User talk:CorbieVreccan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Veteran Editor


This user wishes that they could leave Wikipedia, but doesn't seem able to do so...
The Signpost
27 May 2015
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

If you are new here, and feeling angry, please read Tips for the Angry New User before explaining to us how terribly wrong and messed up Wikipedia is. Would you believe, we probably already know? You can also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia culture via these policy links ->
and helpful essays ^^^

If you've been an admin for a while, and are feeling burnt out, take a step back and take some deep breaths, and don't forget to WP:CHILL

What's goin' on...[edit]


The licensing of the image is 100% fine. Also, even if it wasn't, it'd just get deleted on commons and would also be removed from wikipedia by that bot.

The purpose of the image is to add some life in the article. Also, what was wrong with the text changes? I made the lead longer and created a more specific heading Tetra quark (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the licensing from flickr has been checked. I'm still not sure I like it for that article. The changes you made just duplicated the first sentence from the first section; it was redundant. Let's discuss changes to the article on the article talk page, not individual's pages. Thanks. - CorbieV 23:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Elizabeth Warren's Native American scandal[edit]

We have a big problem on this page regarding NPOV coverage of the Native American scandal. Three indisputable (and RS-documented) facts related to that scandal keep being deleted without explanation. 1) The fact that Warren listed herself as a "minority" in the AALS law directories, rather than as a Native American (the form did not specify which race one was, only whether one was a minority or non-minority). 2) The AALS law directories were used by law schools for the specific purpose of recruiting minority professors 3) That Warren stopped identifying as a racial minority in the directories immediately after she earned tenure at Harvard Law School.

These facts are all exceedingly well sourced. (For example, see this Washington Post investigation) But they keep being removed. Worse, those who remove the RS content refuse to provide a specific reason for their changes, despite my repeated request for specifics. They only offer vague concerns about "NPOV" and "BLP." (See the talk page, as well as the edit summaries of those who are reverting my changes.) They are not just on the wrong side of a policy dispute; they are engaged in tendentious editing, which is a violation of policy. For this reason, I am bringing the issue to your attention. Steeletrap (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the current discussion of the Native American issue from the Warren page:

: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry.[49][50] According to Warren and her brothers, they grew up "listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage".[51][52][53][54] Harvard Law School had added her to a list of minority professors in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had done so until she read about it in a newspaper.[55][56][57] While the New England Historical Genealogical Society has no documentary proof that either confirms or denies that Warren has Cherokee ancestors,[52][58] the Oklahoma Historical Society said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration.[59] This issue became the focus of election coverage in the media for several weeks, during which time members of the Cherokee Nation protested her claims and questioned how it influenced her employers while her opponents demanded more scrutiny.[49] Colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she had worked have publicly stated that she did not receive preferential treatment.[52][56][57]"

This paragraph is biased. It omits the fact that one was only able to list oneself as white or minority in the directories. And it fails to note the significance of the directories/what they were used for (Per the WaPo source, identifying and recruiting minority professors). Finally, the paragraph neglects to mention that Warren's political opponents accused her of credentials fraud.
The paragraph is also poorly written and unclear. Because the paragraph neglects to report the (inconclusive but substantial and compelling) evidence that Warren sought to benefit from false claims of Native American heritage, it fails to convey to the reader what the controversy was about. Steeletrap (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a mess. Wikipedia process is failing on that article. While including the information about sovereignty issues and ethnic fraud makes that section disproportionately large for the article, the answer is not to censor the section, but rather flesh out other sections more. For such a high-profile person, the article could use a bit of expansion, anyway. Unfortunately, those who care about accurate coverage of this ongoing issue are in a marked minority - both on and off-Wiki. There is a concerted effort to disappear this. The shorter version of the section is in no way a consensus version; it's simply what was there after tendentious, slo-mo edit-warring by those who want this whitewashed. Even WP Countering Systemic Bias has been no help, as most simply don't understand the issue. Others who do understand are even more determined to censor it. - CorbieV 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Sheree Beasley[edit]

Hi. Could you give Murder of Sheree Beasley some tender love and care? Paul Austin (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)