AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
Steeletrap (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
:I fixed that. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
:I fixed that. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
==Huge NPOV problems on Native American section== |
|||
Warren did not "self-identify as Native American"; she listed herself as a racial minority in a law school directory used by job recruiters. (The directory did not specify which race one was. An Arab American who does not identify as Caucasian would be listed alongside an Asian American, African American, and Native American, with no clarification.) She stopped doing so when she got tenured at Harvard. These facts are documented by RS. Because she has no documented Native American heritage (though claims to be 1/32nd Native American), she has been accused of credentials fraud. Let's portray these facts accurately and let the readers decide. [[User:Steeletrap|Steeletrap]] ([[User talk:Steeletrap|talk]]) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:06, 30 December 2014
Elizabeth Warren has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No Controversy Section?
Wow! The Boston Globe ran the original "is she really an Indian" stories, it was very noteworthy. It was briefly covered in the national press. But the article has been scrubbed clean of it! Well done, Wikipedia revisionist historians. So much for NPV.
(For a counter example note that Rand Paul's page has a write up on his comments on the Civil Rights Act, which was a similar controversy). Leftists are treated with kid gloves around here, right wingers demonized. Look at the Palin page, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No pro-bono work
She did NO free work for poor people and non-prifits. All her work was to represent big corporations. Please include this. this article is controlled by socialsit warren supporters. --Jo (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Come up with some reliable sources and a short, encyclopedic summary of the situation. —Designate (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- This type of politically-motivated allegation without any shred of evidence is exactly what BLPs should avoid. Darx9url (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Senate election split
Darx9url (talk · contribs) moved most of the information regarding Warren's campaign to the Senate race article (United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012). I don't agree with removing the information so aggressively from this article, since that article is not a direct split from this one (e.g. "Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign, 2012") but a parallel topic.
Even when a split occurs, the page on article splitting (which is not a policy) does not say the remaining section must be "short", just that it should summarize the overall topic. Due weight still applies within this article regardless of whether there's a second article; there's too much detail on her academic and congressional careers to leave out so much information about the election. There's a lot of direct biographical information regarding Warren which still belongs in this article, even if there's an article on the Senate rate overall. —Designate (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are objecting to something that is common practice all over Wikipedia. The article linked to is the main article about the election, and it is common practice to leave only a summary when the main article exists. I quote from WP:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." In any case that much information about the election shouldn't be in this article. Just check out the other senators articles, they don't have a long section about the election. (For instance, check out the article on the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.) Darx9url (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in complete agreement with Designate on all points s/he made. Darx9url, this information has been in the article for a long time without any disagreements. You should know very well that it is not proper to make such a drastic change to any article, but especially a political-related article where there is bound to be objections, without prior discussion and consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version?
Given that United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 contains the information in both proposed versions, what should be in the '2012 Election' section of this article? The two proposed versions are: short and long. Darx9url (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- The material should be a short summary of the main article on the topic. Thus, I favour brevity in this article. Collect (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- This article is not overly long and the information is fairly brief. IMO it fits very well into this article and should be left where it is, though I would not feel bad to see the Native American controversy go to the other article. :) Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the Native American controversy content deserves to be on her personal page. Back to the RfC–––the information should be briefly summarized with a link to the other page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, we should follow WP:Splitting, and leave only a short summary when the material is covered in a daughter article. Darx9url (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 is not a sub-article of this one, so "splitting" doesn't apply. It's an article about something Warren and several other individuals were involved in, and this article covers her part of it. The text is too heavy on Warren to just be plopped into the other article. By analogy, World War II is not a sub-article of Winston Churchill and we don't reduce that part of his career to two paragraphs just because the other article exists. Due weight applies to each article as a whole, regardless of what other articles overlap with it. The election section should be a little shorter than it was, but Darx's version is far too simplified. —Designate (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Undue weight is an issue here. Though the 2012 election is a very important part of why she is famous (and deserves a wiki page) this is a biography of her whole life. I'm in favor of a summary of the main article. JamesRoberts (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with JamesRoberts about the concern of undue weight and favor a short summary, especially since the same information is repeated in the article linked to in the hatnote. LK (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Designate; we want something a little shorter than the long version, but the short version leaves too much ot; if we needed to pick one I'd go with the long one. She's only stood one election, it's been an important part of her career. --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Per poster above. The section is not just about a past-and-gone event but tells us much about Warren's whole political position and some of the reactions to it, and should be substantially retained in this article: Noyster (talk), 12:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I favor a short summary and a link to the other article if readers want to know more about the 2012 election. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Issues raised in the election are very relevant to her career and positions, and need to be mentioned. However, as this is a large article already, and there is sufficient material for a standalone article on the election, WP policy is to concisely summarize the main points in the relevant section in this article, then link to the fuller article for more in-depth election coverage. - CorbieV☊ 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was picked by a bot at random to comment. The article is at 17kb of readable text, its not to big. The 2012 election section looks good as it is. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Stay at home mother
Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom.
This is supposed to be a detached, disinterested encyclopaedic entry for a global readership about a significant and powerful US politician, not a political appeal to those with folksy American Mid-West values. The correct encyclopaedic term here is 'mother' or 'housewife' not 'stay-at-home mom', especially not 'stay-at-home mom' without inverted commas to indicate the use of an inappropriate stereotype. Further, I have checked and the term 'stay-at-home mom' does not appear in either of the two sources cited. Please amend this maple-syrupy statement accordingly.123.211.75.216 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Huge NPOV problems on Native American section
Warren did not "self-identify as Native American"; she listed herself as a racial minority in a law school directory used by job recruiters. (The directory did not specify which race one was. An Arab American who does not identify as Caucasian would be listed alongside an Asian American, African American, and Native American, with no clarification.) She stopped doing so when she got tenured at Harvard. These facts are documented by RS. Because she has no documented Native American heritage (though claims to be 1/32nd Native American), she has been accused of credentials fraud. Let's portray these facts accurately and let the readers decide. Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)