Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Andrew Cuomo

I've added the FACT that Gillibrand worked under Cuomo during the HUD fiasco. Whoever moderates the page keeps removing it. It's a FACT she worked for him during the time it all went down. I have not accused her of any wrongdoing, I was simply stating that she worked for him during this time. (neutrality dispute) CAPSPAC 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You refer to "fiasco" and "it all went down", but, reading the Talk:Andrew Cuomo page, it seems quite clear that (a) no mainsteam newspaper reported anything like this while Cuomo was Secretary of HUD; (b) the most serious charge against Cuomo seems to confuse bad bookkeeping (not unique to HUD - the Department of Defense has had more serious accounting problems) with theft or fraud, which is absurd - it's not as if the Secretary of a cabinet department can write checks to him/herself; (c) Gillibrand has never been linked to whatever Cuomo has been accused of.

As far as "keeps removing", I see exactly one posting by you to the article. Here's what I removed just before your posting - did you post it? Gillibrand was driven out due to the HUD scandal. In my mind, one isn't "driven out" unless one has done something wrong - which, of course, was unsourced. John Broughton | Talk 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues

I have removed this section. It was relevant during the campaign because it was informative to potential voters. However, it is highly POV. Now Gillibrand has been elected this article needs to be more encyclopaedic dealing with what she has done not what she might do. A summary of her views on issues remains at New York 20th congressional district election, 2006 (which can be expanded if required) so they are not lost. BlueValour 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First woman to represent the district

"She is the first Democrat to represent the district since 1978 and the first woman to represent the district." Really? What about Bella Abzug and Nita Lowey? Mattwhiteski 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The current incarnation of the 20th district is not near New York City, those two women represented the 20th district when under a different redistricting scheme which placed it near Manhattan. T0llenz 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Liberal LuLu replaced this with a POV entry. It has been restored.

Tobacco representation

The article currently has nothing about this, which Sandy Treadwell blared about her in radio ads last fall. Is it worthy of inclusion that she once represented Philip Morris despite her personal antismoking beliefs, got campaign contributions from them and has left that out of her official biography (and, before anyone accuses me of having an agenda other than Wikipedia's, I will state for the record that I am an active member of a local and county Democratic Party committee here in the Hudson Valley, and I am genuinely thrilled by her selection). Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original story at the Times-Union page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think this deserves to be in here ... Gillibrand gave her side of the issue to the Times-Union at some length, so we can do this in an NPOV fashion. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I semi-protected this article to prevent vandalism due to rumors (e.g., it was leaked by water balloon, see this stupid edit). The semi-protection is for six hours (overnight) and the move protect is for one day. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should remain semi-protected at least until she is seated, as more and more information becomes known about her.Wharrel (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've extended semi-protection for 3 more days, due to violations of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

article appears to be locked. why no padlock icon on article's name?

--98.116.115.220 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the notice wasn't put on the page (it does not automatically get added when the article is protected). It is now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Next Junior Senator

I'm concerned about the possible misleading of this word Junior Senator. Gillibrand votes in the Senate will have as much impact as Schumer's. PS: If Senator Schumer dies, before Gillibrand is sworn in - Gillibrand will be the senior Senator. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In American political jargon, the phrase "junior Senator" is a common description of the Senator from a State who has less seniority than the other Senator from that State, who is known as the "senior Senator". There is nothing misleading about it. And it is an important distinction, since although every Senator's vote is equal, their positions and committee assignments are not. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Roland Burris' start date for his Senate term is listed as December 31, 2008, the day Gov. Blagojevich appointed him, shouldn't Senator Gillibrand's start date be amended to January 23, 2009, the day Gov. Paterson appointed her? There was some controversy on Burris' page regarding when his term as Senator actually began, and the ultimate decision by Wikipedia's editorial staff was to list it as the day he was actually appointed, not the day he was sworn in. As such, I believe Sen. Gillibrand's term start date needs to be amended to today, January 23, 2009, as opposed to January 25, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.227.46 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Burris did not assume his seat on December 31, 2008. Anyways, why is Gillibrand listed as Senator-elect? She was appointed. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gillibrand will be sworn in on Sunday, Jan 25, and that's when she changes from Senator-designate (right, not "elect") to Junior Senator. We went through all of this for the Cabinet after the presidential election and came up with a reasonable way to handle it, and I don't see any reason to reinvent the wheel here. Tvoz/talk 03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well if that is the case, then why is Roland Burris' start date for his Senate seat listed as December 31, 2008, when he wasn't sworn in until January 15, 2009? I tried to edit Burris' start date for his office, but was told repeatedly that since Burris was appointed on December 31, 2008, that constituted his start date. An even standard needs to be applied across the board. Either an appointed senator becomes a senator on their appointment date, or on their swearing in date. You can't use one rule for one senator, and a different rule for a different senator. Look at Roland Burris' wiki page and explain why there are two different rules being applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.227.46 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A senator's term begins at appointment. See 2 U.S.C. § 36, John Barrasso, and Roger Wicker. Gillibrand's appointment is effective Sunday because that is the day she will be appointed. Friday's activity was a press conference, not an appointment. She is not taking the oath on Sunday, which I can say with certainty because the Senate is not in session again until 2 p.m. EST on Monday. -Rrius (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then her "Taking office" date needs to be amended to January 25, 2009. It currently reads "On or after January 25, 2009", but since we know that she will be appointed today, then it needs to be amended to today, as someone is liable to set it for tomorrow, when she will probably be sworn in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.208.87 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of last name

This article in The New York Times says her last name is "pronounced JILL-uh-brand". Would someone who knows how please add this to the article with the proper IPA symbols? Thanks. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it. Should that get a cite? --Cam (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}
"represented many pro bono cases" should be "represented many pro bono clients or causes"

You present a case but usually represent clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.254.46 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It should say she "participated in" or "handled" many pro bono cases. Lawyers do not represent cases; they represent clients. Also, "pro bono" needn't be italicized because it is sufficiently English as to be listed in English-language dictionaries. -Rrius (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is now resolved. If not, remove "tlx|" from the template. -Rrius (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What happens to her House seat?

She will be vacating her House seat. What happens to that? Could someone mention that in the article? Michaelh2001 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon, a special election for her House seat, will be held later this year. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Would be a good addition to the article if you can find a source - need to know if it's a special election or an appointment. I haven't had a chance to check. Tvoz/talk 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Vacant House seats are always filled via special elecrtions. (See: Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Vacancies.) Cassandro (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but by source I meant something that specified that this particular election was going to take place and when, to avoid the OR of reading the Constitution and extrapolating from it - even though it's correct. I haven't seen any sources yet about this election, but they'll follow soon enough I imagine (Or I may have missed them). Tvoz/talk 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gov. Paterson will call a date for primaries and the special election, let's wait for it. Cassandro (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The special election already has the New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, WTR - hadn't seen that one. Tvoz/talk 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Centrist v conservative

The sources - and the reality - state that she is a centrist who is difficult to categorize. I don't see any sources that explicitly say that she is a conservative - they say that her district is heavily conservative - in fact the majority of her positions are center leaning left. So I think we should refer to her as centrist who represents a conservative district. Tvoz/talk 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of a divided district. The city of Hudson, which she lives outside of, is extremely artsy and very Democratic (a lot of refugees from the city). I was driving east from there across Columbia County last fall, and was very surprised to see lots of Gillibrand and Obama signs in what used to be a pretty solidly GOP area. So too with northern Dutchess County, and the areas of Rensselaer County closer to the river.

But the Greene and Delaware county areas of NY20, west of the Hudson, are still strongly Republican as are the areas of it north of Albany where Sweeney and Solomon lived when they were representing the district. It will be an interesting special election that may well depend on the quality of the candidates the parties choose in the primary (Gillibrand helped put a strong Democratic organization in place too). Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Right - I know the area too, and your description is right. My point is that we don't exactly know what her positions will be when she is representing the whole state - but "centrist" seems like the right characterization, with an indication that some of her positions tend toward conservative, while others are liberal. I don't think calling her a straight up conservative is accurate or supported by the sources cited. Tvoz/talk 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Tvoz. A NY Post article today called Rep. Gillibrand a conservative, and I wrote to the author and politely contested the accuracy of that characterization. An 8% rating from the American Conservative Union does not make someone conservative. Rep. Gillibrand is less liberal than the NY Congressional delegation, but that also doesn't make her conservative -- just not as liberal as the rest. Given that she is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, the terms "centrist" or "moderate" would seem to me to be reasonable, but "conservative" is inaccurate. BoulderCreek12 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. First, she IS a "conservative Democrat". "Conservative" is an adjective here, modifying the noun Democrat, meaning she is conservative relative to most Democrats (which she is, as are most Blue Dogs). Second, just because you personally disagree with a source does not invalidate its conclusions. If the NY Post calls her "conservative" and you want to insist she's "moderate" or "centrist" (even though she is not), cite other sources that use those terms to describe her.

Agreed with the disagreement. She is a member of the Blue Dog caucus, and the Blue Dogs are by self definition conservative Dems. Second, refuting a NYT article is OR. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, nobody who gets an 8% rating from the American Conservative Union is a conservative anything. There are plenty of sources accurately describing Gillibrand as a centrist Democrat, and those sources are now present in the article. I believe that the current version of this article is complete, well-sourced, and provides an accurate representation of Sen. Gillibrand's record and positions. One correction: the Blue Dog Coalition self-identifies as a coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats. They do not all identify as conservative, but I believe they do tend to identify as fiscally conservative.BoulderCreek12 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Future President??

Adding that she might be a future president is ridiculous and such speculation doesn't belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.188.223 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say she might be president some day, it says that she was mentioned by a mainstream news outlet almost a year ago that she was a possible candidate. The point is that she is not as obscure as some reports are suggesting today. I think it's a reasonable addition to the article. Tvoz/talk 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a reasonable addition to the article, and it is sourced information...even though the thought of a Gillibrand presidential run makes me laugh out loud... BoulderCreek12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

It seems a bit extreme to me too, but you never know. Tvoz/talk 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This text: "In May 2008, she was mentioned by The New York Times as a potential Governor who could become the first female President of the United States.[18] Upon her appointment to the Senate, Paul Begala also voiced the prediction that Gillibrand may rise to the Presidency.[19]" seems a bit much to me, or at least needs some balancing. How about all the members of the NY congressional delegation who don't like her, per this Politico story? How about the serious primary challenge she may get in 2010, per that story and this WaPo story? Who was the last 'Blue dog'-type Democrat who won the party's presidential nomination? Anyone remember how well Scoop Jackson did? At the very least, the article should clarify that she was one of a dozen or so women speculatively named by the NYT as future presidential possibilities. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree - that's why I re-added the "potential governor" which was the context of the NYT piece, but I agree the whole concept is out of left field (so to speak) and somewhat fanciful. We do mention the possible primary challenge from Mccarthy - and I have no problem with adding reference to other possible primary challenges as per politico/washpo. Tvoz/talk 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this Gillibrand bashing sounds like downstate sour grapes at an upstater actually having state-wide office. Get over yourselves. If we Democrats are going to continue to have the national success we have been having then it will be thanks to Democrats like her. I'm willing to bet she's at least mentioned several times by several reliable news outlets as a potential vice-presidential pick when the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate gets to the point of choosing his running-mate, and I put her odds at about 35% likely she'll actually be picked. I'm a Poli Sci grad student, so I spend alot of time thinking about these things. I correctly predicted Sarah Palin being chosen as the vice-presidential nominee before Romney even dropped out of the primaries, when barely anyone was mentioning her (USA Today did actually mention her as a contender for VP though they dismissed her due to inexperience and the whole firing of her ex-brother-in-law investigation, if only Republicans ever read newspapers they might not have picked her).Camelbinky (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If The New York Times or similar good source posits a possibility, it can be included. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Original article

original article was a stub and did indeed deserve replacement with a redirect to the district page. This version is no longer a stub, but describes Kirsten, her issues, and links to her campaign site. I suggest to change the district page, make her name there link to this new version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSinteur (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Including political ideology in Intro

The introduction of the article should include the basic information about Gillibrand, such as the offices she has held and her recent appointment. Items like her political ideology, appeal, and caucus membership would be better placed in the "Issues and Positions" section.Tajm 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally the intro section of biographies is a summary of the article - at least of its most important aspects - so I think a phrase about her political ideology is in order. Also see above discussion about the "conservative" label. Tvoz/talk 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment and added a source describing Senator-designate Gillibrand as a conservative. I am not saying that I personally think her to be a conservative, but if others do, we should include that in the article.Tajm 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of position

{{editsemiprotected}}

The article currently states: "positive rating from the NRA,[25] but has also worked to strengthen..."

I would suggest this should read: "positive rating from the NRA,[25] and has worked to strengthen..."

The NRA supported this legislation, so the "but" seems deceiving. "The NICS Improvement Act was passed by the House of Representatives on June 13, 2007, and then by the Senate on December 20, 2007, with the public support of the National Rifle Association (NRA)." ---http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/1/123

Thanks.

be the second female senator from new york —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chexandy89 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Question:Where is the above said line? Leujohn ^(talk) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note:The editsemiprotected request has been rendered unnecessary by further changes to the page that wholly changed the sentence in question.--Aervanath (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Living Former New York Senators

New York Newsday article that said there were only two former NY Senators alive is incorrect. James L Buckley, who served before Daniel Patrick Moynihan is very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Times article

The New York Times article on Gillibrand's role representing tobacco companies as a lawyer has been called a hit piece and has been responded to by Gillibrand's staff, but these activities are not mentioned. Right now the section is not balanced at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.180.149 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it was far inferior to and less balanced than the Times-Union article. Plus it ended rather abruptly. Reads like it was written in haste. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate support

I was wondering, did Gillibrand support a candidate for 2008 Presidential Election? It seems unlikely that she would support Obama despite being a democrat. Nite Owl II 04:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you think she wouldnt support Obama, from what I understand she was a strong supporter, oh and btw he won her congressional district which is dominated by Republicans.Camelbinky (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well just knowing how she's a conservative democrat it seems somewhat unlikely that she'd support such a liberal president (not that she'd vote McCain either). - Nite Owl II 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

Hi, my name is Todd Beeton and I am working for Senator Gillibrand's 2010 US Senate campaign. I have been tasked with updating Senator Gillibrand's wiki page to correct factual inaccuracies that are improperly sourced or incorrectly cited and to reflect her now 6-month old Senate record.

To avoid any perception of conflict of interest, I will post to the discussion page first, and ask that editors add information to the article as they see fit. If no discussion is had, nor action taken, within a week of posting the proposed content, I will move forward and add to the article myself. If there are any questions/concerns/edits to my proposed actions, please discuss on my talk page. // Todd Beeton (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Proposed edits are below:

Per BLP Standards, I've moved proposed content to article. // Todd Beeton (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction:

Suggested revision of text as follows:

AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE, Gillibrand WAS widely considered to be a centrist Democrat,[2] appealing to Republican and conservative Democratic voters in upstate New York.[3][4]

Now that Gillibrand represents the entire state of New York, her voting record is among the top 20 most progressive in the US Senate.

CITE: http://progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=Senate&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=All

US House of Representatives:

Gillibrand response found in the NYTimes:

“Gillibrand’s opposition to the bailout bill seemed to be focused on its approach, rather than the idea of helping Wall Street firms. That plan was later scrapped by the Treasury secretary at the time, Henry M. Paulson Jr., in favor of direct equity investments — which seem to be more along the lines of what Ms. Gillibrand had advocated.”

CITE: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/new-yorks-new-senator-not-a-tarp-fan/

She has recently been endorsed by 11 members of the NY Congressional Delegation in her bid for the Senate.

CITE: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/06/nyc_dems_support_gillibrand.ht

She has also posted her daily schedules, EARMARK REQUESTS and financial disclosure forms on her website.

CITE: http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/01/23/sen-designee-gillibrands-transparency-record/

US Senate:

McCarthy has since said she will not run for the seat.

CITE: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usmcca0512845576jun04,0,6772168.story

Since her appointment to the US Senate, in addition to supporting the president's recovery plan and budget, Senator Gillibrand has co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act, voted for cramdown to allow judges to write down mortgages of struggling homeowners and has pledged support for a not for profit public option to compete with private insurers.

CITE: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00059

CITE: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00154

CITE: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s560/show

CITE: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00174

CITE: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/11/730233/-I-Support-The-Public-Option

Political Views:

Suggested revision of text as follows:

During her tenure in the House of Representatives, Gillibrand was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and was considered a conservative Democrat or even centrist.[3][4][39]

Gillibrand received an "A" on the Drum Major Institute's 2007 Congressional Scorecard on middle-class issues. The Drum Major Institute is a left-leaning public policy institute.

CITE: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/pdfs/2007_scorecard_layout_final%20(2).pdf

Since her appointment to the US Senate, Senator Gillibrand's voting record has been among the top 20 most progressive in the US Senate.

CITE: http://progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=Senate&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=All

Gun Rights:

Suggested revision of text as follows:

Gillibrand has also SUPPORTED THE CAROLYN MCCARTHY AND NRA-endorsed National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.[45]

She vowed to work in the Senate to reduce gun trafficking and gun violence.

CITE: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/09/gillibrand-talks-gun-control/

In fact, Carolyn McCarthy has been supportive of Senator Gillibrand’s efforts to propose and pass anti gun trafficking legislation in the Senate, saying Gillibrand “has a great gun bill, and we’re going to be working closely together on that.”

CITE: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23930.html

Immigration:

She is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act that seeks to make it easier for undocumented immigrant students to further their education and put them on a path to citizenship.

CITE: http://www.maketheroad.org/article.php?ID=839

Gillibrand is also supportive of a moratorium on home raids until comprehensive immigration reform is passed.

CITE: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/03/2009-02-03_in_effort_to_soften_antiimmigration_rep_.html

Economic Crisis Measures:

Suggested revisions to text as follows:

During the economic crisis in 2008, Gillibrand opposed the Bush administration's corporate rescue plans with her vote in the House of Representatives, calling them "fundamentally flawed".[57] However, she did vote for the automobile industry bailout in December. [58]

Senator Gillibrand voted for the $850 billion stimulus plan backed by the Obama administration, although political opponent Carolyn McCarthy, who represents New York's 4th congressional district in the House, claimed that Gillibrand opposed it, incorrectly stating that the senator-designate had already voted against the bill.[59]

At a press conference on January 25, 2009, Gillibrand said that during her first week in the Senate, she would work to ensure that the stimulus bill included relief funds for New York state.[60]

DELETE: "However"

Gillibrand was not among the group of moderate senators led by Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska that worked on revising and paring down the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in early February 2009, instead opting to urge the bill's swift passage.[61]

Updated Edits

The opening section talks about Senator Gillibrand's political leanings as a Representative but not as a Senator. I updated this to reflect her National Journal ranking as follows:

In the Senate, however, Gillibrand's voting record was rated as among the 15 most liberal of 2009 by National Journal.

CITE: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nw_20100225_4841.php

Also in the opening section, I've changed "is expected to seek election" to "is currently seeking election."

In the "Gun RIghts" section, I clarified that Senator Gillibrand authored the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009 as follows:

She also authored the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009 in collaboration with Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, a longtime advocate of gun control. Gillibrand introduced the bil in the Senate and McCarthy introduced it in the House.

CITE: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s2878/show

CITE: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4298/show

If there are any questions/concerns/edits to my changes, please discuss on my talk page.// Todd Beeton (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Al Franken ( Seniority & Baby of the United States Senate )

From: Seniority in the United States Senate

1. 100 Al Franken (D-MN) July 7, 2009[14]

[14] Al Franken was elected to the senate term that began on Jan 3, 2009, but due to legal challenges, could not be sworn in until July 7, 2009. (see United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 for more details). His seniority date is based on the date he was sworn in (see Rushing, J. Taylor (July 8, 2009).

Is Al Franken the "Baby of the United States Senate" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.57.4 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Baby of the Senate" refers to the Senator who is the youngest NOT the one with the least seniority. As of January 2011, Mike Lee of Utah is now the "Baby of the Senate" as he is born June 4, 1971. More detail can be found at the Baby of the House#United States article. 76.237.207.191 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Legislative record in the Senate

My name is Todd Beeton and I am working for Senator Gillibrand's 2010 US Senate campaign. Below are my proposed additions regarding the Senator's legislative record since being appointed to the US Senate.

To avoid any perception of conflict of interest, I will post to the discussion page first, and ask that editors add information to the article as they see fit. If there is no discussion nor action taken within a week of posting the proposed content, I will move forward and add it to the article myself. If there are any questions/concerns/edits to my proposed additions, please discuss on my talk page. // 72.229.228.237 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes are below:

Per BLP Standards, I've moved proposed content to article. //74.65.225.212 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since joining the US Senate, Senator Gillibrand has passed several bills and amendments including:

- the Kerry-Gillibrand Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (Help Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (S. 896.) S. Amdt. 1036), which will keep renters from being thrown out of their homes in the event of a foreclosure.

CITE: http://newyork.realestaterama.com/2009/05/07/senate-passes-kerry-gillibrand-amendment-to-protect-renters-in-foreclosure-crisis-ID0619.html

- the Menendez, Nelson, Gillibrand Provisions for Immigrant Widows and Orphans, which will protect widows and orphans of deceased U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who are in the family immigration system.

CITE: http://www.advancingequality.org/en/rel/208/

- the Gillibrand Amendment To Investigate Trace Amounts Of Pharmaceuticals Found In New York Water, which authorizes the study of the presence of pharmaceutical drugs in drinking water and the long term health effects on children and families, passed the Environment and Public Works Committee.

CITE: http://www.nylcv.org/ecopoliticsdaily/20090513_sen_gillibrand_calls_for_evaluation_of_medications_in_drink

Also, several bills that Senator Gillibrand has co-sponsored have passed the Senate including:

- the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which will dramatically increase protections for credit card holders

CITE: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-414

- the Federal Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA), which will enhance penalties for fraud in government contracting, increase the size of prosecution and anti-fraud task forces and the Justice Department and FBI, and augmented federal efforts to target abuse.

CITE: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s386/show

- the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide regulation of tobacco products by the FDA.

CITE: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153726.php

- the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, legislation that will take several measures to make it easier for deployed service members to vote.

CITE: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1415

- Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, which will improve veterans health care by providing reliable and consistent appropriations for the VA, allowing the VA to improve its facilities and services (passed out of committee.)

CITE: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-423

I see a few problems with the list. First, as a list, it is pointless. Every legislator sponsors bills and amendments. What makes these special? Obviously, these are all proposals that are calculated to be broadly popular. Presenting these, and not others, would give a biased perspective of the senator. Finally, if her proposals are to be included in the article, they should be tied to something of enduring value. For instance, if she has been exceptionally effective in getting bills passed, then a number of bills or some examples, or both, would be helpful. That would require, however, some comparison to other freshman senators. Another reasonable way to incorporate some measures would be tying them into long-standing causes she has championed in the Senate and the House just as John Dingell and his father introduced the same bill at the beginning of every Congress. -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Political Views - Foreign Policy?

I'm surprised there isn't a foreign policy section under Political Views. Anyone up for creating one? I'll try and get some references together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psjalltheway (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Schumer's cellphone "bitch" controversy

This section is way too long. Are there actually article discussing substantively Gillibrand's role? It seems rather trivial. I support removing the whole thing, but if it's left in it needs to be greatly condensed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the section... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair points, CoM. I think it at least noteworthy because (a) it got plenty of press coverage, (b) some commentary (as cited) notes that Gillibrand came out of it looking worse than Schumer since she tried clumsily to cover up for him, (c) it reinforces a growing public perception that she's tethered to Schumer and does his bidding, and (d) with less than a year in office and 10 months until the election, there's not a lot out there about her, so whatever is there is of some interest. If we were talking about Chris Dodd or Orrin Hatch, i.e., guys with decades in the Senate, I'd readily agree that this isn't even worth a mention. OTOH, I agree with your suggestion as to condensing. P.S. Can't we still say "bitch" on WP? ;) Cloonmore (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Insignificant news doesn't belong even if a candidate's not been in office long; this is a tabloid item of very little importance to Gillibrand. If there's substantial reliable sources that report a "growing public perception that [Gillibrand] is tethered to Schumer" and tie this event to that, maybe a section in the article can detail who thinks that and why, with sources; but including insignificant items like this without any context just looks indiscriminate and poorly edited. Fran Rogers (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Link needs replacing

Under the section "Taxes", I wondered whether "country" was a typo for "county". I tried to find out by following the link at reference 84, but the referenced article apparently no longer exists. 75.61.67.234 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I was able to find one web page (Project Vote Smart) that quotes the very same non-existent article, but uses the word "county" rather than "country". Since this makes more sense, I will go ahead and fix the apparent typo. But a replacement source should still be found if somebody can do so. 75.61.67.234 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ProgressivePunch.com

Is this citation considered unreliable? A user removed the cite and its statement from the lede. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. This edit. I had forgotten about that one. At the time, I did a bit of searching and found similar comments about their ratings on quite a few politicians' pages. I know about the "other crap exists" rule, but precedent ought to mean something too. I attributed the deletion to one editor with a wild hair, but didn't consider it worth contesting.

One thing I did notice; this article had a simple statement "...Gillibrand's voting record has been rated as among the 20 most liberal in the U.S. Senate", with a cite to ProgressivePunch. Many of the others used phrasing like "ProgressivePunch.com [possibly a description like 'a liberal blog' here] rated Gillibrand's voting record as among the 20 most liberal in the U.S. Senate"; in my view, that changes them from being a "reliable source" to a component in the story. Of course, although it should be, my view is not universally held... As to other comments, I don't think I'd rely on them for statements of fact, but possibly for quotable opinions – described as such – similar to the ratings example above. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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 its 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 ˈdʒɪlɪbrænd/ 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)

References

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?

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?

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

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

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 www.OpenCongress.org

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 Congress.org 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 Congress.org 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 67.249.255.236 (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

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! 74.69.9.224 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218093254/http://kirstengillibrand.com:80/free_details.asp?id=1 to http://kirstengillibrand.com/free_details.asp?id=1

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

Y 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Armed Services

She's the ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee of Armed Services Committee. Add please. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elle.com/Life-Love/Society-Career-Power/Kirsten-Gillibrand
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823020615/http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/Primary/2010PrimaryElectionResults.pdf to http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2010/Primary/2010PrimaryElectionResults.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731120804/http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm to http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319202959/http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2010/12/983717/what-dont-ask-dont-tell-did-kirsten-gillibrand to http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2010/12/983717/what-dont-ask-dont-tell-did-kirsten-gillibrand
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622084918/http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Kirsten_Gillibrand.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Kirsten_Gillibrand.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525122035/http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=28123&session_num=2&page=legScore to http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=28123&session_num=2&page=legScore
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622084918/http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Kirsten_Gillibrand.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Kirsten_Gillibrand.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904220447/http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112%3ASN00968%3A%40%40%40P to http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112%3ASN00968%3A%40%40%40P

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can other editors please weight in? Knope7 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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/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)

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)

I completely agree that including it in the lede violates WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think it's a BLP violation, but this definitely seems like inappropriate editorializing and POV pushing. I'm in full agreement w/ Scjessey. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Edit request: One-sentence addition to Future Campaigns section

The Kirsten Gillibrand#Future campaigns section is misleading & out-of-date. Directly after its current text, please add the following sentence & reference:

When asked again in December 2018 during a televised interview, she said: "Well, I'm definitely thinking about it, of course."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1812/15/vjs.01.html |title=Transcripts: The Van Jones Show |publisher=CNN |date=December 15, 2018 |accessdate=January 14, 2019}}</ref>

Many thanks! —173.68.139.31 (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Morris extra detail

With this reversion, Prauls901 violated WP:ARBAP2 by restoring challenged material (despite a prior warning about the consequences of doing so). I had removed the material because it went into way too much detail about Gillibrand's work as a lawyer, including specifics about activities of the company she was hired to represent. For example, what do these two lines have to do with the subject?

The government was attempting to gain access to research from the company that would prove that executives had lied about the dangers of smoking during hearings before the U.S. Congress.

Though not released publicly, the research showed a connection between smoking and cancer. The government abandoned its criminal inquiry against Philip Morris in 1999.

The previous paragraph already fully explains Gillibrand's work for Philip Morris as part of her position at the law firm Davis Polk. By adding all this additional, undue material about the government's tobacco case, it appears as if Prauls901 is trying to hang the shameful behavior of a tobacco company around the neck of a lawyer who was just doing her job. This kind of guilt by association is inappropriate for biographies of living persons. I submit the entire paragraph should be removed per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The wording is an implicit criticism. (It implicitly criticizes Gillibrand for defending Philip Morris.) If criticism of her work for Philip Morris is reported in reliable sources and meets weight, we could consider inclusion. TFD (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't even need to necessarily include the criticism, but the section of the page covering her legal career should include these details, which have been reported on by the Times and other sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reworked the paragraph to remove the guilt-by-association stuff, but kept all the important details about what she actually did. Also reworked the weird timeline about how she became a senior associate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: IMO your rework raises several issues. It seems to consist of removing sourced, factual information about her defense of Phillip Morris, like the background of the case and its outcome, and I'm confused as to how you concluded that these contextual details are "guilt by association" and "NPOV." We all understand that attorneys regularly defend crooks and other unsavory characters, and this doesn't necessarily reflect on the lawyer, but this period of her career has received prominent coverage and should be covered in all of its complexity per WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not have access to the NYT article, but there is an article about that article in the Columbia Journalism Review, "Branding Gillibrand NYT sketches with too loose a hand on NY senator and big tobacco story". I don't see any reason to get into the details of her work unless it attracts attention. Note the New York Times article was written 10 years ago. TFD (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the paragraph needs to be expanded, but it should be complete and accurate. The current iteration is too sanitized, omits the outcome of the case, and makes her broader role in it and why it was notable unclear, particularly the trips to Germany. From the article:

So when the Justice Department tried to get its hands on that research in 1996 to prove that tobacco industry executives had lied about the dangers of smoking, the company moved to fend off the effort with the help of a highly regarded young lawyer named Kirsten Rutnik.

Ms. Rutnik, who now goes by her married name, Gillibrand, threw herself into the work. She traveled to Germany at least twice, interviewing the lab’s top scientists, whose research showed a connection between smoking and  but was kept far from public view.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Columbia Journalism Article, I don't know how much weight we should place on the opinion of one adjunct professor versus the news department at the New York Times. The CJR may have some valid points about the tone of the NYT piece, but it doesn't dispute its factual accuracy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we should give any weight to the article, but I expect it to summarize accurately what is in the New York Times article. It's not the news department of the New York Times, btw but a journalist writing for them. (Raymond Fernandez.) I don't know if the writer of the CJR is an adjunct professor, but she was opinion editor at al Jazeera and is culture editor at The Atlantic, so probably just as qualified. TFD (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is the outcome of the case of in any way relevant to this biography? In fact, why are all these extra details of the case important to her biography at all? Certainly the highest profile aspect of the subject's life has been as a politician, and to focus so narrowly on her time as a junior associate lawyer, just because she happened to work as part of a team that represented a tobacco company, smacks of trying to associate her with the shameful acts of that company. It is not a widely covered aspect of Gillibrand's biography, and the NYT famously shit all over Hillary Clinton by obsessing over the NothingBurger of her emails, so I think it is worth considering that when thinking about WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The entire purpose of a BLP is to cover the subject's life and career as determined by what's WP:VERIFIABLE and reported in WP:RS. Her decade-long career as a lawyer and one of the most prominent cases she handled obviously fits into that category. And why are you only making this argument selectively to omit these details? Couldn't we say the same about her one-year stint in public interest? Your point about it not being widely covered is incorrect. At the time, it was covered in two pieces in the NYT and Politico. That's just from a cursory search. Without the details that you've removed (outcome of the case, purpose of the trip to Germany) the paragraph now seems misrepresent her involvement in it, which I find far more concerning. These details are necessary for a reader to have a proper understanding of what transpired, and what constitutes a "nothingburger" should be determined by sources, not editors individual opinions per WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the work that Gillibrand did for Philip Morris at Davis Polk meets WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. The fact that it is controversial at least partially proves that it is relevant. The NY Times wrote an entire story about it and it's been picked up elsewhere. I don't understand why Scjessey thinks this irrelevant to the Wikipedia page of Kirsten Gilliabrand. He seems to have a very narrow view of what should go into the Wikipedia page of someone considering running for President. The section on her government service talks about her work "strengthening Davis–Bacon Act enforcement," which is pretty specific and there's a quote from her talking about her experience with the Women's Leadership Forum. At this point, I think the page is pretty balanced between her private practice and her public/government work. Prauls901 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not verifiability but weight. No one questions that the article should report that Gillibrand defended tobacco companies. The issue is whether she was right to do that. Explaining the actions of the tobacco companies is implied synthesis. They are bad, so Gillibrand must also be bad. That is fair comment, but the comment must come from reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. Scjessey for example says that a lawyer must defend their client. Is that true? I don't know, but articles should not present editors' views, but views in reliable sources according to weight. TFD (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers don't have to take any work. They can always quit their firm or do whatever they want. What's interesting is Davis Polk allowed its junior lawyers to choose not to work with Philip Morris, with no repercussions. But Gilliand not only agreed to do the work, she became an important part of the legal team defending the company. That does speak to her character, if nothing else. Prauls901 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

From NYT: "Of course, many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work, Mr. Chang said. Asked whether Ms. Gillibrand had any misgivings about representing the tobacco company, Mr. Canter responded by e-mail: “Senator Gillibrand worked for the clients that were assigned to her.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prauls901 (talk • contribs)

References

If you think it was unethical for her to defend big tobacco then get a source that says to. Also, articles should not contain implicit criticism. If someone did wrong, say it, if someone accused them of wrong, say who said that. TFD (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for a Wikipedia editor to prove unethical behavior. That is up to the reader to decide. But I think the information is of public interest, isn't biased or false, and meets the Wikipedia requirements, so it should be on the page in my opinion.Prauls901 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is up to the reader to decide, which is why articles should not imply that people have behaved unethically. Of course articles can state that people have been accused of unethical behavior if that view is significant or say they have behaved unethically if that is the consensus in reliable sources. We should not tell readers what to think. Incidentally, I did not use the word "prove." Why are you putting it it quotes? TFD (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Her behavior speaks for itself, there doesn't need to be an accusation of unethical behavior for a piece of information to be on the page. The fact is, it's an interesting part of her career that reveals something about her. I think the part of the NYT article quoted above should be included, so it's clear she could have avoided taking the work without having to quit her job at Davis Polk. That she chose to work on the Philip Morris case reveals something about her, which some people may or may not think is unethical. No accusations, just facts that reveal her character and are of public interest. (The quotes were just for emphasis, now removed)Prauls901 (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Prauls901 is correct about this story having WP:WEIGHT. It's been reported in the NYT and other outlets, and of course it should be covered (and by the way, it already is). Our job is not to evaluate the morality of the conduct itself, but to assess what the sources have reported on it and the quality of those sources. Whether or not an article contains "implicit criticism" is a matter of word choice and avoiding editorializing, not the subject matter. Nevertheless, the section should be revised (I attempted this earlier) so that it doesn't gloss over important details of the case. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT has nothing to do with how big a story is. It is about how much weight a particular story is with respect to the subject. Gillibrand's work as a lawyer is important. Who Gillibrand worked for as a lawyer is important. What Gillibrand worked on as a lawyer is important. But with Gillibrand being only one member of a legal team (tobacco companies had hundreds), the outcome of the case and the government's position on the matter are not important. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the opposite of what the policy states. 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 in the published, reliable source. If it's been covered by the NYT and other sources, it meets these criteria. The rest of your comment seems to be your own subjective assessment, so you should also bear in mind that WP:WEIGHT stipulates: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the material in question isn't about the subject. It's about a different subject that is only tangentially related to the subject of this article. There's simply no need to go into the extra, superfluous details about what the government did or didn't do. It's akin to having an article on some weather forecasting dude and then going into detail about what the weather was like on one of the days he reported on it. There's already more than enough information for the reader to fully understand what Gillibrand did, and in what context. Anything else is simply a transparent attempt to link the subject to the behavior of the tobacco company. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, look. The section in question is on her career. This is a major case that she handled. In my opinion, I think that it's reasonable to say that the details above are relevant and necessary. You say "transparent" as if I'm hiding something, but I think I've been pretty explicit; there's no need to imply a "link," because we know from the NYT that she worked on the case! If we're to follow your approach, we have a lot of unfinished work to do on 99% of notable attorney's Wiki pages, most of which I'm sure outline the nature of the cases they worked on and the outcome (Alan Dershowitz covers it in the lead, as does Matthew Whitaker, and Kamala Harris, which is probably the best example to follow, extensively details her career as state AG). Obviously she is not to be blamed for the actions of the tobacco company, and I don't think the wording above assigns any sort of blame like that. Ideally we could work out a compromise instead of opening an RfC, as I think there is some room to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We just don't see eye to eye on this, so we need different eyes. The fact that she was a lawyer who worked extensively with a tobacco company is fine, but what the government did or did not do doesn't seem to be germane. I've tried to make you understand that, but you resolutely believe it is somehow relevant. So we are at an impasse, and only other editors will be able to break the deadlock. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I assume by "action" you're referring to the government dropping the case. Against what do you think she was defending the executives against? A criminal inquiry by the government. Her work on the case resulted in that inquiry being abandoned. This is all chronicled in the NYT article, which was exclusively about this case. I don't understand how you could possibly say this shouldn't be noted in this because it's not "relevant" without being ironic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: It would be original research to even imply the government dropped the case because of the actions of Gillibrand. I've already said we don't agree on this and that there is no point in arguing further. If you want this challenged material in the article, you must attract support from other editors. That's why I suggested you launch an RfC. Ad it stands right now, there's no consensus to override the challenge. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

[@Scjessey: That's not what WP:OR is; she worked on the legal defense team and the charges were dropped. How can you say that she had nothing to do with it? The NYT even addresses this:

In the face of the vigorous counteroffensive from the industry, the Justice Department abandoned its criminal inquiry in 1999 and decided to bring a racketeering case in civil court, claiming that the cigarette companies conspired for half a century to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking.

Ms. Gillibrand did not work on the racketeering case, on which other law firms took the lead. But when Judge  of Federal District Court handed down her landmark decision in that case in 2006, finding that the tobacco companies had conspired to defraud the public, she based the ruling in part on the business practices Ms. Gillibrand had delved into during the perjury case. The judge cited Philip Morris’s use of the German lab as a way for the company to suppress evidence and scolded the company for concealing information from consumers and government regulators.

It'd be better if you'd engage in some sort of compromise rather than making these common-sense defying arguments and engaging in classic WP:STONEWALLING. As I said earlier, I would agree with you that the portion about her having a "choice" to work on the matter should be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Prauls901, you say that the additional text is necessary because "some people may or may not think it is unethical." That is original research. You need a source that explicitly says that. By comparison, in the article you created Sf.citi you don't mention all the accusations that have been brought against Google, Facebook, Amazon and other companies that fund it. You could add, "Sf.citi advocates for companies such as Amazon which has been accused of exploiting workers." That might be relevant but would be wrong to mention unless it became an issue. TFD (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I think mentioning that a company like Google was accused of something on the Sf.citi page is different than bringing up the legal career of a politician considering running for president on her own page. Sf.citi isn't about Google or the other companies, it's about the organization. By contrast, this page is about Gillibrand, and the professional choices she made as a lawyer should be on the page. I don't see how that is original research: it's something she did and the entry simply mentions that. It seems to me Wikipedia should lean towards revealing more information, not less, in the public interest.Prauls901 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: No one's talking about a different subject; what we're talking about is, according to the NYT, an important case that the subject played a prominent role in. What you're suggesting is more akin to saying that we can mention that someone ran in the 100m in the Olympics, but that the result of the race and what place they came in is "superfluous detail." As far as Prauls901's argument about the material, I think he's suggesting that it may be of interest to readers. He may well be right about that, and inclusion is supported by policy because it has been covered in WP:RS. Whether or not she's handled hundreds of cases, we base BLPs on WP:SECONDARY sources. Any information about her background and career that we cannot source should not be included, and information for which there are sources should be included. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I think the section is largely fine, I'm only advocating for a few minor changes:

• Better explain the purpose of the trips to Germany and relation to case
• Indicate that the case was ultimately dropped
• Clarify that she was not involved in the civil racketeering case, according to NYT

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Prauls901, you may very well be correct that the two cases are different and it could be it was unethical for Gillibrand to defend tobacco companies. On the other hand Scjessey's view that it is ethical for lawyers to defend people no matter who they are is also a valid position. However, we are not supposed to inject our personal views into articles and implicit criticism is a form of original research. The reason I brought up Sf.citi is that another editor could determine that the organization was tainted by its funders and choose to add negative information about them in order to let readers decide. But it would be wrong to do that unless the criticism came up in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@TFD You seem really focused on the effect that the information has. Instead, I would look at it from the perspective of "Is the information accurate and of public interest?" The effect of publicizing the information is really out of the editor's control. BTW, does your rule also apply to positive information? Because that can also have an effect on how the subject is perceived, just like negative information. But I don't see you mention that. Also, in this case, the information comes from a reliable source.Prauls901 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The two lines highlighted in the beginning of this section should be restored. They are well-written, sourced, and accurately convey the information about the topic at hand. The argument against their inclusion is incredibly weak; the notion that we should disregard WP:WEIGHT of a source based on the personal opinion of an editor is the opposite of what the policy guidelines suggest, and these questions about "relevance" are frivolous when the relevance is clearly established by the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not about the subject. They are about the tobacco case. The salient details are already in the article. It's basically a subtle form of POV pushing, and I strenuously object. If necessary, we should begin an RfC on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: With all due respect, that's nonsense, and I would avoid making insinuations about POV-pushing; someone might respond likewise and accuse you of whitewashing, and that wouldn't help lead this discussion anywhere productive. As far as your contention about the nature of the case she worked being irrelevant, this is just false. The key details were the witholding of research by the executives proving the smoking-cancer connection, which was the subject of the perjury investigation and what she looked into in those trips to Germany, and the result of the case, which was that it was dropped. To remove this information is to misrepresent what the source reported. I hoped you would be a little more willing to consider the guidelines set by policy and the positions of other editors before digging your heels in and issuing a "strenuous objection," but perhaps an RfC is necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I be "whitewashing" if literally everything salient is already in the article? Any withholding of details was done by the client, not the lawyer. It's clear evidence you want Gillibrand to be blamed for what the tobacco company did. This is so absurdly obvious, I don't even know of another way to explain this to you. Maybe you are too close to the issue to think about it rationally? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should WP:AGF before you start pointing fingers and accusing others of "POV pushing" and "blaming" the subject—and by the way, what a ridiculous assertion—perhaps you're the one who's being a little irrational? What you claim is "obvious" is just the opposite; frankly, you've done a very poor job of making a persuasive argument as to why key details of the case and her involvement in it is "a different subject." This is how you apparently justify removing a) the outcome of the case and b) the reason that she went to Germany as part of her work on the case, both of which have been explained by the NYT. The line about Phillip Morris's research in Germany explains why she traveled there, and is not unrelated to her. On any other attorney's Wikipedia page, if a prominent case they were involved in is mentioned, there would be no question over including the extent of their involvement and the outcome of the case if it had been published in WP:RS. That's precisely the situation we are in here, and we should not treat this differently because the subject is a politician. It's a relevant part of her career and background and it should be explained concisely, accurately, and in all its complexity. In my opinion, that is accomplished by restoring the two lines you removed. And I think we can compromise here; I am not in favor of keeping the line about whether she "chose" to take on the case, which does not appear as strongly supported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

For the last time, the outcome of the case is not relevant here. Moreover, I did not remove the detail about her going to Germany! (diff) This is the second time you have made assumptions about what is being said or done, without actually checking before you comment. Look, why don't you offer a compromise text here on the talk page, and then we'll discuss it. No need to reproduce references. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it is obviously relevant—it's the outcome of the case (criminal inquiry dropped) that she worked on and that was major enough to be reported in the NYT. First you said that WP:WEIGHT isn't what the WP:RS say, it's what you say it is (wrong), and now you're saying that the outcome of the case that she worked for several years on is irrelevant to her career. These are illogical arguments. And the problem in the article is that it doesn't explain why she went to Germany—it wasn't just a field trip, she went there for a specific purpose: to gain an understanding of what the company knew and when, which was connected to the perjury charges that she was defending them against. You sanitized the line to make no mention any of this, and this creates an WP:NPOV problem. Per WP:DUE, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sourceson a topic. Specifically for public figures, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Policy supports inclusion, and you seem to just be WP:STONEWALLING basic details, so we should probably just open an RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: It's no good quoting policy at me when you are misrepresenting it. You are arguing for the inclusion of stuff that while notable and sourced, it is not specifically about the subject. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. If you want to include this challenged material, you're going to have to get significant support. I would suggest you launch an RfC with your proposed text. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I agree with your suggestion, but let's get one thing straight: the substance of her legal work is not irrelevant to her career. You have not responded to a single one of my points and just keep repeating an argument that I'm absolutely mystified by, which is that somehow the details of the case she worked on are a subject different than her career. If we were talking about adding details on a past case with Phillip Morris about some horrible thing they did that had nothing to do with her and was a case she did not work on, then you would absolutely be correct that it doesn't belong in the article. However, this was about a case she did work on, and these were details the NYT thought to report in an article about her legal background. When we consult the sources, your argument holds no water, so respectfully, I don't think I'm the one misrepresenting things here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said before, there does not seem to be a way to convince you of your folly because you no longer will listen to reason. I've answered all of your points, and you've ignored the answers. Let's let others decide. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Prauls901, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not it is in the public interest. Similarly, the fact that information is true is not sufficient reason for inclusion. However, the policies of due weight and no original research are relevant. It is not the purpose of articles to correct the lack of due diligence in news media. TFD (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@TBD Including the choices that Gillibrand made during her professional career into her Wikipedia page are not anything like original research. The policy says: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Please tell me how including facts about Gillibrand's career "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." It's biographical, not trying to imply anything. That is an argument that you and Scjessey are making, and one which you have yet to prove. Also, I agree with Wikieditor19920's proposals for changes. Prauls901 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

TFD makes some good points about WP:OR, and "public interest" is a very fuzzy concept that isn't enshrined in policy and begs to be countered with WP:NOT. However, that's not the main argument for including these details. This is a subject that can objectively be said to have WP:WEIGHT, based on its coverage in highly reliable sources, and therefore it should be covered fully and accurately. It's misleading and poor paraphrasing to selectively omit certain details that are obviously crucial to the story as told in the source, and this includes the highlighted portion above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

After doing some research, I see the "public interest" argument isn't the best one to make. But I think the information should be included based on WP:WEIGHT and reliable sources. Prauls901 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)