Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand

Ancestry

In reply to recent vandalism, I'd like to find and add reliable sources about Gillibrand's ancestry. Her maternal grandmother, Polly Noonan, was an Irish American who claimed some Native American ancestry. Her paternal grandfather is alleged to have been born in Austria. There were claims, when she was appointed Senator, that she was "part Jewish". Can anyone help? Bearian (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New picture for Kirsten Gillibrand's page

Hi, my name is Todd Beeton, I'm the Web Director for Senator Gillibrand's campaign. I'd like to replace the picture of her on the Wikipedia page with the following:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40091619@N03/5008042993/sizes/m/

How do I go about doing that?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd Beeton (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference list

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PROTECT IP, voting record

I reverted the removal of all references to PROTECT IP, and I deleted that material from Thomas.gov, before I reviewed the edit history. Now I see it was the subject of an edit war.

An anonymous editor said that the PROTECT IP Act was the most reported-on issue of the year. Does anybody disagree with that?

I deleted that information dump from Thomas.gov because Wikipedia is written for the average informed person (not the average congressional aide), and I can't imagine any normal Wikipedia user ever getting through that list. I'd like to see a good discussion of the legislation Gillibrand supported, good and bad, but this is merely a list of titles and you can't tell what the bills actually do. It violates the guideline WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It also violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because it creates a list of legislation from primary sources. It would be more in keeping with Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:RS, to quote commentary from WP:RS, pro and con, on her positions.

I also do not understand why opensecrets.org is a partisan or WP:POV organization. I've seen them quoted by sources on the left, the right, and unclassifiable by those categories, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and New England Journal of Medicine. If you want to delete them, could you explain?

It seems to me that identifying Gillibrand's campaign contributors from opensecrets.org or a similar web site is relevant, objective information. It certainly would be acceptable to quote a summary of her contributions from opensecrets.org sourced to a WP:RS.

If you are involved in this editing, I suggest you read WP:HELP more carefully so you will be able to justify your edits and you will be less likely to be reverted. --Nbauman (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The most reported-on issue of the year? 2012? Twenty days into the year, with Wikimedia having dropped all pretense of neutrality with a widely publicized first-ever political protest shutdown, the act may be the most reported-on at the moment, but Wikipedia is (still, AFAIK) not news, nor is it a crystal ball, so it's a bit early to name the most reported-on issue of 2012. It certainly didn't hold that distinction for 2011.

Yes, the information from THOMAS could have been formatted for easier reading. But it used exactly the same source (singular) as the line about PIPA; if naming all the bills she sponsored or co-sponsored is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, then choosing one bill of particular interest to an editor out of over 200 is equally WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and significantly more WP:POV. And for the record, there was no "removal of all references to PROTECT IP"; it was there, given equal weight with other bills she co-sponsored. Since there were no secondary sources saying the bill was of more significance to her biography or more accurately indicated some particular view(s) she holds, than the other bills, or that her co-sponsorship is more significant to this bill than that of the other 39 co-sponsors, greater attention to this bill than others is seriously WP:UNDUE.

I also can't find where anybody said "opensecrets.org is a partisan or WP:POV organization". The only use of "POV" was in regard to the synthesis involved in placing a comment about contributions from representatives of one particular industry, cherry-picked from opensecrets.org's table of 20 interest areas, immediately following the statement about being a co-sponsor of the bill. This is not only synthesis; it treads extremely close to the line of WP:BLPVIO with the obvious implication that she sold her support for campaign contributions – ignoring the fact that her campaign also received over $300,000 from the computer and Internet sector, strong opponents of PIPA. But the counter-post listing contribution amounts from all of the top 20 sectors was also deleted.

Basically, without secondary sources describing why Gillibrand and PIPA are particularly significant to each other, there is no reason to include mention of this specific bill. Beyond that, without secondary sources discussing a relationship between her position on the bill and campaign contributions received, there is no reason to mention campaign contributions from a single sector to the exclusion of all others, notwithstanding an anon-IPs ES comment that as "a NY resident, check the IP, this is vital for us to know." Fat&Happy (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your revert of me on this one, Nbauman. First, your content is in the wrong section. Gillibrand doesn't have a political viewpoint that can be called "PIPA". She seems to support the idea of cutting down on online piracy. Even so, it doesn't exactly fit part of the Gillibrand Doctrine overall (as opposed to her continued support for gay rights, women in the workforce/gov't, being prochoice and generally in favor of healthcare reform). Second, if anything, this content belongs in the section Tenure under her Senate service. Is it worth noting? Yep, I agree it is. Does it deserve to be that long? Nope, a sentence, maybe two max. Otherwise this is clearly a vio of WP:UNDUE. I would suggest you post a draft addition below and request comments on it before adding any more content about PIPA into the article. upstateNYer 04:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

upstateNYer, Fat&Happy objected that there weren't enough sources to support this text, so I added more WP:RSs to the text.

Whether there is something called "the Gillibrand Doctrine", or whether PROTECT IP fits into "the Gillibrand Doctrine", seems to be your personal opinion. I didn't see any WP:RS use that phrase. You seem to be saying that because she is liberal on other issues, and this is a consesrvative or pro-business issue, it doesn't fit in. That's your personal opinion, but you can't delete well-sourced controversial material because you don't think it fits into Gillibrand's larger policies.

WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

Objections to Gillibrand's position on PROTECT IP has been published prominently by many WP:RS, several of which I cited, all of which you deleted. (You merely linked to a primary source, rather than reliable secondary sources, as WP:RS requires. So as it stands, the article has no WP:RS.)

2,000 people demonstrated in front of her New York office, which got extensive coverage. PROTECT IP was one of the biggest Internet stories in the last 12 months. Wikipedia closed for a day, Google put black bars on its front page, etc.

Therefore this article should discuss the PROTECT IP issue in proportion to the coverage, which was extensive.

It's not enough to say "Gillibrand is a sponsor of the controversial PROTECT IP Act, which would restrict access to web sites judged to be infringing copyrights." The WP:RSs reported that, like other supporters, she received an unprecedented negative response. Under WP:UNDUE, the WP article should reflect that "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

Another problem with your edit is that in violation of WP:NPOV it merely states that the bill is controversial, without explaining what the controversy is, and without even linking to WP:RSs that explain what the controversy is.

If you want to delete it, you have to explain (1) why this is not in proportion to the prominence of these views in WP:RSs (2) why you're complying with WP:NPOV if you delete all references to viewpoints pro and con, and (3) how you're complying with WP:RS if you delete all secondary sources. --Nbauman (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why you're not conforming to WP:UNDUE:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis mine)

Your content, while neutral, is way too long for the importance to this person's life. Yes, a sentence or two is probably reasonable. But you added more text to the biography than you did to the article about her positions, which is really where this belongs. This entire section ("Political views") is very general and is meant to give the reader a summary of the Senator's viewpoints on large policy topics. It is not intended for a detailed overview of a specific bill that was once sponsored, then un-sponsored. I have no issue with you incorporating a sentence or two in the section under her Senate tenure, which is where this would belong. Frankly, the sentence that an IP added the other day is much better. No, they shouldn't have used a primary source, but it will take no more than 15 seconds to find a reliable secondary source to back the statement up. Then move it to the section on her Senate tenure, and boom, the topic is covered without issue. So, starting with that as a beginning, I'll move this topic to the right section and reference it with RSs. upstateNYer 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

After really reading in to your content, it was clear that it really wasn't that neutral. While you stated that PIPA "would restrict access to web sites judged to be infringing copyrights", I clarified it to say that it was "[m]eant to curb online piracy and illegal downloading of copyrighted material" while acknowledging that it was "seen by many free-speech advocates as potentially giving the US Government too much power to censor the Internet". My initial claims that your content was too lengthy, unfortunately, were premature because to ensure that readers understand the bill, the section gets longer. Regardless, I believe my replacement should suffice by 1) including the topic in the article (reliably sourced), but 2) ensuring it is not given undue weight in an article about a person that has done a lot in a short life so far. upstateNYer 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You removed well-sourced points that had been made by many WP:RSs. For example, you removed the argument that PIPA came about as the result of spending by lobbyists, which is supported for example by this source that you deleted:

Tim Carver from MoveOn.org characterized the two bills as a lobbying effort by legacy media companies who have spent $95 million dollars on lobbyists and lawyers to get senators like Schumer and Gillibrand to promote a law which will in effect curtail the innovation, freedom and entrepreneurial methods through which new Internet and technology companies thrive. http://technorati.com/technology/article/manhattan-sopapipa-protest-blankets-block-fronting/

You're not complying with WP:NPOV if you delete that POV. --Nbauman (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring the opposing viewpoint that many of the Internet companies make significant profits from advertising that possibly links to some of the sites that would be blacklisted by the bill. The biggest names that opposed the bill (Google and Facebook) make money in one single way: advertising. Or, they save money by not having to do the policing work that the bill would require (either way it's a net negative profit-wise). Items like these don't come to the floor of either house of Congress with general bipartisan support without having at least some merits. But don't get me wrong, I'm very much opposed to this legislation, and the next big name that opposed it—Wikipedia—did so on moral grounds, but only because there are no dollar signs (profit) to get in the way. My point here is that you stating I'm inherently including POV by not including POV is incorrect because you're missing the opposite POV, something that was also missing when you wrote the text in the article. I rewrote the topic, rinsing clean your text, which was inherently POV against the bill. We aren't here to give specific examples of why the legislation is good or bad in an article about a senator that happened to support it. We're here to write a summary-style biography. "This is what the bill was and what it intended to do. She co-sponsored it. A certain group of people/entities strongly opposed it and made a big statement about it. She backed off for the time being." That's all we need. upstateNYer 03:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gillibrand views on the Dream Act

Gillibrand as a congresswoman was completely against the Dream act voting and fighting against it while senator made a complete U-turn in her position and voted and fought for it; that is best defined by the commonly used political term flip-flopping which in similar situations such as on Mitt Romney's wiki page is defined in that term the language used for Gillibrand's complete position change is or comes off as a positive bias while others such as Mitt Romney are not allowed such kind language the new edits are more neutral and politically fair Cotton Rogers (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Gillibrand don't ask don't Tell

How is Kirsten Gillibrand best known for advocating the repeal of dadt since according to the congressional record Joe Lieberman introduced the bill and Susan Collins was the main co-sponsor of the bill who helped garner necessary republican support admittingly Gillibrand voted for the bill and made some speeches on the senate floor for it's repeal but so did most democratic senators along with Susan Collins also Joe Lieberman has been advocating it's repeal for years such as voting down the original Policy in 1996 it's seems to me Joe Lieberman is best known for repealing dadt as a Majority of articles related to the subject of Dadt's repeal concur though Gillibrand played a part in the repeal it seems as if the article is grossly over-exaggerating her role anyway in case I'm overlooking something feel free to reply but I'll procced to tone down the exaggeration.Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead in this article goes into far too much detail and gives undue weight to some parts of the article. My first attempt to fix was reverted, so I'm raising the issue here. Thoughts, all? Arbor8 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the original lead article was fine and gave a proper summary of her life while the shortened version is not as well-written and expansive as the original also in your edit summary you mentioned coat racking what is that?Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is not meant to be a summary of her life, but rather a summary of her notability, and whether you believe the former version was "better written" is really immaterial. Please see WP:COAT for more information on coatracking. In this case, I'm referring to using Gillibrand's bio as a "coatrack" on which to hang your thoughts on her "flip-flopping." Arbor8 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Writing is always important and hardly immaterial and the lead you tried to change correctly summed up her notability in greater detail than your greatly shortened version also the consensus among the media was that she did flip-flop her views and her career is incredibly notable for it the word flip-flop was used in its correct terminology while I submit to you that the effort to use more politically convenient words such as reversing is an attempt to "coatrack" political spin again the term is used correctly and how is that "coatracking". The lead which has been a part of the article for the longest time should stand since most editors have clearly seen no problem with itCotton Rogers (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"the consensus among the media was that she did flip-flop her views and her career is incredibly notable for it" is a pretty bold assertion. what's your source? also, the amount of time the lead has been part of the article has no bearing on whether or not it's appropriate -- that should be decided on its merits alone. Arbor8 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The "general consensus" among the media is what I should of said your right to object, however semantics aside to say the "General Consensus" it is not at all a pretty bold assertion I invite you to Google news articles about Gillibrand's changing political views from house to senate and the most common term among them is flip-flopping or a variation of the word as for sources only to name a few

• http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/senator_kristen_gillibrands_re_1.html
• http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gillibrand-Flip-Flops-on-Guns.html
• http://nymag.com/news/politics/57197/
• http://www.humanevents.com/2010/10/26/senator-kirsten-gillibrand-of-new-york-from-friend-of-gunners-to-big-time-foe/
• http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=7726765
• http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/willy_eyeing_run_vs_gilly_LGbueBQoPBLkkXFPUDrQDI

also try finding reliable sources that say her major shifts on policy views upon becoming senator was not flip-flopping or a commensurate term quite frankly you'll be hard pressed. The general consensus in the media about Gillibrand flip-flopping is the same as Mitt Romney who most in the media says flip-flopped when they talk about his political career the same is true for John Kerry whenever his his political positions are brought up. Also that she flip-flopped and the word is undeniably notably associated with her career. Also Wikipedia stresses consensus among editors clearly the amount of time the lead has been associated with an article and by the fact it was put together by many other editors clearly show consensus among editors on the lead and has much bearing on the article and it's meritsCotton Rogers (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than nitpicking about the use of the term "flip-flop" or whether this article is "coat racking" (interestingly, this is a guideline I'd never seen before, and I've been here for years), would either or both of you be interested in helping me actually develop this article? I've been working with one of the Senator's campaign workers (User:Todd Beaton, who, by the way, has been okay with the term flip-flop used, at least for encyclopedic purposes) to get this up to the level of a true biography, but I've found that coverage of her work in office has been difficult. But if I had some developmental help, that would be great, and it might give you a better appreciation as to why we used the wording in this article that we did. upstateNYer 02:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

She has had a very short political career personally I can't see developing this article to much more but if you can that would be great but again I'm doubtful. Good point about us nitpicking I'll admit I can be a stubborn jackass but if even that campaign worker thinks it should be included then it should standCotton Rogers (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not fixated on whether the term 'flip-flopping' is or isn't used, but I think it is important that everything in any BLP is able to stand on its own merits, rather than such specious arguments as "everybody knows that..." or "the general consensus is that..." or "it's been that way for a long time, so it must be okay...". That said, I am certainly interested in improving the article; please let me know how I can help. Arbor8 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbor8 you most certaintly are fixated on not using it while I'll at least admit I'm fixated on using it because her career and political views are defined by habitual flip-flops to not include it is a serious omission as a neutral observer that a encylopedia must be there are no better words to describe Gilllibrands major shift in political positions whether she was right to do it or not is not an issue but that fact she did flip-flop is undebatable. The fact that it is the general consensus and most people who know about the good senator associate the term with her are not at all the least bit specious arguements I have given many sources to prove it while no one has given sources to dismiss the notable flip-flopping in her career also the fact the lead has long been associated with the article put together by many editors while very few editors have really brought up changing the lead to severly shorten it is an important point about editor consensus that cannot be dismissed.Cotton Rogers (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's not our job to report that she is a flip-flopper or not, just to report that there are numerous and/or important sources out that they say she is. Whether she is or not is for a different medium. I went back to the original wording that the staffer and I had agreed upon. (I didn't realize it had been changed.) upstateNYer 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I came to this talk page via the NPOV notice board. IMO the third and especially the fourth paragraphs of the lead contain more detail than a concise summary ("a summary of its most important aspects") as is indicated per WP:LEAD and could be scaled back. As a result there is a somewhat WP:UNDUE effect especially in paragraph 4.Coaster92 (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but you need to understand that this person is notable only as of 2006. By definition, a member of Congress (and later a Senator) is notable enough for an article. Since that is the case, they deserve a biography. I spent a lot of time developing the early history part of the biography, which I expected to take the most time. Turns out the current stuff (analysis of work in Congress) is that hardest/most time consuming. So, the portion of her life that's actually notable is the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead. The other stuff (early life and such) is there because... it's a biography. You can't just write about the part of her life that's notable. I don't really think WP:UNDUE is appropriate here because UNDUE really has to do with majority and minority opinions about a subject. This situation doesn't match up with that. In the end, a notable person needs a full biography. The notable parts of her life are those that will be covered more so than the rest. (For example, a biography on a child actor will naturally have more information about that person's working life as a child actor—the notable part of their life—than when they moved on in life.) upstateNYer 03:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to upstate new yorker it is our job to report the facts this is an enclyopedia also what staffer our you refering to? also to say that she scaled back her former support for gun rights is wrong she completly reversed her postion on the issue the original wording was misleading that is why i changed itCotton Rogers (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you all really want to change the lead fine I'll concede but I'll still think it's a mistake since the current lead is the best as it is the most descriptive and informative coverd more of her notabiltiy compared to the alternative I was presented withCotton Rogers (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand what the role of this encyclopedia actually is. We are not here to make large statements like "she's a flip-flopper" and claim it as fact. It is clearly an opinion. Yes, it should be reported as "some sources claim she's a flip-flopper", but we can't blatantly says she is because it's not our role. Have a look at WP:NPOV. Some quotes I've taken are very appropriate to this discussion:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." [<-- this one is almost exactly comparable to this situation]
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. [by definition, calling someone a flip-flopper is judgmental]

You have yet to provide a source for your statements. For that reason, I'm reverting back. If you can convince a few of us that stating someone is a flip-flopper is not opinion, and provide a source for it, I may entertain the change. For now, the wording you keep changing has been there for a while, is sourced, and is neutral. upstateNYer 03:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Cotton Rogers has been blocked for socking. And for what it's worth, I agree with everything you've said above. Arbor8 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision of lead

I believe, as it is right now, the lead is far too long, it talks about her education, positions, elections, and so on. Gillibrand's lead contains much more information than fellow Senators Chuck Schumer and Scott Brown, and even the current longest serving Senator and President pro tempore Daniel Inouye. Here is my suggested revision, which breifly summaries her appointment and election, as well as some political positions.

Kirsten Elizabeth Rutnik Gillibrand (/ˈkɪərstən ˈdʒɪlbrænd/ KEER-stən JIL-ə-brand; born December 9, 1966) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from New York. She is a member of the Democratic Party and prior to being appointed to the Senate by New York Governor David Paterson in 2009, she was twice elected to the United States House of Representatives from New York's 20th congressional district. In December 2008, then President-elect Barack Obama nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State, leaving an empty seat in the New York senate delegation. After two months and many potential names considered, Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to fill the seat. Gillibrand was required to run in a special election in 2010, which she easily won with 63% of the vote.

Originally known in the House for conservative and center-left policy positions, since her appointment to the Senate she has been seen more as a progressive. In both cases, her views were significantly defined by the respective constituency she served at the time (i.e., a heavily conservative congressional district; versus the entire state of New York, which is generally liberal). In the House, she was an opponent of strict gun control, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. In the Senate, she has focused on support for gay rights, authored legislation to crack-down on illegal guns and gun traffickers, and changed her views on immigration. Gillibrand is perhaps best known for successfully championing both the repeal of the U.S. military's "Don't ask, don't tell" and the adoption of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Can you clean up the grammar issues first? You have random caps, missing spaces, misused punctuation, etc. upstateNYer 00:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I also stand by my comments in the section above. Comparing to other articles is futile because most of them aren't very good and haven't had many dedicated editors to them. This one does. I swear sometime soon I'll get to her record in Congress. It's just a hard one to research and I have less and less time as time goes on, it seems. :/ upstateNYer 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Although it's hard to say what's "better", Scott Brown, is a Good Article, and that's what I think this one should shoot for. And as for dedicated editors, this article does have many edits, but they're not consistent over the past few months. And just to reiterate one more time, I think the current lead is too extensive, and I believe the one above is a good compromise with a highlight of her history as a lawmaker, bills she has championed, and her electoral history. Grammarxxx (talk) 3:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel the proposed one is far too short. Leads are meant to summarize the article: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (from WP:MOSINTRO). upstateNYer 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it it meant to briefly summarize the article, right now the lead seems to have a lot of unimportant filler. I have edited the proposed lead just to add some more information to cover her appointment and the vacancy of the seat. Do you believe all the information in the current lead is all essential, or do you just not like my proposal? Please, let's work together to make a lead that has essential information, without over-complicating it. Grammarxxx (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Brief" is a subjective term. What is not subjective in the guidance is "a concise version of the article". You should be able to get the main points of the entire article in the lead. Sometimes we over butcher leads here because people don't want to have to read a couple hundred words in a lead when in reality, we're doing our readers an injustice by underwhelming them with a lack of facts and detail. I'll take a look at your revisions later today. I just wanted to get the philosophy out there. now. upstateNYer 17:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'm finding myself in general agreement with Grammarxxx that the lede is too long. I agree that the lede should be a good summary of the article, but I don't think that her major as an undergrad (or even her college, really) to be important enough to be in the lede. As MOSINTRO says, the lede needs to summarize the most important points of the article. I don't really know about anyone else, but my idea of this is basically to tell people why they should care about the subject. Why do we care who Kirstan Gillibrand is? Not because she was an Asian studies major at Dartmouth. Is the fact that it took two months for the governor to appoint her to Hilary Clinton's Senate seat really that important? I think Grammarxxx's revised lead might go a little far; it could probably use a sentence or two more detail, but all in all, it might closer to the ideal (whatever that is) than the current one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kafziel (talk · contribs) 04:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I see one minor POV/OR in the lede:

In both cases, her views were significantly defined by the respective constituency she served at the time (i.e., a heavily conservative congressional district; versus the entire state of New York, which is generally liberal). In the House, she was an opponent of strict gun control, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. In the Senate, she has focused on support for gay rights, authored legislation to crack-down on illegal guns and gun traffickers, and changed her views on immigration.

First of all, we need at least one or two sources that outright state that her views were "defined by her constituency" (rather than just changing her mind based on facts, new information, and so on). Like the support for gay rights; are there sources that show that that was never her view until she reached the Senate, and that her stance on that issue is just a product of her politics? Also, cracking down on illegal guns and traffickers is not necessarily at odds with opposing strict gun control; plenty of gun rights supporters are still opposed to illegal weapons trafficking. Listing that as a flip-flop implies otherwise. All that stuff seems kind of sketchy. It's a margin call, and isn't blatantly wrong, but it's not GA quality.

Other than that, some of the prose could use a minor touch-up here or there, but I don't see anything else that should keep it from GA status. Good coverage, good sources, good pics, no edit warring, no maintenance tags. Looks pretty good to me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

In the lead I decided to scrap the differences in her voting record from House to Senate because I felt it added undue weight, and didn't seem NPOV. I think the article's met all the qualifications so feel free to start. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

One last thing: A few dead links, which you can see highlighted in red at the bottom of this page. If you can either replace or remove them, I think it will be ready for listing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, ready to be reviewed. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 02:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I disagree with the promotion of this article to GA status. Had I felt it deserved it to be a GA, I would have nominated myself. There are a number of spelling, grammar, and clear truncation errors. I realize I went into a lot of detail in some sections, which probably deserved to be condensed, but a clear consequence of doing so is losing the flow. It also is the reason for a lot of the grammar and wording errors/weirdness. The other thing is this article is missing a lot of content that should be in the tenure sections. They shouldn't be so short compared to the election sections (and the elections were notable enough to require the length they have). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that someone else has taking an ownership role of making this article better, but I think it was a little too fast and requires more input from others. Thoughts? upstateNYer 21:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a Good Article, not a Featured Article. By its nature, Good Article status should be relatively quick and informal. Sure, there are improvements that could be made; if it had been nominated for FA, I would have opposed. But it wasn't. The article may not be perfect, but it's still pretty good, and GA status doesn't confer any magical protection on this version of the page. GA is supposed to be fast and it is not supposed to require input from lots of other editors. That's why we invented it.

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "Had I felt it deserved it to be a GA, I would have nominated myself". Am I missing something? Looking at the page history, I don't see a substantive edit from you since early August. Was Grammarxxx supposed to get your permission to nominate it? On what basis? That's a very strange remark to see coming from a fellow admin, as surely you are aware that nobody owns an article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally hear you on your comments regarding GA expectations. I have a number of GAs and FAs under my belt and have gone through various levels of reviews when it comes to GAs (good reviews and bad reviews). Maybe I just hold myself to a higher bar when it comes to what I submit as a GAN. But I do think that grammar and spelling expectations are and should be similar between FAs and GAs (not prose quality or "brilliant-ness", but we need to at least meet MOS requirements). But my main concern with this article is completeness. Having made most of the content-building edits (regardless of whether it was before August), I know the content that I never got to (content that was missed by future editors as well). What I'm saying here is that while I clearly don't own the article, I do know the article very well. I know what is there and what is missing and the time commitment it takes to get the missing information (the time commitment is what kept this article at the state it was when I last updated it significantly). I was just looking at the GAC and noted citation 7. I'm not sure if that's new or I never saw it before, but I guess it does agree with your logic somewhat. I find that unfortunate, to be honest. Based on that you could write a biography of Lincoln and leave out the part about his assassination. It's just a shame that we cover some areas in this article in (necessary) detail and others with such minimal detail. Based on this article, you'd think the only thing she's done for the last 6 years is campaign. :/ upstateNYer 01:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's as bad as all that; the "tenure" sections have a reasonable amount of detail on what she's been doing for the last six years. Yes, you could write a biography of Lincoln and leave out the part about his assassination. But someone else would soon add the information, because it's important. Since nobody has added anything substantial to this article in quite a while, I took that as an indication that nothing on the level of an assassination was omitted.

I'm strongly against holding Good Articles to too high a standard. FA got too hard, so we made GA. If GA gets too hard, eventually that will lead to creating yet another level for "Pretty Good Articles" or some such thing, to serve the purpose GA was meant to do. I already dislike how formalized the GA process has become; it was supposed to be quick recognition without all the piling on. It's just a little green plus sign at the top of the page. It doesn't cost us anything. Anyway, you're free to start a GA review if you want to, but since you're the main contributor and probably would be the one to make the improvements, I don't know why you wouldn't just work on the article instead. At any rate, whatever you decide to do is okay by me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Awards and controversy sections

To start off, having "Awards" and "Controversy" sections in tenure is not the manual of style, but that is the least of their problems. In the Awards section, the majority of first two paragraphs deal mainly with her rankings from interest groups, which can simply go into the Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand article. While the rest is completely unsourced, and if sourced, should be in the main tenure section. In the Controversy section, the new second paragraph relates to Gillibrands support of banning neodymium magnet toys. It then compares the toys to pool safety in attempt to debate the dangers compared to other things; and portray toy manufacturers as victims, with them being "sued of of existence."

I removed non-neutral items and moved info to what I believed to be their proper places, but because my edits were reverted by Dandv (talk), I'd like to get users inputs before this escalates. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So what was your reasoning of removing the magazine article about her speculation on career? Still a little confused. Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific, I don't really understand what you mean. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed my edit about the Time article talking about how Gillibrand was a possible candidate for the Presidency in 2016 and in the edit summary you said to come see talk page. Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't, it's still there in the final paragraph on her personal life. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. I am so sorry! My mistake, ignore me. Whitestorm17 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammarxxx, I was in the process of editing this Talk page, explaining my edits, while you quickly reverted them. I see little point in trying to reason with you, and your professed deletionism and watching like a hawk of this page at 1am-4am suggests you might actually have a WP:COI. I will try however to explain: I have only resurrected the very gist of the Controversy section that you keep deleting, and added a summary of that in my edit that you reverted. I had moved all the other details about PIPA and the neodymium magnets ban in the Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand section, in case you hadn't checked. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 08:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Squash

In college, she was a very good squash player, after only 3 years of experience. As a senior captain, she led Dartmouth to the national finals.

98.196.168.113 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Political positions

As this is a pressing issue I'd just like to make my case on this.

Her positions on PIPA and the internet should be included in her positions article, and the information is definitely not neutral; it states: "[it has been] seen by many free-speech advocates as potentially giving the U.S. Government too much power to censor the Internet," where is the other side to this argument?

And again the issue of neutrality pops up with her stance on magnets; it states: Gillibrand urged a ban on all neodymium magnet toys... despite the magnets being 100 to 1,000 times safer than many common household items," this is a direct argument against her position, with no support for.

I feel the entire political positions section should be allocated to the article itself as it is so complex, but for right now I'd settle for it to just be neutral. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 09:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "with no support for" regarding "the magnets being 100 to 1,000 times safer" - I had cited a Huffington Post article that compiles sources from CDC. It's not even Original Research. As for "the other side to this argument" regarding PIPA, that is Gillibrand's very co-sponsorship of the bill. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 09:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to PIPA, her co-sponsorship is not enough to justify the direct argument against it; Senators cast thousands of votes, unless she actually made a comment on how she decided, it is still biased. I would like to take an example from another Senators article; for Scott Brown he voted against it because "[t]he Internet is too important to our economy." And as for the magnets, I guess an argument could be made that it falls under public health, but I'll just ask how does her position on buckyballs merit enough importance to be included on her page and not the article? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 09:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because this is a sensitive topic, what issues to include or not, I have just cleared the section of positions and kept them in the positions article. So instead of picking and choosing, it will just give her history on positions, from being a blue dog to one of the most liberal Senators. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article is POV

Lead, paragraph 2: What selection criteria for those two bills, both of which appeal to parts of her core constituency, but not other bills which would be more controversial?

Early life: Delete 'Tina' stuff and her Chinese name. PR empty of substance or importance. "Functionally fluent"? Who says so? She does? Leave that stuff out too since there is no NPOV source for it.

Law career: More on the 'Tina' deal, very cute and charming POV. Note the very quick glide over the substance of criticisms of her work for Philip Morris, and then her substantive excuse/defense of her work. Paragraph three: another substance free, POV (Gillibrand herself) PR moment to shore up the Hilary constituency. Paragraph 5: attributing her campaign contributions to fondness is charmingly naive, but also POV. Paragraph 6: interesting she continued working for the Philip Morris parent company, but again this is glided over; unmentioned is the close association of that law firm with the Clinton family.

Tenure: Why is her 'sunshine' thing given the lead, rather than her opposition to 2008's most important piece of legislation, the emergency economic stabilization bill? Gillibrand is allowed to explain why she opposed two hugely important bills, which is fine, but then a word in support of the bills is needed as balance. Paragraph 2 is incoherent, and the PR about what the NY congressional delegation supposedly nicknamed her is POV.

U.S. Senate: Not a word on the likely influence of the Clintons in the selection?

Tenure: Paragraph 1: Again with the PR. Why is a minor press conference given first position here? What evidence is there that Gillibrand had any influence on the selection of Sotomayor?

Paragrph 2: Gillibrand defeated Don't Ask Don't Tell? Gimme a break. The second bill was, of course, also a national Democratic Party effort rather than an individual Senator's accomplishment, unless there is good evidence otherwise.

Paragraph 3: Weight? How about the bills that she has sponsored rather than maximizing PR by associating her with Congressman Giffords?Haberstr (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the tone of this posting is so harsh. Am I missing something? Has someone else been using your account? Are you having a bad day of editing? Gillibrand is not "allowed" to explain anything. Now, onto substance: this article has been extensively editing, has been a GA, and is the result of much consensus. Minor errors in citation can and will be fixed. We can fix these issues. I don;t see the POV that appears so terrible to you, but your results may vary. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)