them uses the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life."

"We call them pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights because it's the right to abortion that we're talking about," said Linda Mason, CBS senior vice president of news and in charge of standards. "What does pro-life mean? That leaves people scratching their heads." ...

... NPR's website follows the AP style guide, which says to use "anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice," according to Susan Vavrick, senior copy editor for npr.org.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post advise staff to avoid the terms "pro-choice," "pro-life" and "right-to-life" because those terms are coined by advocates in the abortion controversy and should be viewed as loaded terms, according to the newspapers' stylebooks.

"The political and emotional heat surrounding abortion gives rise to a range of polemical language," reads the Times stylebook. "For the sake of neutrality, avoid pro-life and pro-choice except in quotations from others." The Times uses "abortion rights advocate" or "anti-abortion." ....

NPR should stick to more neutral terms — such as anti-abortion and abortion rights — rather than continue to use the loaded language embedded in pro-choice and pro-life.

NPR finally made that change. http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2010/03/npr_changes_abortion_language.html

I agree with this argument. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV. In the universal opinion of news sources, "anti-abortion" is the neutral term, and we should use it. "Pro-life" is used exclusively by anti-abortion sources. In Wikipedia, or anyplace else, it indicates the viewpoint of the writer.

I'd like to see whether there is consensus for using "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life." --Nbauman (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Your first claim was that "no neutral news sources" said pro-life. That was easily proven to be false. The AP style guide is a suggestion that some outlets follow and some don't. Yes, some advocates do use the term, but I easily demonstrated that other reliable sources not only use the term, they'll put it in a headline. Additionally, I intentionally used a foreign source because you seem to be taking a narrowly American POV on this issue. Now you say "universal opinion of news sources". Once again, you say something that is easily proven untrue.Clearly, sources like the Washington Times [2], network TV affiliates [3][4], foreign sources [5][6][7], the National Review [8] are all comfortable using the term in headlines and articles. Even the AP doesn't avoid the term, as evidenced here [9]. In the end, trying to re-write the reliable sources is arguably POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Niteshift36. I reverted Nbauman because AP and all the rest can say whatever they want to say. It is their right, but what the person herself considers the correct term is the most important opinion. Haley uses the word "pro-life" and it is not appropriate for an editor to just simply come along and substitute the term they seem to like better. Also, the New York Times used the term "pro-life" by stating flat out that Haley called herself "pro-life". Enough said.--ML (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Religious categories

There is a user who keeps deleting her from two religious categories. Nikki Haley identifies herself as both a Sikh and a Methodist. She totally fits in both categories. Thats what Wikipedia states about it: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." We can't pretend that her religious beliefs are irrelevant to her, since there are very few Sikhs in American politics.Mistico (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a user who keeps attempting to categorize a living person, against policy, as someone famous because of her religious beliefs. (She's not. Her notability comes from her politics/government.)

We can't pretend that her religious beliefs are irrelevant to her... --Mistico

You appear to have misunderstood Wikipedia's BLP policies regarding categorizing. Whether her religious beliefs are relevant or irrelevant "to her" is not a factor here. The Wikipedia policy requirement is that "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources", and Haley's religious beliefs don't meet that requirement. Reliable published sources do not consistently and routinely describe her as "Methodist Sikh Haley"; instead they refer to her as "Governor Haley" or "Representative Haley", because that is why she is notable, and that is why she has a Wikipedia article.

If you are still confused about when it is appropriate to brand or label a living person with Wikipedia categories regarding Ethnicity, Religion, Gender, or other sensitive categories, you should review our guidance on that:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (See also WP:NONDEF.)

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity???

Why would you put her ethnicity up? Does Barack Obama's page say "kenyan/irish". NO. Removed.

Kenyan Irish isn't an ethnicity. It's obvious he's African American. Re-added Kasbee (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nikki Haley is of East Indian descent and, therefore, Caucasoid or "white" which means she is not the first "non-white" governor of South Carolina (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Caucasian_race). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinswald (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Caucasian race#Usage in the United States explains the apparent inconsistancy, and per US usage, she is "non-white". - BilCat (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nikki Haley is a North Indian, not an East Indian; Punjab is in the north, not the east. As for Indians being "Caucasoid," google Akuonuo Khezhie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.120.255 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just in case someone is confused by this (as the original IP poster was), "East Indian" is used to indicate the country of India in Asia - as opposed to the West Indies island group in the Western Hemisphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.17.29 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikki Haley is “Non-White”. She is East Indian/Asian. People from all parts of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal are East Indians/Asian. As per US usage, East Indians are Non-White. East Indian does not mean eastern part of India; it means Indians who are from the eastern part of globe. To understand it clearly, think of West Indian. West Indian does not mean western part of India; West Indian means Indian people from the western part of the globe (The Caribbean). Nikki Haley is a “Paki” (south Asian Indian) woman and her ethnicity is Non-White (East Indian/Asian) September-19-2012 User:Look4171

Incorrect. A "Paki" is a native of Pakistan; not India. The two groups generally don't like each other, so this is not the kind of mistake you want to make. 208.104.52.233 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)J271

Most Asian-Indians belonging to the so called upper-castes, especially Punjabis, are both ethnically and linguistically termed as Indo-European peoples(scientifically). Now let's forget about the scientific part. Regardless of the scietific evidence, South Asians are given the right to self-identify their raciality in the U.S.Census(although the default census classification is Asian), due to the diversity in the region. Since she has registered/self-identified as white in the voter registration, i guess it stands. By the way Indian-Americans(Asian Indians) were mostly classified as white(by law) until 1923, after which it has been Asian - which has continued to the present for the purpose of demographics. Hari7478 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hari7478, Have decided to educate you. So called upper-castes, incl brahmins, come in all colors such as this or this and this. They also come in all shapes (i.e, sizes), a range of facial features, and various cultural traditions. However, they chant mantras in Sanskrit and hence all claim to be of Indo-European linguistic origin. Hence, geneticists classify them under Indo-European category. It does not mean they are "scientifically" Indo-European people. An upper-caste individual, incl a brahmin man, may find himself genetically clustering with mundari, or dravidian, or sino-tibetan speaking tribes and castes instead of indo-european. Culturally also am not sure if this looks Indo-European to anybody. There are a good many racists out there (including educated people), who juxtapose eugenics and pass off their casteist-racist theories as 'genetics'. Some supplant linguistic association with race / ethnicity. Everyone has prejudices and the best place for them are forums where one can pass off pet POVs (or BS) under the guise of 'science' or 'genes'. It is not a good idea to tinker with wiki or proper articles if one has no understanding of certain topics. It is a very bad idea to pass off or attribute one's own ethnic / racist ideas to sources which convey no such thing. Best wishes. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

She is ethnically an Indian, or South Asian. Her father's family name Randhawa is Jat clan. The Jats are a farming/landowning community in Punjab, one of the largest communities in Punjab and nearby region. Malaiya (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need "Indian-American" in the intro?

This is the same as saying in Barack Obama's intro calling him "Kenyan-American" and in DJT's calling "German-American".

Why do we need this reference? I don't see the inherent purpose.

Ueutyi (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This is an encyclopedia. It is a center of information, not tailored to your particular POV. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially in this case it is relevant: second-generation immigrant as ambassador; non European in the South; minority Republican office-holder. It's an important part of her bio that has affected her career. (And Donald Trump is the son of a Scottish immigrant.) --180.190.70.6 (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald has mixed ancestry. Donald Trump had a German-American father, and a Scottish-American mother. Fred Trump was born an American citizen, son to a German immigrant from the Kingdom of Bavaria. Mary Anne MacLeod Trump migrated to the United States in 1930 and was naturalized in 1942. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

After being alerted to blatant abuse of this page, I went through and removed at least three instances of vandalism where edits were made biased against Israel (comparing to Nazis, responsible for her appointment etc) using weasel words such as "many believe" "regressive policies". Furthermore the edits were referenced to either dead pages or articles that in no way were related to any of the claims made. If this continues, I suggest page be locked for vandalism. Eframgoldberg (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eframgoldberg: if you want to request page protection, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Marquardtika (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

But an anti-UN statement from senate.gov is OK. The US govt is automatically a reliable source in neutral, unbiased Wikipedia. Keith McClary (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thanks I didnt remove any content that was cited from senate.gov. I left a vandalism warning on the user's page (6 day old member). If it happens again then I would request the page be protected but hopefully the warning works. Eframgoldberg (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course you wouldn't, senate.gov is 100% pro-Zionist. Keith McClary (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the edits were put back by the same user while not logged in, and deleted again by another member. I think the page might need temporary protection. Eframgoldberg (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Biography

Where on the page do we put a link to her bio: Can’t is Not an Option?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you could add it under the "Personal life" section. Alternatively, you could start a new section entitled "Bibliography", or add the parameter "notable works" to her infobox. Marquardtika (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotica International

Alerting editors here to question of whether Exotica International should be merged here or stay as a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:COATRACK

I'm concerned that this material is violating WP:COATRACK:

"In a 2014 censorship controversy, the South Carolina legislature initially voted to cut the funding of the College of Charleston by $52,000, the cost of a summer reading program, because a freshman introductory reading program had included Fun Home, a lesbian-themed autobiography by Alison Bechdel. The legislature decided to restore the money and redirected it towards the study of American history. Haley opted not to veto the measure."

The first source, The Post & Courier, doesn't even mention Haley. The second source, the Chronicle of Higher Education, says Haley "opted not to veto the measure." This was a legislative issue. Gubernatorial vetoes are pretty rare so it's not exceptional that she chose not to veto something. I think this material would make more sense in the pages of the South Carolina legislators who crafted and voted on the legislation. But including it here and tying it to Haley seems like a stretch. Marquardtika (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think you're on the right track. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. It's been over a week and I haven't seen an argument for why this material should stay in the article, so I will remove it. Marquardtika (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I was busy for a week so I couldn't comment on it. The reason why it belongs is that many WP:RS reported it. That establishes WP:WEIGHT on Wikipedia, which is the critera that decides whether it goes into an article. Many of the WP:RS described the decision as something that Haley was responsible for, eg

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/s-c-governor-upholds-penalties-for-gay-themed-books-in-state-budget/79865

June 16, 2014

by Andy Thomason

S.C. Governor Upholds Penalties for Gay-Themed Books in State Budget.

Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has opted not to veto a measure in the state’s 2014-15 budget that would penalize two universities by a total of nearly $70,000 for assigning books with gay themes, reports The State, a newspaper in Columbia, S.C.

So Haley was the subject of that story.

Furthermore, WP:COATRACK is merely an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:WEIGHT is a policy. Guidelines and policies override essays.

So I think it goes back in and unless someone comes up with a valid reason for keeping it out, I'm going to restore it. --Nbauman (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been awhile on this but I need to point out that if you are going to talk guidelines and then in the same sentence link a blog after mentioning WP:RS then you need to read it.. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person". WP:BLPSPS Contentcreator (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on the word "blog" in the URL. This is an official column at the journal. It's just as legitimate as a column in a newspaper. When blogs began, they were just personal diaries. Then they became a format also used by online newspapers, magazines, official company and business websites, and official websites for politicians. So the connotations have changed and we must now differentiate which type of "blog" we're dealing with. The types of blogs we avoid are those by people who are not subject experts, IOW the ordinary type of personal websites/diaries people have. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The sourcing we have is clear that this was a legislative action. It was conceived of, written, and passed by the SC legislature. Haley's involvement, as governor, was limited to not vetoing it, which as I said above, is not at all exceptional. It is indeed undue WP:WEIGHT to have a paragraph here about this in Haley's article. She was not the prime mover here and was tangentially involved. The sourcing confirms this by primarily reporting upon the legislature's actions regarding this event. Marquardtika (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You say tomato ....

User:General Ization, I hope this edit satisfies honour all round. I came across this disagreement between you and another editor by accident. The disagreement is partly about the difference between a noun and a verb and partly about the use of present tense "are immigrants/emigrants".

What Haley's parents did X years ago was emigrate (leave their country of birth), what they immediately became, and are now AFAIK is immigrants (people living in a country which is not their birth place). I hope honour is satisfied all around by using the verb as above. If you use the noun and present tense (are emigrants), you imply that they have left, or are leaving, the US. It would be equally correct to say "were emigrants from India", but not using either noun seemed simpler. Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly good by me. General Ization ^Talk 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump grooming as successor

I've been bold and added details from Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, which appear on pages 305-306 in the paperback edition printed in Australia. Please change my citation if pagination is different in the United States edition. The relevant section is in the final chapter, titled 'Epilogue: Bannon and Trump', and reads as follows:

By October, however, many on the president's staff took particular notice of one of the few remaining Trump opportunists: Nikki Haley, the UN ambassador. Haley - "as ambitious as Lucifer," in the characterization of one member of the senior staff - had concluded that Trump's tenure would last, at best, a single term, and that she, with requisite submission, could be his heir apparent. Haley had courted and befriended Ivanka, and Ivanka had brought her into the family circle, where she had become a particular focus of Trump's attention, and he of hers. Haley, as had become increasingly evident to the wider foreign policy and national security team, was the family's pick for secretary of state after Rex Tillerson's inevitable resignation. (Likewise, in this shuffle, Dina Powell would replace Haley at the UN.)

The president had been spending a notable amount of private time with Haley on Air Force One and was seen to be grooming her for a national political future. Haley, who was much more of a traditional Republican, one with a pronounced moderate streak - a type increasingly known as a Jarvanka Republican - was, evident to many, being mentored in Trumpian ways. The danger here, offered one senior Trumper, "is that she is so much smarter than him".

(The term 'Jarvanka Republican' refers to those of a similar political persuasion to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump). I'll leave it up to others to debate whether Fire and Fury is considered a reliable source. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

That's not her leave date that's her resignation letter date she is still in office Don't jump to that she left she is still in the Job President Trump will be speeking about it at 10:30am eastern Time in The Office. Wait till all the Fax is in. Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Haley's resignation takes effect at the end of 2018; she is still UN Ambassador — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberMurph (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Haley's 2019 defense of the Confederate flag

Given that there is already a section outlining her views on the Confederate flag, it is incomprehensible why her 2019 view on the issue should not be included. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Given that the section outlining Haley's views on the Confederate flag falls within the larger section on her tenure as governor, it absolutely makes sense that something Haley said nearly three years after she left office would not be included in that section. If you think this sentence is important, why not find a source that is more reliable than the op-ed you cited and figure out a way to place the material somewhere else on the page (not in the section on Haley's governorship)? SunCrow (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) It would be no problem at all finding many RS that covered her statement. The source that I did add was authored by three political scientists, and there was absolutely nothing controversial or contested about the text I added from that source. (2) There is absolutely no problem with including an update on her position given that there is an entire sub-section about it. (3) It's bizarre to include content on the same topic all over a Wikipedia article but if that's what's going to prevent you from reverting the content, I can do that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The more I look at this sentence, the more objectionable I find it:

"In December 2019, she defended the Confederate flag, saying that some people in South Carolina saw the flag as a representation of 'service and sacrifice and heritage' before the flag was hijacked by the white supremacist mass killer Dylann Roof."

This sentence doesn't accurately reflect Haley's comments. Here is what she said:

"'You had what was just horrible. Twelve people who went and did what so many South Carolinians do every Wednesday night — they went to Bible study. But on this night someone else showed up and he didn't look like them, he didn't act like them and he didn't sound like them. And they didn't throw him out. They didn't call the cops. They pulled up a chair and they prayed with him for an hour. And when they bowed their heads in that last prayer, he began to shoot,' Haley recounted."

"'South Carolina fell to her knees when this happened. This is one of the oldest African-American churches. These 12 people were amazing people, they love their church, they love their family, they love their community.'"

"'The killer, Dylann Roof, "comes out with this manifesto, holding the Confederate flag, and had just hijacked everything that people thought of," she continued. “We don't have hateful people in South Carolina. There's always the small minority that's always gonna be there, but, you know, people saw it as service, and sacrifice, and heritage, but once he did that there was no way to overcome it..."'"

Partial video is available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nikki-haley-defends-comments-about-confederate-flag-n1097286.

In light of the minor controversy surrounding the comments, I propose that this material be modified and expanded to read as follows: "In December 2019, Haley asserted that some South Carolinians saw the Confederate flag as a representation of 'service and sacrifice and heritage', but that white supremacist mass killer Dylann Roof had 'hijacked' their understanding of the flag in his 2015 Charleston church attack. Haley was criticized for her remarks by former RNC Chair Michael Steele and historian Kevin A. Lavin; South Carolina Rep. J.A. Moore remarked that Haley's 'continued use of this tragedy for political reasons' was 'disgusting'". In response, Haley said, 'One set of people saw the Confederate flag as pain and racism and slavery. The other set of people saw it not as racism but as heritage and sacrifice and service. If I had gone and condemned those people that saw it that way, that flag never would have come down'".

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

How to use Wikipedia

I wanted to know how you know what to put in on people’s Wikipedia pages. Suchi Sobel (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sikh?

Haley "identifies as Christian", so how is she the "first Sikh American governor"? Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point. That is uncited and should be removed. In fact, the references in the article indicate she is a convert from Sikhism to Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Past tense?

What was the rationale behind changing "is a potential contender" to "was a potential contender"? Unless I'm wrong, she has not ruled out a run and is still a strong speculative candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mierria (talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

The last sentence of the lead says, “she is the first woman of color to run for the Republican nomination for U.S. president.” This does not seem very significant because it’s not much of an achievement, as any woman of color could have very easily done it. Additionally, it’s false. Isabell Masters made several unsuccessful attempts at winning the Republican primary elections for President. In 1996 she was on the ballot in Oklahoma and won 1,052 votes (Bob Dole won by a large margin). See Ballot Access News, Oklahoma State Election Board 1996 Republican Race for President Archived July 9, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. I will remove this insignificant (and false) info from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dustin Brown

Is there some reason this case is not listed on her page? Given that this has to do with the rights of ethnic persons, the story is relevant.

https://hodgsonlawoffices.com/2020/02/custody-battle-continues-in-cherokee-adoption-case/ 2604:2D80:A48F:300:1D88:5A4B:D414:C820 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

User:Sandizer has started a “political positions” section. That could be fine, but we already had several subsections entitled “policies” in the various pertinent sections. So there is a lot of redundancy and repetition now. We should decide which way is better, instead of doing them both. Some political positions are more relevant to her job in the state legislature, while others are more pertinent to her governorship, or UN position, or her current campaign. My preference would be to put a political positions subsection under her 2024 campaign section, and start it by saying something like “In addition to positions and policies articulated earlier in her career….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. The 2017-8 foreign policy positions are particularly difficult because there are so many of them, they are so detailed, and most importantly, we can't really tell whether she still holds them because she was acting in a subordinate capacity as UN Ambassador which required her to represent the Trump administration positions faithfully to the exclusion of her own possible dissent, which I alluded to instead of summarizing them. I think maybe one or two weren't from 2017-8. Anyway, your suggestion will address that problem. But it's important to keep in mind that our major candidate articles almost always have a top-level political positions section.

Two other things: I see her campaign site brags about her positions on school choice and charter schools (she's strongly for them) which is the only such issue she touts which isn't in the section (other than gun rights, on which she's a mainstream Republican as far as I can tell), so if anyone can find a good independent source for them, they should probably be in there. Having said that, there are probably a lot of relatively unpopular positions we are also missing, especially around labor rights and unions. She was extremely pro-business to the point of being called anti-family on those issues, and it seems pretty skewed to omit that criticism. Sandizer (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will implement this idea tomorrow, in view of your comments, since we agree it’s a good idea. I don’t think it’s a problem to have policies or positions as top-level subheaders instead of full headers. For example, it looks like neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris has a full header for positions or policies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Biden has Joe Biden#Political positions at the top level, but you're right that Harris's Kamala Harris#Tenure and political positions is under her Senate section. Sandizer (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, you’re right about Biden. See Gavin Newsom. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)