Talk:Nikki Haley

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinswald (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)J271Reply

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)Reply

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)MayasutraReply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
• I'd also support removing the whole "little girl" section for the same reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

++ 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&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=wyffnews4 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

(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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply