Talk:Elizabeth Warren/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Kept The issues raised here all appear to have been resolved. Keeping the Good article status. AIR corn (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of disruption and reports at various noticeboards about this biography of a living person - multiple reverts going on over a period of time. NPOV issues related to her Cherokee comments and lots of editing changes - article no longer qualifies under GA status - clearly fails WIAGA - 4 and 5 -  You  really  can  07:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Lots of editing changes" are the norm on Wikipedia. The reverts only apply to one paragraph and there's been significant progress in the last week toward a moderate consensus. There's no edit warring about what to include, just disagreement over the best wording. The article is still stable enough to meet GA. —Designate (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, just a reminder-- part of the GAR process is to notify major contributors and relevant WikiProjects. —Designate (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is still large dispute regarding WP:BLP policy content and constant reverting - edit history - fails WP:GA . sorry - You  really  can  22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have as requested notified all related wiki projects - visible here - and notified the top ten contributors to the article see link - You  really  can  21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the GA status is endangered by vigorous changes to the article. The part of WIAGA about stability is for establishing a GA in the first place, not for delisting. Also, I get the impression from the original poster that he is ignoring the admonition at GAR: "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." Youreallycan has complained about general issues but not given specific, actionable criticism. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:BLP edit war repeatedly and over a lengthy period of time and still going on, attacking her claims to have a drop of Cherokee blood in her family - see the edit history of the biography - diffs - see, what is a good article 4 and five - this article fails both - what is a good article - You  really  can  22:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that you participated in this "edit war" exchange nine days ago. A cynical observer might think that you are exerting pressure by way of this GAR to make sure your preferred viewpoint prevails. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was that single edit and seeing that it was currently a GA that made me realize it wasn't any longer a GA article, and led me to create this reassessment - I am lucky in that I have no preferred viewpoint in relation to this living person or topic.  You  really  can  22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Like (almost? - I can think of no exceptions) all articles of this type this article is not neutral and is stable only to the extent that the resident claque can keep it so. That the aim might be to fix rather than delist it is irrelevant, as that will never happen so long as Warren inspires partisanship the way she does. GA status is a trophy for the claque, not a deserved plaudit, but Wikipedia dysfunctionality is such that this discussion is almost certainly pointless. Andyvphil (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a question -I noticed she switched from republican to democrat in 1995 but this is not discussed in the article other than the infobox. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added that info. The article seems quiet.  I believe that a lot of the problem was related to a Republican tea party type blogger that supported Warren's opponent and had been gunning for Warren all last summer.  He can't understand why WP will not use his blog for RS but will use the Boston Globe.  Unfortunately, his rants were, to some extent, encouraged by experienced WP editors. IMO the entire episode was election politics as usual and her article still devotes way too much coverage to the incident--the voters did not take it as a major issue and she won the election Gandydancer (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your improvement! The article's noise level has settled and it looks as if there is no need to chase down the GAR path. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a general comment regarding the stability and neutrality requirement. The practical purpose of the stability requirement for GA reviewing is to help prevent you reviewing the wrong version of an article. There is no point trying to review an article in the middle of an edit war or one that is likely to undergo major change soon after your review. While it does apply to reassessments too, it usually requires a higher threshold to result in a delisting (Good article reassessment/Taiwan/1 is the only successful community delisting where stability was a major factor that I know of). It needs to be otherwise everytime editors get into an edit war over a good article it would result in a delisting. If there has been prolonged edit warring then there could be a case for delisting, if it is just vandalism reverts or a couple of editors disagreeing about a section I would be inclined to see if it settles down before going the delisting route. Neutrality is a bit trickier, because it is rather subjective. GA doesn't require the article to be perfectly neutral, just not obviously non-neutral (i.e. it is more a range than an exact position). Ultimately, as this is an individual reassessment, it will be down to YRC to decide whether it meets the GA criteria and close it. Note, I have not looked closely at the article and at this toime have no opinion on the merits of the reassessment. AIR corn (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments
The initiator of this reassessment is unfortunately site banned so I will take over it. The stability has improved so I don't think that is a concern anymore. There is possibly some WP:undue going on with the cherokee claims and it would benefit from some editing for brevity. There is also a citation needed tag however that will need to be dealt with if this is to remain a Good article. AIR corn (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact tag was easily settled by naming a reference (Warren's Harvard CV from 2008) and having it appear twice. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to trim the paragraph, but it was reverted. To me this fails two of the Good article criteria (NPOV and Focus). AIR corn (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, this blogger has been gunning for her all last summer and its not going to stop either because he believes that she's planning on a run for president next election and he wants to be ahead of the game, so as to speak.   Here is his idea of a fair and balanced Warren Wikipedia article:   I eventually realized that it was his articles that were generating a lot of the (what I considered) biased editing here. It would be sad to see the Tea Party begin to control which Wikipedia entries are seen as good articles by continuing to disrupt the the ones they don't like. If all one has to say is "Disruption!", it seems easy enough. Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, clearly these so-called assessments are unfair. There are many of the same people that want to rip out Warren's Cherokee claims.  The fact that she cannot provide one single shred of documentation that she is member of the Cherokee Nation means nothing to the people making the statements that the information must be removed.  I think it is clear that her supporters want to remove all of the questions about her Cherokee Nation claims.  They want to remove the fact that she cannot provide any documentation to support her claim.  They want to remove the fact that she only claimed to be Cherokee after she got her first law professor job at the University of Houston.  They want to remove the fact that she stopped claiming Cherokee ancestry after she got the Harvard law professor job.  They want to remove the Cherokee claims despite the fact that she has never participated in Cherokee Nation cultural activities or Cherokee Nation political activities.  They want to remove the Cherokee claims despite the fact that her claims of Cherokee ancestry without a shred of documentary evidence is a great and horrible insult to all actual enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation.  Now, as to the false claims of Aircorn on the Warren talk page.  Aircorn falsely stated that I need to back off of the article, implying that I am not neutral.  Now, that false statement is made even more comical by the fact that Aircorn has decided that he/she is going to "take over" the assessment of the article while at the same time come over to the article and rip out the heart of the Cherokee Nation claims.  He/she wants to have his/her cake and eat it too.  Aircorn wants to be able to call editors that Aircorn does not agree (but Aircorn is unable to engage in discussions on the substance) that editors that do not agree with Aircorn are biased and not neutral (they are engaing in undue, don't you know?) but remarkably Aircorn can both assess and rip out notable, reliably sourced information from the article that Aircorn deems to the "undue."  Man, talk about having your cake and eating it too.  Well, looky there Aircorn can call the kettle black all he wants.  Who died and put Aircorn in charge????  Aircorn gets to assess the article and Aircorn gets to remove anything that Aircorn deems not be fit for the article AND Aircorn does not have to engage in any discussion on the matter!!!!! To quote your edit summary, Aircorn, "Wow!!!!!"--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually remove the Cherokee claim and I trimmed information both for and against it. No one died, just got community banned so obviously can't close this. I could have just closed it as abandoned and then started my own reassessment I guess, but this seemed less bureaucratic. I spend a lot of time here working with Good articles, including reassessments (see my contributions or the GAR page), so while nobody put me in charge I would consider myself an experienced Good article reviewer (does not mean that I am right all the time, but I do understand the criteria). I am not going to edit the paragraph again. Either someone will make a convincing case for why it does not give undue weight to this incident or I will delist the article. If the article is delisted (or even kept) you, or anyone else, can challenge it through a community reassessment, where hopefully other uninvolved and experienced editors will give their opinion. That reassessment will be closed by consensus. You might want to consider raising this weight question at this noticeboard or reopening this one. AIR corn  (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are aware that WP also has strict rules re bios as well, and if the incident is brought up at all Warren must be treated fairly. For instance, in your vision of how the incident should be covered the fact that numerous Harvard VIPs insisted that her claim to Native America ancestry had no bearing on hiring her is not necessary to mention. Surely it was not intended that good article status should force editors to leave readers with the impression that Warren must be guilty as charged? Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and one of those rules is WP:Undue. You seem to be suggesting that this may not even deserve mentioning, therefore if it does get a mention it should only be a short one. There are whole articles worth of information on about Obamas birth yet they are barely mentioned in his article. Same with the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 (I know these are extreme examples, I am using them to make a point - i.e that it can be done). The trick is to write this in a neutrally worded way which doesn't draw any more attention to it than it deserves. I don't intend to pass an article I don't think meets the criteria, but I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong in my interpretation (consensus at a noticeboard discussion would be perfect). AIR corn (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying to argue with me? I don't need a lecture on tricks to do neutral writing.  I just finished saying it should be short and yet fair.  Quit creating problems where none exist. Gandydancer (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, you should not put words in people's mouths. What I said, which of course is true, is the FurrySings attempted to argue that since a couple of Warren's cousins believe her then there is definitive proof that Warren is a Cherokee. I simple pointed, correctly of course, that it is merely FurrySings opinion and as opinion it does not belong in the article.  I never stated that the information should not be presented in NPOV manner.  As a matter of fact, we need to be careful chopping and cutting the article up as Aircorn's suggests because we do need to present the information fairly and give both sides and his suggested chopping and cutting does support the notion that information should thorough.  I've also noticed that Aircorn seems to be saying and saying over and over again that if the editors of the Warren article do not edit the Cherokee claims section as Aircorn sees fit then Aircorn is going to "delist" it some such thing.  Well, "Good Article" assessment process is going to be used a hammer--as Aircorn seems to be suggesting--then I say delist it then.  These articles are supposed to be works of consensus and they are not the work of the "Good Article" assessor--who also wants to remove any and all criticisms of Warren.  I've also noticed that Aircorn claims to be "not interested" in the article, but Aircorn seems to be doing a whole lot of typing on Wikipedia to push the article in the direction that Aircorn sees fit.  If Aircorn is really "disinterested" as he/she claims then shouldn't Aircorn just stick to the job that Aircorn claims to be close to Aircorn's heart, i.e., handling the "Good Article" assessment?--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So, it's your position that if all her siblings, several of her cousins (not two as you imply) and childhood friends back her claim, this has no bearing whatsoever on whether she is just made it up. And so we should exclude it from the article because it's just my opinion that it has something to do with her claim? FurrySings (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but I will give points for attempting to put words in my mouth. We should mention that about three out of 400 cousins stated that her claims have validity. What childhood friends?  Also, what bearing does the opinion of childhood friends have on anything? The answer is nothing.  I agree with you that there should be some mention that some cousins agree her, but what you keep leaving out of the article is the fact that just as many cousins say that is making the whole thing up.  It is not for me decide which set of cousins are correct.  It is for the reader of the article.  It is also not for you and it sure isn't up to an editor that comes along months later and his only interest in the article is to rip out anything that is even the least bit negative about Warren so that editor can slap a "Good Article" sign on his own work.  I have to give you props you are basing your arguments for changes to the article on actual facts from news articles whereas Aircorn is merely deciding whether something belongs in the article based upon (what?) length of the article, what he perceives to be a "Good Article" (who knows?).  At least you will discuss the topic with me. Aircorn is devoting all of his time on this page ignoring my real, valid concerns and just interacting with editors that support his viewpoint, which is the epitome of POV pushing.  His POV is that he wants certain edits to be made in certain ways to the article so that he then can tag the article a "Good Article."  He gets to work on the article and THEN give himself an award!!!!  And he does this by specifically ignoring facts, as Al Gore says inconvenient facts, such as Warren's own mother and father have not supported her Cherokee claims and there are as many cousins (actually there are more) who say that she is making the whole thing up as there are cousins who support her.  You are accusing me of wanting to ignore facts, but it seems to be that Aircorn is the one who is conveniently ignoring facts, Aircorn, who claims that he has no interest in the article and only wants to be a "Good Article" assessor.  If Aircorn really wants to be a "Good Article" assessor then he/she should back off and then the process play out and then come and make an assessment.  But if he wants to edit the section then he should at least get conversant in the facts of the topic.  He can threaten to "delist" all day long.  His opinion on whether it should be "delisted" or not will have no effect on the facts of the situation and facts are such that there are family members that say she is making the whole thing up.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will respond to you if you make a point that I can respond to. Despite your verbosity I am yet to see one. AIR corn (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to rip the fact from the article that Warren's own parents will not support her claims. Why don't you explain why you are advocating for certain edits while at the same time making the claim that you are an "objective" assessor of the article.  You are constantly interacting with editors that agree with your opinion about ripping the heart of the Cherokee claims from the article, but it seems that you believe that your stated position is that you will not edit the article puts you in a neutral position.  However, you will not respond to my completely on target points about how your bias is clear and convincing because you might not be ripping the article apart any longer, you are encouraging other editors to do exactly that.  And you will not respond to my dead on point that your claim of objectivity while completely ignoring my comments about your clear conflict of interests.   My critique of your editing has been constant and blatant but all you do is comment on how many words I use.  How many words I use is not a valid topic.  That's a lame response and frankly I would think you would have a better retort.  You only talk about how many words I use because you can't defend your lack of objectivity.  You will not response to the obvious and clear conflicts of interest, that I keep pointing out and you keep ignoringl.  You attempt to edit and then stop editing but then you tell other editors how you want the article edited.  You will not respond to my repeated calling you out for your clear lack of objectivity (while you claim to be objective).  You will not respond to my dead on critique of how you are attempting to use your desire to "delist" the article as a hammer to get the article in the shape that you want.  You will not respond to my critiques of your attempted gutting of the article about Warren's use of her Cherokee claims to work her way up the law professor ladder--notable, reliably sourced information, that you want to gut or other editors have already gutted.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no fact in the article that Warren's own parents will not support her claims. I can't rip something out that is not there. If you look at the edits I made they removed both negative and positive information that I deemed unnecessary. I have gone into much more detail at the talk page why I came to that conclusion. I am not interacting with editors that agree with me (I am sure myself and Gandydancer have strong disagreements when it comes to genetic engineering and possibly other topics), I am interacting with the editors who make reasonable posts. I doubt I can prove my unbiasedness to you. Checking someones contributions is one way to see if any might exist, I have scanned yours and you are more than welcome to look at mine. As far as political orientation goes, if it is really an issue, I am from New Zealand and if anything am center right (haven't voted the last two elections, before that national, before that labour). It doesn't really mean anything here as our right leaning party would be considered socialist by many Americans. The length of posts does make a difference. If you are interested in the politics of this site you might want to go over to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram where a user, amongst other things, is being chastised for making overly long posts at talk pages. There is another one at WP:ANI where the length of posts has been brought up as an issue. I stopped editing because I don't WP:Editwar. I am not telling others how to edit, I was making the case for why I edited it the way I did. That is how it is supposed to work around here. I don't want to delist this article. That was why I made the edit I did, so I didn't have to delist it. Again if you look at my contributions you will see that most of them are aimed at not delisting articles, including ones like this that I have no interest in. However, if I keep this article then it will be my name saying that I think it is Good. I will not do that if I don't think it is. I left a reply above explaining the procedure if you or anyone else disagrees. I will even help them implement it if they want to go that way. Again I don't know where you get the impression that I removed the use of her Cherokee claims to work her way up the law professor ladder as that was not even in the article. This is what I removed:
 * Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had been promoting her Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper.
 * a statement echoed by her three siblings and several of her cousins, and that she had self-identified as a minority in the law directory listing in hopes of meeting people of a similar background.
 * The Brown campaign, called on her to "come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record",
 * and colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she has worked have publicly supported her statements
 * There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements.
 * Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who was involved in Warren's hiring, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the decision.
 * Judging from your comments I am not sure you even looked at the version I left or the one that preceded it. AIR corn (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to Aircorn by ExclusiveAgent: (1) Aircorn wrote: ''I have gone into much more detail at the talk page why I came to that conclusion. I am not interacting with editors that agree with me (I am sure myself and Gandydancer have strong disagreements when it comes to genetic engineering and possibly other topics), I am interacting with the editors who make reasonable posts. I doubt I can prove my unbiasedness to you. Checking someones contributions is one way to see if any might exist, I have scanned yours and you are more than welcome to look at mine.''
 * I don't know your position on genetic engineering and I don't want to. It is not relevant to a conversation about this article.  Please do not bring up red herring arguments.  (I would not have to write so much if there were zero red herrings thrown into the discussion.)  Also, what is relevant to this conversation is the fact that Gandydancer wants to gut the same section of the article as you do.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(2) Aircorn wrote: ''As far as political orientation goes, if it is really an issue, I am from New Zealand and if anything am center right (haven't voted the last two elections, before that national, before that labour). It doesn't really mean anything here as our right leaning party would be considered socialist by many Americans.''
 * Once again, I don't know the politics of New Zealand. Not that I would not like to learn about the NZ politics, but it is not relevant to this discussion concerning Warren's Cherokee claims. Once again, it is a red herring. I have never stated that you wanted to butcher the Cherokee claims for political reasons. The issue I have is with your focus on a GA assessment and how the Cherokee claims stop you somehow from making a GA assessment.

(3) Aircorn wrote: Comments about how many words I use--the epitome of red herrings.
 * I am not going to play this game. I use as many words as I need to. I will not be limited by Aircorn to the number of words that I use.  The only limited to the number of words that I use is whether the words that I use focus on actual issues in the articles, not red herrings.  Look, the number of words that I have using is completely defensible.  I maintain you want to limit my words because you don't like me calling you out on your conflict of interest.  You are attempting to limit and control my speech because you have not provided, any where, a defense for your edits to an article that you want to assess and you have not back off your attempts to get others to make the edits that you yourself want to edit.  You have not responded to the conflict of interest issue that I keep pointing out--not even the most recent response above.  Please stop making edits to the article and please stop telling others how you want the article edited.  If you want to do a GA assessment, then let the chips fall as they may and do the assessment.  And if you want to edit the article then edit the article, but don't wear one hat as editor and another hat as a GA assessor.
 * From the WP:GAR page "The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." That is what my aim is. Trying to do that is not a conflict of interest. In fact there are often complaints that re-assessors would rather delist an article than try to fix it (see Talk:Tehran Stock Exchange/GA2 for a recent one). You are welcome to ask at the WT:GAN page, that is where most of the GA reviewers hang out, if you think what I have done is against the process. There is a discussion at the talk page that looks positive, why don't you contribute there. AIR corn (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(4) Aircorn wrote: Again I don't know where you get the impression that I removed the use of her Cherokee claims to work her way up the law professor ladder as that was not even in the article.
 * All of the stuff that you want to jettison is what's left over from what editors removed. What you wanted to take out is the positive side of two part discussions.  For example, the information about Warren's family's support.  There is two sides to that discussion.  Yes, a few cousins have stated publicly that they agree with Warren's Cherokee claims and that is the information that FurrySings and Gandydancer allowed to stay in the article.  There is another side to the story and that is that neither of Warren's parents have stated that they agree with her Cherokee claims.  None of her siblings have stated that they agree with her claims. So essentially what we ended up with in the article is a one-sided depiction of the situation.  The reader gets to read about the handful of cousins that support her claims, but absolutely nothing about the larger number of cousins who have flat called her out as a liar and the reader does not read about the fact that none of her immediate family supports the claims.  You have come in, long after a discussion about this topic, and clearly picked a side, the side that clearly wants to either only mention the cousins that support her claims or want to completely eliminate the topic all together. That is a fact.  There I'm done and used just right number of words.  We don't need to call the word police.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ExclusiveAgent, you are not correct when you say that Warren's sibs do not support her claims--they have. Actually, while it is true Warren's actions and statements suggest  concerns about her judgement, there has not been one shred of evidence to support Brown's claims that she attempted to use her claimed ethnic background to advance her career or that her employers considered, or in fact were even aware of, her ethnic claim when she was hired. Since it seems that you are presently the only editor that is taking this position, it would seem to me that you are responsible to produce reliable sources to back your accusations or back down and accept that the article does not need extensive coverage of this incident. Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not state false statements. I am not the only editor that believes that there should more coverage of the Cherokee claims.  I am the only editor on this talk page, I agree, if that is your point.  However, this page is to discuss whether the Warren article should be assessed as a GA article.  In practice though this page has turned into a page where Aircorn tells everyone what his opinion is of the article, he edits the article and then he states that if the article is not edited as he sees fit then he/she will (gasp!) remove it from the GA article category.  On this page he has gathered editors who agree with him about gutting the Cherokee claims down to nothing, so it has become an echo chamber of Aircorn's limited opinions.  Aircorn admits that he does not have an interest in the topic--other than he wants 98% of references to Warren's disgraceful Cherokee claims removed from the article.  Let's go over this again, this page is about Aircorn and Aircorn's opinions, that is all.  If you want to debate the article then I would encourage you to go to the talk page of the article and discuss each aspect of the topic.  The reason I am here is to point out the conflict of interest of Aircorn and to encourage him to make a choice already:  either choose to edit the article (and get up to speed on the facts) or make an assessment/delist, etc. But Aircorn can't do both.  You can't assess your own work and you can't use other editors to make the changes that you want and then rate the work.  And finally, please name the siblings that support her Cherokee claims and please provide a reliable source to back up your statement.  The siblings do not claim to be Cherokee.  Her parents do not claim to be Cherokee.  Provide a reliable source to back up that claim.  Also, provide that reliable source on the Warren talk page because this page apparently is for Aircorn, the self-proclaimed GA assessor of the Warren article.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed the section. I left a short note on the talk page but there's not much left to say. Thanks for your assistance AIRcorn. It is good to finally have this resolved (gandy knocks on wood and glances out the window in hopes of seeing a shooting star...) Gandydancer (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)