Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Kirsten Gillibrand has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 22, 2012 Good article nominee Listed


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

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[edit]

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 ˈɪlbrænd/ 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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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.[1] (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Political positions[edit]

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[edit]

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?

Paragraph 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)
On Wikipedia, you're supposed to explain a POV tag with an entry on the talk page. Your comment implies that I'm not supposed to do that, and it assumes I'm not fixing the entry when I've already started doing so.Haberstr (talk) 19:59, 29 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)
Falsifying what I have written is not helpful for a civil discourse. I of course did not suggest or say Gillibrand is not allowed to explain herself. NPOV means she is not allowed to be the only explainer. Your claim that the article is based on some sort of consensus appears to be false, and it appears pretty glaringly obviously that members of a pro-Gillibrand group have taken ownership of what is supposed to be a neutral wikipedia entry. "We" will not just be fixing minor errors in citation, sorry.Haberstr (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted a very long list of legislation Gillibrand supported. Is there consensus to include four or five of the major pieces on that list? Bearian (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not do that.Haberstr (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think a few notable pieces of legislation she co-sponsored would be an excellent addition to the article.Arbor8 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: her Mandarin ablities, I found this interview. Kafziel, is that good enough? Bearian (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I only reverted Fat & Happy's disruptive edit to the "Tenure" section. (And I'm not a fan of people dropping tags on pages and then ranting on talk pages instead of working on the article, which is why I directed Haberstr to {{sofixit}}.) Aside from that, I don't have much of an opinion about the rest of the page, except that with all the back and forth I'm thinking it might be time to review its Good Article status. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I prefer civility in talk page discourse. If you withdraw the claim that I'm "ranting," then we'll be back on a civil plane. I've only made a long list of substantive criticisms of this PR Gillibrand entry.Haberstr (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You can prefer all you want. A substantive rant is a rant nonetheless. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, claiming I was ranting is an insult. Please don't insult folks on Wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's a fact. Feel free to consult wiktionary for the definition. Snide lines like "very cute and charming POV" and "charmingly naïve" are the hallmarks of a petty rant. I can understand wanting to feel clever or what have you, but you have to be prepared to be called on it. Especially when you do all that and then disappear for two days without doing anything to fix it.
Two whole days ... Like all normal editors, I was allowing people time to respond to my assertion that the article is POV. I did not want to make wholesale corrections without allowing folks here to disagree, correct a partial misapprehension, or whatever. But also, two whole days is not a lot of time in the Wikipedia context.Haberstr (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I think your edits are great. You’re allowed to make edits like that without putting a tag on an article. You can just make them. That was my point. But you tagged it because you wanted a response, and you got one. I don’t know if you needed me to tell you to fix it, but I did, and now you are, so I guess the cause and effect can remain a mystery. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I know I'm allowed to make edits like that without putting a tag on an article. Was that a snide remark? Or, do you actually not think the entry was pro-Gillibrand POV? I realize this may be too obvious for you, but you haven't presented any evidence for your seat-of-pants surmise that I tagged the entry because I wanted attention or a reaction. Here's a possibility: entry is strongly POV, editor tags entry POV. More generally, I don't understand the point of your attacks on me. Are you trying to encourage editors NOT to tag POV entries as POV? Or is the point to display your keen psychological insight?Haberstr (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do want to encourage editors not to tag POV articles as POV. I want editors to fix them. The purpose of a tag is to get attention. It places the article into a help category so other people can come try to work on it. Since there are already people working on this one, the tag serves no purpose but as a placeholder for when you don’t have time to edit. But you did have time; after all the time you spent posting here, you could have just edited the article to fix all those problems. That’s step one. Nobody has reverted your changes, so there was no need to tag or discuss anything. And certainly not to post a little diatribe about all the things you don’t like, rather than just fixing them. Unless you wanted to make a scene.
The main and possibly only purpose of a POV tag is to tell readers that the entry they are about to read has POV problems. This one, as I indicated above, has a lot of them. It will in fact take time to fix them all. I don't see the helpers on the article page, because so far have had no assistance in the project. On my own I may get halfway done with the job over the next month or two. On another misunderstanding, I have to repeat that editors are required by Wikipedia etiquette to state on the talk page the reasons for placing a POV tag on an article. It did take time to do so, but we are supposed to do it. Finally, the list I made, as you'll notice, only covers the first fourth or so of the article, so it does not at all cover all the things I find POV about the entry.Haberstr (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
WRONG. Tags are to ask other editors to help you. Nothing else. From the page on maintenance tags: "Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made. Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article." Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
RIGHT. Serving the readers is the main point of Wikipedia, and tags' main point is to serve the readers by notifying them, for example, that the neutrality of an article is disputed. Also, your implication that a tag I put on this article a few days ago is a "permanent badge of shame" or whatever is absurd. On the other hand, voluntary Wikipedia editing often takes time, so it's true I won't work full-time to correct the numerous instances of bias by commission and omission in this entry. Now, what was I about to do, maybe edit the actual article, before I was so rudely interrupted?Haberstr (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
So you think I made that quote up or something? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 11:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously I quoted that because it is particularly stupid. Tags are temporary. It's been on this article for a few weeks. No, that doesn't translate into a "permanent badge of shame." Again, is the purpose of an administrator to attack a heavy contributor editor? What is your point?Haberstr (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to keep editing the article, that’s great. As I said, I think your edits have been good. If you’re looking for an apology, though, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to keep editing the article, that’s also great, but your only recent activity is here on this page. In fact, I hope you'll bear with the humor, grit your teeth and learn how to improve the entry from the list and from my recent edits .Haberstr (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My participation on this page is as an administrator. To revert vandalism, block vandals, lock it if necessary, that sort of thing. There are already plenty of people working on it. Everyone else seemed able to actually edit it, without needing all this attention. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, "needing all this attention" ... I tagged a page as POV because it was POV and then, as required under Wikipedia etiquette, listed my reasons for doing so on the entry's talk page. All the time-consuming stuff happened after that.Haberstr (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You're the one whining about an apology. Go work. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 11:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Your language is terrible. Why use a word like "whining"? What purpose does that serve? Go work. WTF? Amazing. You must think your purpose is to troll here to discourage contributions on article's main page and thereby force everything over to these talk pages.Haberstr (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Um, no, my purpose is for you to edit the article and not post your little rants on these talk pages, berating other users who contributed before you. I just want to you to fix the article without attacking other contributors. Or not fix the article at all - I don't care which. Because, even if you don't fix it, eventually someone else who can do it with a modicum of civility will come along and do it instead.
Apparently you're more used to admins like Bearian, who hand out little imaginary cups of tea instead of calling you on your unacceptable behavior. Well I didn't get my adminship for handing out cups of tea. I got it for standing up for users like Grammarxxx, who worked hard on this article long before you showed up, and didn't deserve to have you show up and attack him. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 11:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I do not mind tagging an article as POV until we work out a consensus. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, I was not accusing, you, Haberstr, of being harsh, I was stating that Kafziel's post was harsh. I thought that was quite clear. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Really? You're going to start this back up after a week?? Are you kidding me? BTW stands for "by the way", not "a week later".
And it's pretty clear that you were talking to Haberstr; You listed specific points ("Gillibrand is not 'allowed' to explain anything") that were in his post. Mine didn't even have a "tone"; I posted a single link to an existing template, without so much as another word. Maybe you misread whose post was whose, but it's obvious which post you were talking about. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources on ancestry?[edit]

I watch this page, I know the subject, and I knew her grandmother personally (I live in Smallbany). I noticed that a new user added "Polish" to her ancestry, based on the fact that many Google pages appear to recite that fact. I don't dispute the facts as written in the text. However, the only current source for her ancestry is a freepages/rootsweb webpage, which may not be reliable per WP:RS. Furthermore, the source has certain allegations in it that are falsifiable. Can we find a reliable source about her ancestry? Bearian (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing issue in Senate section[edit]

I noticed what appears to me to be an editing issue in Kirsten Gillibrand#U.S. Senate. At one point, it mentions Kennedy - presumably Caroline Kennedy - without discussing what she has to do with all of that. I recall that Kennedy was mentioned prominently in the media as a leading papabile for the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. Can we please edit that information back in, which appears to have been deleted, along with an appropriate and reliable source? Bearian (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted factual edits[edit]

I posted the following and had it deleted..after seeing many posts on political, entertainment and other public figures, I do not feel that this post is inflammatory and is ONLY factual. I am looking to have input and to have a reasonable chance at reposting these edits as factual information about Senator Gillibrand..anyone with ANY connection or strong feelings of support for her would not objectively be in a position to allow these edits. They state her actions in Congress based on a very objective Congressional Bill tracking site

Senator Gillibrand has never been successful in passing any economic or business growth bills that she sponsored herself. In fact, she has sponsored 42 total bills in her time in Congress and has had 0 passed into law.[67]Open source

Senator Gillibrand has toured various companies in Upstate New York, touting the Bill she sponsored called the 'Made in America Manufacturing Act' and how it will help businesses grow. The fact remains that there are only 6 co-sponsors, one who is deceased (former Senator Frank Lautenberg).[68] Open source

So the facts are that she hasn't passed her own sponsored bills and she has toured the companies Upstate telling officials that her Bill would do many things even though that Bill and others have never come close to passing. The one cosponsor who is deceased is just a plain fact. Please help. Scott Noren DDS Ithaca, NY (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not if the information is factual, the issue is the information you added was critical and biased against Gillibrand, against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

editing Foreign Relations out[edit]

Would it be possible to edit Gillibrand's Senate committee assignments to remove Foreign Relations as she doesn't currently sit on that committee? I am under the belief the standard is to list current committee assignments, not historical ones. Would someone please help me understand the standard? I don't want to unilaterally edit it without getting someone else's view. Thanks! (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kirsten Gillibrand. 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:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^