Jump to content

Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.40.52.156 (talk) at 09:37, 25 December 2018 (→Proposed changes: some views and behavior regarding climate change and fossil fuel extraction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleKirsten 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Is this a violation of BLP?

I'm not going to post the content here, but in this reversion, someone said the reverted content was a violation of BLP. What do others think of this? - 71.182.250.83 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear cut WP:BLPVIO. Your language suggests Kirsten Gillibrand was personally responsible for getting Tanveer Hussain a visa, which is not only false, but it is also unsupported by the source. Moreover, Hussain hasn't been convicted of anything. There is absolutely nothing in this story that you can put into this article without violating policy. Even if Hussain is convicted in the future, you would still need a quality reliable source showing Gillibrand is personally responsible. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kirsten Gillibrand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kirsten Gillibrand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirsten Gillibrand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Boycott legislation

I removed two paragraphs on Gillibrand's bill regarding boycotts for a few reasons. At this point, two paragraphs on proposed legislation is undue weight, the paragraphs were written with too much reliance on primary sources (the legislation itself rather than secondary sources), and it was written from the POV criticizing the legislation without sufficiently laying out Gillibrand's rationale for the proposal. Knope7 (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms addressed in new edit. 2 paragraphs condensed into 1, additional sourcing added, and references to criticism deal primarily with criticism Gillibrand has directly addressed.

The paragraph still as a POV problem and, as you re-wrote it, had weasel words and unsourced characterizations. Also, please sign your comments. Knope7 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can other editors please weight in? Knope7 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All your original complaints were directly addressed by my re-write. If you have a problem with the phrasing, then I suggest your edits focus on re-phrasing it. However, DO NOT blank out any and all references to Gillibrand's co-sponsoring of major legislation. Gillibrand's adovacy surrounding Anti-Boycott legislation is a matter of important historical public record that has been addressed directly by her on multiple occasions. It is wildly inappropriate to scrub all reference to it from her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijnhgf2A (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not mis-characterize my edits. After removing your two paragraphs, with explanation, you added one paragraph, which I trimmed. I did not remove all mentions of the issue from the article. Your edits did not address all of my criticisms, as I have already explained. Further, not every issue that a Senator speaks on or introduces legislation on needs to be included in their Wikipedia article. It maybe more appropriate in an article on the subject matter, or it may not be something that needs to be included anywhere. The lead summarizes an article. We cannot put every issue that an editor cares about in the lead. This issue, on legislation which has not passed is absolutely not fit for the lead at this time. Knope7 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you most certainly have edited the article, on several occasions, to remove all reference to Gillibrand's advocacy surrounding this issue. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kirsten_Gillibrand&diff=815476366&oldid=815342215) Please, do not do that again. What belongs in the lead can certainly be a matter of style or opinion. Whether all references to an elected official's co-sponsoring of a major piece of legislation should or should not be scrubbed completely from the article really is not up for debate, as far as I see it. And your previous efforts to section blank raise legitimate doubts about the sincerity of your criticisms of the section's phrasing. (From my perspective, your actions make very clear that you likely have few, if any, legitimate concerns about phrasing, sourcing, etc., and rather would simply prefer all reference to Gillibrand's position and advocacy on the issue be scrubbed from the article).

In short: Stop removing references to Gillibrand's support of S.270. If you have an issue with phrasing or structure of the section (a criticism I'm more than open to), than I suggest you focus your edits on addressing those concerns, and specifically cite the language you find problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijnhgf2A (talk • contribs) 04:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing something from the lead is not scrubbing it from the article. It is still in the body of the article. I removed the boycott content from the body article once, I have since left the highly flawed version in this BLP. We made need to submit this issue for comment somewhere since I do not see how we can resolve this if you continue to misrepresent my edits. Knope7 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that including it in the lede violates WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs in the body, not the lead. It's in the Tenure section, which is appropriate. BTW, does anyone think that it should be mentioned in the Political positions section? Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the paragraph concerning S.270 in Political_positions_of_Kirsten_Gillibrand strikes a good balance between readability, content and terseness. -- 46.237.240.144 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'm glad we've largely reached a census that the passage, under its current phrasing, is balanced and that the included information is all appropriate and necessary.

Although, I think 'Gandydancer' brought up a good point that it could easily be moved to political positions section, rather than 'Senate Tenure' section. It seems a toss-up, as it's both specifically introduced legislation, as well as an over-arching position. However, there is an argument for including it under the Senate tenure section if only for the simple fact that doing so lends the section less towards accusations of bias. Under the Senate tenure section the purview is largely restricted to specific legislation, as well as her statements, media coverage, controversies, and specific actions surrounding that legislation. When you get to 'political positions' it feels like arguments can go on for eternity attempting to parse exactly what her larger or more nuanced position may be, etc., etc., despite co-sponsoring specific instances of legislation.wikiedits123531 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

74.88.68.107 just restored this challenged material. There's simply no way this material is appropriate, and I believe adding it back is a BLP violation. There's nothing in the provided source describing her as a "prominent advocate", in fact none of the current text is supported by this source. Later in the paragraph, we see WP:WEASEL being violated with "many legal theorists". While it is not explicitly noted on this talk page, I believe this article should fall under the discretionary sanctions being enforced on post-1932 politics of the United States, following this ARBCOM decision. That means this pattern of reversions must STOP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin article

Here's a good well-documented criticism of Gillibrand from the left:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/kirsten-gillibrand-trump-clinton-cabinet
The Shape-Shifter
Kirsten Gillibrand's name is being floated as a progressive 2020 presidential candidate. But her record shows she's a poor tribune for anti-Trump resistance.
By Branko Marcetic
Jacobin magazine
05.09.2017
1. She has questionable political connections.
2. She’s “evolved” in record time.
3. She’s bad on Israel.
--Nbauman (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to Franken

Story in Politico about how major donors are abandoning Gillibrand because of what she did to Franken. I think there have been a lot of WP:RS on this topic.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/al-franken-kirsten-gillibrand-2020-1014697
Franken scandal haunts Gillibrand’s 2020 chances
‘Let me tell you how strongly I felt about it — I didn’t even vote for her in the recent election. I left it blank,’ said one top donor.
By NATASHA KORECKI and LAURA NAHMIAS
Politico
11/26/2018
“He was one of our best weapons against this administration, his presence on these committees. [Gillibrand] did the damage that Republicans could not do themselves”
Gillibrand has defended her approach by insisting she placed deeply held personal values over party loyalty.
--Nbauman (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose actual improvements to the article, rather than just unproductively dumping negatively-written sources about the subject. Franken's replacement was re-elected with an even bigger share of the vote, so Gillibrand did the right thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes: some views and behavior regarding climate change and fossil fuel extraction

Some of her notable actions in regard to climate should be added to BLP page. I started a talk section on the Talk:Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand as the environmental section is a very short paragraph.

Potential, notable additions to the biography can be chosen from her 95% lifetime LCV record, important bills in her voting record, whether she takes donations from the oil/gas/coal industries, her work against the Keystone pipeline, her 2013 Climate Change speech to the senate and 350.org considering her a proper protest target. Probably there are more notable than these. Also, please weigh in at the Talk:Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand page. Thanks. 47.40.52.156 (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirsten_Gillibrand&oldid=875295066"