Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Self-identification as Cherokee

The Senator self-identifies as Cherokee. This is why she wrote:

Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.

In Wikipedia, people's self-identification is respected. Nonetheless, the following was just deleted:

She has published Native American cooking recipes, signing each "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee."

For people not sensitive about the Senator's self-identification, it is easy to trivialize her contributions. Nonetheless, it is quite hurtful to dismiss a person's own truth. Remember, she said:

Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born.

XavierItzm (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There are already an absurd 633 words about her ancestry in the article. How has anything been dismissed? And please don’t speculate on her motivations or emotions. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Respecting a person's self-identification has nothing to do with speculation. It has to do with Wikipedia standards, to wit, «Main biographical articles should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources.» XavierItzm (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is why she wrote:, it is quite hurtful. These are speculation. Enough is enough. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

References

XavierItzm, we are not a tabloid, a magazine, or a newspaper. We are not expected to prove or disprove Warren's heritage. That she described her heritage as Cherokee when she provided recipes for a cookbook put together as a moneymaker for a small Oklahoma museum is not noteworthy for our article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You have WP:SIGCOV when WP:RS such as The Atlantic and the Washington Post keep reporting on it across a decade. Personal opinions of what is "noteworthy" have no place on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

So we're not including the DNA test in this article, at all?

(Sorry if this is repetitive for editors) I understand that the weight given to this recent controversy was completely undue in previous editions of this article, but to not mention Warren's DNA test seems like POV by omission. As a non-U.S. citizen, I can see that this has become a major news story - not just in the US, but globally (mentioned in British sources such as The Guardian [1] [2], BBC News [3] [4]; Irish sources such as the Irish Times [5]; Indian sources such as Reuters India [6]; Australian sources such as ABC News [7]; Swedish sources such as Svenska Dagbladet [8] (in Swedish)(subscription required) and more) - and not including *any* mention of the test in the article does seem a little POV by omission, even if we don't mention the political fallout (or manufactroversy, depending on your POV). At the very least, we should say that a DNA test and claim took place, and that it was controversial. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree it should be included. The Senator painstakingly proved she is at least 1/1024th Native American because she identifies as «Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee», and it is not NPOV of Wikipedia to actively obviate parts of her life story that are so central to her.XavierItzm (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree it should be included. I dislike however your spin on the findings. The report proved she had a native ancester between 6 and 10 generations ago, which is what she had claimed. Therefore between 1/64 and 1/1024 of her ancestry was NA. And she doesn't identify as Cherokee although she once did in a cookbook. TFD (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It should, and it can't be NPOV, as she voluntarily and publicly took this DNA test to prove her point. In the Sunday Times of 21 October 2018, in an article by Professor Niall Ferguson on identity politics (not about her), he makes the point that she listed as being from a "minority" in the 1980s and 1990s, based on a great-great-great-grandmother being a Native American lady. So it has been a useful part of her life and career for decades, and the DNA confirms the rather distant but undeniable link.78.17.57.86 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

First Native American professor at Harvard

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ~Awilley (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Poweremwiki has deleted the following without bringing it to the TP: As a Native American, Warren was the first woman of color to teach at Harvard Law. Here's a third WP:RS, by the way: Harvard recorded Warren as Native American from 1995 to 2004. And here's a fourth WP:RS: Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Since Warren is not a woman of color, the edit is dishonest. TFD (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC) What matters is what the sources say. The WP:RS say Harvard University has claimed the Senator as the first woman of color in her Law faculty. Furthermore, the sources say Harvard so claimed it to Federal regulators.XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC) I propose that we simply add the following block quotation from the cited article from The Intercept: According to a much-cited investigation by the Boston Globe, Warren consistently checked “white” on personnel forms throughout her career, including in 1981, 1985, and 1998 while employed at the University of Texas. But in the 1986-1987 edition of the Association of American Law School’s directory and eight subsequent editions, Warren listed herself as a minority... And while multiple professors have attested to the fact that Warren was considered white during the hiring process at Harvard University, in 1995 she self-identified as Native American, and the school’s statistics were updated to reflect as much. Harvard recorded Warren as Native American from 1995 to 2004. SunCrow (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC) A bit extensive, but at least better than hiding an important achievement and milestone in diversity at one of the United States' most elite institutions. Shouldn't this shattering of the glass ceiling be celebrated?. So, yeah, I'd be in agreement with your proposal. XavierItzm (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Power~enwiki's removal was correct. This is getting ridiculous. Should we examine every tick mark in every form she has filed looking for something to gossip about? And frankly, your milestone/glass ceiling stuff sounds sarcastic. O3000 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC) We go by WP:RS here, not by your sense of ridicule. The sources, so far, are: * The Boston Globe, 2012 * Politico, 2012 * The Intercept, 2018 * Slate, 2012, citing: * The Fordham Law Review (1997), and * The Harvard Crimson (1996) Please do not offensively dismiss as gossip a major achievement for women of color at elite institutions, cited by WP:RS across a 20+ year period. It got reported because it is a major triumph for diversity. XavierItzm (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC) And I can't find a single RS that calls this a major achievement for women of color at elite institutions. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC) That is fine. You have done a good job. But that is not the issue at hand. Just go by the cited sources: "first woman of color"; "Harvard Crimson from 1996 that describes the professor-turned-consumer advocate as a Native American"; "Harvard recorded Warren as Native American from 1995 to 2004"; "Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school". XavierItzm (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC) And none of these are anything like your claim. They just recite the forms; they don't say this is a major achievement for women of color or anything about glass ceilings. The appearance is that of trying to pump her up as high as possible via exaggerating sources to topple her from a pinnacle never described in the first place. O3000 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC) References Please familiarize yourself with the use of scare quotes in English language writing. Besides that, this entire debate is transparently disingenuous. GMGtalk 13:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Should categories for Native American X, Y, Z be added to the bottom of the page?

No. -sche (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Somewhat surprised that they're not already, though I can imagine why. --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC) No, it shouldn't. Do you have a policy-based rationale for wanting them? Keep in mind that "strong evidence" that she has distant Native American ancestry (per [9]) does not mean she is Native American. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC) No, I was genuinely just wondering. Imagine that. --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC) No, it shouldn't. She no longer identifies as a Native American. And, he DNA test did not "prove" anything. She is not a member of the Cherokee Nation. Placing her in a category at the bottom of the page would be a backdoor way to make a statement about her that is not true and is not supported by Reliable Sources in the body of the article. --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) No; see also the section right above this one. -sche (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC) No, categories are navigation devices. If someone wants to find out about Native Americans, the category pages help them. But Warren is not a Native American. TFD (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Absolutely not, as per the above. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

“. . . significantly more than the average American of European ancestry”

Someone please remove this speculative part. The Washington Post article doesn't even say she is more Native American than the average White American. The leftist newspaper tried to debunk that “Warren might even be less Native American than the average European American.” From this article: ”That’s the relevant statistic, indicating that her claim to some Native American heritage is much stronger than most European Americans.” From NYT article cited earlier in the same sentence: ”It’s impossible to directly compare Senator Warren’s results to the 23andMe customers because they were produced with different software.”

From WSJ article referring the same NYT article: ”In other words, as even the Times acknowledges, there remains the possibility that the percentage of DNA Ms. Warren shares with Native Americans in the U.S. is... zero.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-york-times-and-the-warren-math-1539981950

It's completely irrelevant anyway, and such speculative and false statements have no place in supposedly neutral Wikipedia.178.121.13.238 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is still written in a deceptive manner. It leaves out the possibility that Bustamonte's report could be completely incorrect since Bustamonte only compared Warren's DNA to DNA samples from individuals in South America. He did not even review North American DNA.--CharlesShirley (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have a reliable source for that claim, you can't put it anywhere in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of sources saying that: [10] [11] [12]. wumbolo ^^^ 15:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

None of those sources supports the claim that "Bustamonte's report could be completely incorrect." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the WaPo article, "There is research showing that using these groups as references is accurate when differentiating between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level. But no tribe for Warren could be identified, only that she had an ancestor or ancestors descended from indigenous people." Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The moving goalpost is pretty hilarious. Both Brown and Trump demanded that she take a genetic test. If the test had shown that she was lying, no doubt you would be trumpeting this fact across the heavens. But because it showed that she was almost certainly telling the truth, all of a sudden the tests are inaccurate and unusable. (So why did you ask her to take them if you think they're so useless?) Pretty fucking hilarious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is moving any goalposts. Trump clearly said that he wanted a DNA test showing that she was Native American. A few months later, Warren said that a test, which was just as unreliable in 2016 as in 2018, showing that her great-great-great grandmother was likely Native American, somehow proved that she was Native American (what Trump requested). I think that someone else is moving goalposts. wumbolo ^^^ 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? It is no secret that the validity of genetic tests has been questioned. That is a fact. However, in this case both Scott and Trump requested one, Warren submitted to their requests and the test validated her claim. Valid or not is not in question here. That is for another discussion and another article. You can argue that at our genetic testing articles if you find genetic testing to be of no or little use or invalid. Gandydancer (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So Trump challenged Warren to take a DNA test to prove her ancestry, then said such tests were unreliable once she did. That is moving the goalposts. Whether or not Warren should have taken the test or released the results or how accurate they are is another issue. TFD (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump never claimed that the tests were reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 12:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The test did not show anything substantive. The vast majority of blacks and whites with ancestry in America have some Native American ancestry. "significantly more than the average American of European ancestry" is false and attempting to push a POV. Just state the facts of the result of the test, don't put a spin/synthesis on it. ScienceApe (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No very few blacks and whites have any Native American ancestry. I presented a peer-reviewed study published in an academic journal that proves it. Where are you getting your information? TFD (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. You cited a source, but you didn't quote anything that even remotely supports that ridiculous claim. ScienceApe (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

...the Bustamante study said she had 10 times more than the individuals from Utah? That’s the relevant statistic, indicating that her claim to some Native American heritage is much stronger than most European Americans. A direct quotation from the cited reliable source. Your personal opinion of that source is not relevant here. The source (a widely-respected major American newspaper) is impeccable. Your outraged cries of "bullshit" and "ridiculous" are not sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You sound like Donald Trump claiming he had a lot of attendees at his inauguration now. The "cited reliable source" states she has between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American DNA. 1/1024 is .0097%. That is not a lot, not even close. So yes, bullshit and ridiculous are good descriptors, I never said they were sources. Your inability to understand a strawman fallacy reveals quite a bit of how low your IQ must be to think .0097% is a lot. ScienceApe (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. Per WaPo: "Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American." [13] Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop with the idiotic strawmanning and white knighting first. You like to repeat yourself a lot. I already responded to this inane line of reasoning, I have the same answer for you. ScienceApe (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. I think we figured out where you're at now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gandydancer, you gona tell this guy to "please stop the personal attacks". You can also cry to your admin buddies to write a warning on his talk page too. The bias here is almost as obvious as Elizabeth Warren not being Native American. Posting wikipedia articles with article names that reflect your own puerile temper tantrums are so old and tired. ScienceApe (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, it's .097%, not .0097%. Not that it matters, since there's WP:RS to support that she has more native american ancestry than the average european american, so you're assertion of "bullshit" is patently false, and you just appear to be making non sequitur filled (what does Strawman have to do with the price of tea in china?) spiel to cover that up as NorthBySouthBaranof says. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh you're the white knight that told me to knock off the personal attacks on my talk page. How come you didn't castigate North for his personal attack? Biased much? Now you want to join in the discussion, how delightful. Please give me the citation and the quote where it says she has more Native American ancestry than the average European American who has ancestry here. ScienceApe (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The findings are entirely consistent with Warren's claim that her great great great grandparent had Native American ancestry. And the average American has no Native American ancestry at all. 15:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No, she was claiming her great great great grandmother was Cherokee. That is a big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.19.15 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not think anyone is claiming the average american has no Native American. In fact most sources are saying they have an average of 0.18%-0.19%, which is higher than the low end of Warren.[14] PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That's an opinion column, not citable for matters of fact. Moreover, as the cited WaPo source explains, it's a misreading of the 23andMe study, which is not directly comparable in any case. The vast majority of European Americans have *zero* Native American ancestry - an average across populations is meaningless for a comparison with a single individual. That is, if one European-American out of 100 is 50% Native American, the "population average" for that sample might be .5 percent Native American - yet none of the other 99 had *any* Native American ancestry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You may want to read the actual study rather than a misinterpretation of it: "We find very low levels of African and Native American ancestry in Europeans with four grandparents born in Europe. We estimate that only 0.98% of Europeans carry African ancestry and 0.26% of Europeans carry Native American ancestry. These levels are substantially lower than the 3.5% and 2.7% of European Americans who carry African and Native American ancestry, respectively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay lets go with that fact checker report by Gandydancer right above. “European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.”[15][16] PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I was mistaken, sorry about that. Source says otherwise. with the vast majority of European Americans having no Native American ancestry PackMecEng (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

.097% sounds quite a bit lower than .18% Native American. Pretty sure the claim that she has "substantially" more Native American ancestry than the average European American who has ancestry in America is bullshit. Let me guess your response, you're going to say bullshit isn't a source right? ScienceApe (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is your statement that most European Americans have Native American ancestry still operative? If so, could you please provide a source. TFD (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@ScienceApe: Just FYI, but your topic ban isn't from the page Elizabeth Warren, but the subject of Elizabeth Warren. That being the case, you may wish to reconsider some of your most recent edits to this page. Hope this clarifies things for you. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is so relevant to this talk page. I'm so glad you took the time to tell me on my talk page about how you're prodding me on this talk page. If you want to ban me, ban me. Don't tell me what I'm not supposed to post on. ScienceApe (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I misread the source there and have not yet found one that says otherwise. So at the moment I agree with your statement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.

The average European-American is 0.18% Native American.

Warren is 0.09% Native American (1/1024)

=> The average European American is twice as Indian as Warren.

Q.E.D. XavierItzm (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No, Bustamante found that she is between 1/64 and 1/1024 of NA ancestry (between 0.1% and 1.6%.) At present, DNA tests can be no more accurate than that. The average American has 0% NA ancestry. TFD (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Who are you going to believe, TFD or The New York Times? "The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American."

Both. The average DNA found in European Americans was 0.18% AND most European Americans have no Native American DNA at all, which btw is what the source that both the NYT and I are using says. You can read an article the Independant that explains why your interpretation is wrong.[17] TFD (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

TFD said: "The average DNA found in European Americans was 0.18%". True: the average European American are 0.18% Amerindian, per the NYT. Meanwhile, Warren is 1/1024 = 0.09% Amerindian. So the average European American has twice as much Amerindian blood as Warren. XavierItzm (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Average v Median here is crucial. "vast majority of European Americans having no Native American ancestry" so she has more than the median. but perhaps not average (remember that 1/1024 is only the lower bound) because a small portion of european americans has high native american ancestry. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The heading on this section is "Average." The WP:RS NYT discusses average. Anyone with WP:RS for median is welcome to bring such sources. The NYT's claim stands: «The average DNA found in European Americans was 0.18%», vs. Warren's 1/1024 = 0.09%, i.e., half of the average U.S. person of European descent. XavierItzm (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

References

We aren't required to use clearly-misleading statistics which would act to deceive readers when removed from their context. Moreover, your proposed wording clearly misstates the test, which put 1/1024 as an absolute lower bound on Warren's ancestry - not a ceiling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

So, the NYT is misleading when it reports «The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American»? Are you saying the NYT is not a WP:RS? XavierItzm (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, European American genomes as a whole are on average 0.18 percent Native American. It is your misinterpretation of this fact to state that individual European Americans average 0.18 percent Native American. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Who's talking about individuals here? The NYT never talks about individuals. It simply asserts an average, to wit: «The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American» Warren, simply happens to be half as Amerindian as everyone else. XavierItzm (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be intent on willfully misinterpreting the data and the sources, so we're done here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No. You seem befuddled by a mere statement of fact published by the NYT: «The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American». There is nothing to interpret. XavierItzm (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The NYT, Or any newspaper, or and journalist, is not a reliable source for calculations. They are only reliable sources for what people say. If the journalist/newspaper did the calculations, not only are they unreliable, they are the primary source for the results. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that establishes the NYT calculated that the average European-American does have 0.18% Native blood? Because if you don't, please do not engage in WP:OR. XavierItzm (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It is more than reasonable for me as an editor to challenge the running assumption that the NYT, while normally considered a reliable source, is a reliable source for calculations. Does the NYT cite the source of the calculation? If not, assume they did them. These editorial questions, challenges and decisions are not WP:OR. It may be borderline OR when I tell you that calculations, reporting of the results, and discussion of the results involves a massive failure to understand the limitations of mathematical precision, and this retelling distorts the actual report. It is not OR to remind people of WP:CALC. Neither is it any kind of violation to remind people that it is core-content policy that facts must not be reported in the Voice of Wikipedia. All opinions "should be attributed in the text to particular sources", especially where the topic is in current news cycles. Newspapers published at the time of the event are not good sources, they are too close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The link to the original report has been presented several times. Is there any reason you haven't bothered to read it yet? Please do so before commenting again. TFD (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If all the editors on this page were averaged with Donald Trump, our average net worth would be in the millions. That does not mean that most of us are multi-millionaires. TFD (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That section needs to be cut down to half or less its current size. The important points are:

1. Family lore that as a child she was told she had Native American ancestry.
2. The cookbook.
3. Her listing herself as a minority.
4. Scott Brown's campaign attack.
5. Pres. Trump's ongoing mockery.
6. The fact that she took a DNA test that confirmed the family lore.
7. Political and ethnic pushback after she released the DNA test results.

We don't need to go into so much detail on fractions, averages, and medians, or typical Euro-Americans, etc., although it could be put into a footnote. YoPienso (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a brief paragraph covering points 1-3--before the 2012 campaign; another on point 4--the 2012 campaign controversy; a final one on points 5-7--the aftermath of the campaign controversy. YoPienso (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a single sentence, somewhere in, I don't know, the "In Popular Culture" section or something. Anything else is a BLP violatin' UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 13:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, WP:CALC does not apply to the NYT's rather clear statement that «The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American». If you insist on challenging the NYT as a non-WP:RS, please take it to WP:RSN. Cheers! XavierItzm (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is challenging what the NYT article says. However, as the study used by Carl Zimmer says, most European Americans have 0% native American ancestry. Similarly if Trump visited a homeless shelter, the average net worth of the people in the room would be in the millions of dollars, although we wouldn't say that the average person was a millionaire. TFD (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in your example, quite factually, the average net worth of the people in the room would be in the millions of dollars. Never thought averages were that hard to understand, for some! XavierItzm (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I guess statistics is outside your competence, so the discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I said the average net worth would be in the millions, but the average person in the room would not have a net worth of millions of dollars. Similarly if a person in the room was a secret millionaire, it would be misleading to say that they had far less money than the average person in the shelter. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the average person's net worth in the room would be millions of dollars; this is why these are called "averages." And averages hold even when people are not forthcoming. That's one of the reasons why averages are so statistically useful. XavierItzm (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He means median, to be precise. Or "average" as in "drawn at random". Volunteer Marek 21:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Who the hell gives a crap? There's absolutely no reason for all this nonsense to have an entire section of its own. A sentence at best is all that is needed. She is and has been for awhile a freakin' US Senator. This is a minor BS scandalizin' - the article should be about her tenure as Senator. A sentence at most is all that is needed. And yes, devoting so much space to this nonsense is a BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 13:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, actually it would be terribly biased of WP to ignore or minimize this integral part of her life. There's no BLP violation whatsoever, even as it stands. Still, it needs to be drastically trimmed, as I suggested above. There's no need for voluminous detail, but an encyclopedic summary is essential. Volunteer Marek, you have revealed your bias in favor of the Senator; we must not adopt it. YoPienso (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What's with this "integral" nonsense? And I have revealed any "bias" so cut it out with the personal attacks. I could just as easily accuse you of bias against her - which since this is a BLP is much more serious and potentially sanction able, if you make edits on that basis. But I ain't gonna. And I already said, that a sentence or two about it would be fine. So how about proposing such a short summary? Volunteer Marek 21:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, it is integral. This is why she published the recipes, and signed each one:
"Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee."
Wikipedia should not be in the business of trying to minimize people's self-identification. XavierItzm (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. It is no way "integral". Stop making shit up. Lots of White Americans go around saying they got some Native American in'em and nobody gives a flip. And they go on about their day and be what they be. Likewise with Warren - the fact that she's a successful lawyer and senator are "integral". This is just idiotic manufactured nonsense. There's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia - an encyclopedia - should play along, and there is just no way that this DOESN'T violate BLP policy. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is why she published the recipes, and signed each one…. We are here to build a bio; not psychoanalyze the subject. You have absolutely no reason to believe you have correctly interpreted her motivations. You need to stop making speculations. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand is why when one has a negative story about Warren some editors don't agree to present it accurately and instead insist on misrepresenting it. Outside the echo chamber, many reasonable people will dismiss everything said if there are obvious untruths included. TFD (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am removing the info re the cookbook. It has been discussed here and it was decided to not include this more than 30 year old fundraiser cook book published by a small Oklahoma museum and edited by her cousin. Just because it has resurfaced and mentioned in several articles does not make it notable any more now than it was back in 2012. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of a subsection on Native American ancestry

And User:PackMecEng - you claim in your edit summary that there's "rough consensus" for a separate section and link to this discussion... which clearly says in big fat bold letters no consensus. And indeed that is evident from the discussion. In fact, the "close" notes, correctly that for BLPs "no consensus" defaults to a removal. Which is what I did. Why are you using, um, misleading, edit summaries? Volunteer Marek 21:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It was closed after you killed the section and at that time it was 15 support and 10 oppose. Not sure why it was closed actually. But yeah read the time stamps of when things happen. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so it still applies. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It's okay, I forgive you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Just to note this was the talk page at the time when I restored the section. PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That discussion was never about a decision to remove the entire section--it was related to placement in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny, that must be why it was called "Should discussion of the controversy over her stated Native American ancestry be in its own subsection?". Volunteer Marek 02:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing funny about it. It was nestled in the Senate run section for years and only now, what with the DNA test, did it receive its own section. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng was correct when she restored the section. VM, IMO you were being reckless and disruptive to delete copy that has taken hours upon hours and months and years of editor discussion to craft into something that we could all live with, though none of us very happily. This started back in 2012 when she made her Senate run and then flared up again when she began to be discussed as a possible Clinton vice president candidate. And then it did not help that she was discussed as a 2020 candidate herself. Then throw in to add to the turmoil, a new flareup every time a Republican blogger wrote about the outrage of what she got away with while backed by evildoers . As much as I'd like to see a couple of sentences to cover it, that's not going to happen. Every single addition or deletion of what's been stable for several years now needs talk page discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't care how long it took (months? Please be serious) - all that matters is whether it complies with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am serious. This article has been a hellish experience for years. It is the DNA test that riled things up again. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, what did she get away with? Repeating what her mother told her about her ancestry? O3000 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, she furthered her career. It did not matter that every single place she had worked said that was not factual. Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that she furthered her career in any manner that was dishonest. We should not suggest such. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This does not need to turn into a defense of or an attack on Warren. Just include what's reported in the sources. Some sources, even reliable ones, will inevitably introduce some "partisan" analysis, which is why it's important to balance that out with all relevant viewpoints. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like it's been removed again.[18] Also that was not a RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It was referred to as an RfC in the discussion. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There were strong indications that consensus was in favor of the subsection; the RfC should not have been closed with that summary. And there is no requirement on WP:BLP that would justify your wholesale removal of longstanding content that likely has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"There were strong indications..." <-- what does that even mean? I mean, beside "[[WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT|I disagree with the close". And yes there is such a requirement: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.". Volunteer Marek 04:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It means that to anyone who can count, there was consensus in favor of keeping the material. And the evidence was provided in the sources, which include just about every major publication there is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEMOCRACY. O3000 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Votes are commonly used to gauge consensus along with the strength of the arguments behind them, per both of the policies you cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Closes stand until modified by a successful challenge. That means we don't use "bad close" as an argument in content discussions. For how to challenge the close see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Should I start a new RFC and get the ball moving or are we going to challenge the close? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The close was abusive. It needs be challenged. XavierItzm (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"The close was abusive". Again, wth does that even mean? Volunteer Marek 04:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC):::It doesn't matter what that even means, since this is not where or how closes are challenged (which Wikieditor19920, at least, had already accepted before your out-of-sequence reply to them). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, there was content about this in the article without its own subsection header for some time prior to (and after) the RfC which was titled as being narrowly about whether or not that content should gain its own subsection; my understanding is that if the RfC found no consensus for the information to gain its own subsection, the status quo ante of it being present but woven into the broader early life section rather than separated under its own a section header could be restored. This also highlights that it might be wise for a new RfC to ask if the content / topic itself should be included / covered, in addition to asking if it should be in its own section, and where that section should go. -sche (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the close above per the closer's edit summary. S/he seemed most interested in abandoning that one and restarting here, which was a good idea and has happened. Mission accomplished, we could say. I think closing was misguided because it wasn't actually a RfC, but just a section of the talk page that had been dormant for months and was then revisited. Wumbolo was correct that new comments should be made in a new, current section. The old one will soon be automatically archived, I presume. Someone could just manually archive it to get it out of sight without the formality of closing. YoPienso (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of non-native americans

CorbieVreccan yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be used to establish native american ancestry - per wapo, as I quoted in my revert, "There is research showing that using these groups as references is accurate when differentiating between genetic ancestries at a worldwide level." Also, the use of claim is inappropriate per MOS:CLAIM and that sources don't doubt that the ancestry exists. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (for other people, this is regarding [19])

Edit Conflict: Read Bustamante's actual report. Rebecca Nagle explains it in this article for Think Progress:

"The science behind Warren’s specific DNA test used examples of Indigenous people from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia, and included no sample from anyone who is Cherokee or even another Native American tribe from the Southeast (Cherokee traditional homelands)."

The test did not match her with anyone Cherokee, or from any North American Native tribe. It is incorrect to have a section header or statement that says she has any "Native American Ancestry." Her matching with someone from South America could also be a match with their Iberian alleles; it's too far back to be sure. This is a blunt tool, and not conclusive enough to state what many in usually-reliable news outlets are often misphrasing, because they are either not reading the report closely enough, or they are not understanding what it actually says. There are a handful more articles with the same sort of statements, but that's just a start. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

As per the cited Washington Post source, the indigenous alleles are considered relevant for genetic matching purposes. Your wholesale change (which implicates WP:BLP by negatively depicting a living person) has been reverted twice by two different editors. Please gain consensus for your proposed changes per WP:BRD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Americans use the term "Native American" to refer to aboriginal Americans in the United States. TFD (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, get a grip. This is an article about a US Senator. Nearly the entire, lengthy TP is about whether her ancestry was Amerind, as per her mother. Must we follow Trump down every rabbit hole? O3000 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUE requires that all viewpoints be included in proportion to WP:RS coverage. What truly carries no weight are the political judgments of editors on what's "relevant" and "what's not." And how did Wumbolo come to the conclusion that consensus was impossible to assess in the first section when the votes were 15-11 in favor? The arguments in favor even persuaded some "no" votes to switch their position, so that determination seems to have been based on a flawed analysis. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing! XavierItzm (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand what we mean by consensus. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Also, if you are suggesting that the no !votes are political judgments and yes !votes aren't, that's a problem. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm referring to general political analyses not related to policy and assumptions of bad faith on both sides. I just happen to believe the content is WP:DUE based on the text of the policy, but if there's no consensus for it, so be it. I think that's actually unfortunate for the article because readers seeking the information will likely simply go elsewhere for it, where they may find even more biased content. At least by including it, it can be framed in a fact-focused, WP:NPOV manner. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: almost everything can be "framed in a fact-focused, WP:NPOV manner", but we have the WP:NOTGOSSIP policy. wumbolo ^^^ 11:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

None of this is about Trump, or Brown, or any of Warren's political opponents. For me, anyway, it's about truth and accurate Indigenous representation. Right now, this article suffers from the usual WP systemic bias. The lawyers, Secretaries of State, genealogists, and regular citizens of the Cherokee Nation have been concerned about the harm done by Warren's false claims ever since the ridiculous Pow Wow Chow book. That's when CNO representatives first raised these concerns with her, checked to see if she had ancestry, saw she had none, and asked her to stop lying. She's known since then that she has no Native ancestors. She just decided to ignore Cherokee people. Contrary to the ad hominems that driveby and POV editors try on here, quite a few of us who are calling for accuracy around her false claims are not right wingers; I am the furthest thing from a Trump supporter. Trump is a straw man here as far as I'm concerned. Warren has unfortunately given him all this ammunition, but that is her problem. She did this to herself. It's not the job of Wikipedians to cover for her or cave to astroturfing PR editors from either party. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

New to this discussion, I don't know whether to take those comments above very seriously, but here goes, with three basic points.

• Firstly, no one has proven that "she has no Native ancestors", and in fact that is probably false – she probably has some small percentage of Native American ancestry, somewhere in the tangled web of her unknowable genetic (not necessarily officially and legally recorded) family tree, as most people in the United States probably do. Hardly anyone falls into the "all" or "none" categories – everyone else fits under "some" – even if that's a very small genetic fraction, and no one can trace their complete ancestry perfectly back to before Christopher Columbus, Zheng He, Erik the Red, Leif Erikson, or whenever the people who had ended up in America originally began re-mixing with the people who ended up in other places again.
• Secondly, whether she had any Native American ancestors or not is not a question that can be settled by the expressions of opinions by various people, regardless of who those people are and what their titles and positions and qualifications are. It is a question of fact and perhaps science, not opinion. The Cherokee Nation (an organization established in the 20th century and led by a guy named Bill John Baker as its Principal Chief, who is officially recognized as 1/32 (3.125%) Cherokee by blood), can decide whether they want to officially consider her to be a citizen member or not (and it appears that they do not), but that is a different question entirely, and AFAIK she never claimed to be a registered and officially recognized member of a tribe and never applied for them to consider an official member.
• Thirdly and finally, whether or not she has any Native American ancestry is also not directly relevant to whether she was "lying" about her ethnicity in the 1980s or 1990s or more recently. Even if it was magically proven that she had no Native American ancestors whatsoever (which has not been proven and seems highly unlikely), it wouldn't mean she was lying. The question of whether she was lying is a question of exactly what she said and what she believed, not of who she was descended from. It's a question of her state of mind, and AFAIK we don't have reliable sources who say they read her mind at any point in time. In the past, she probably believed he had more Native American ancestry than what she believes now. She probably believes now, probably accurately, that she has some small fraction of Native American ancestry – probably a smaller fraction than what she used to think – but probably more than 0.00000 percent.

—BarrelProof (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Native American heritage stuff: a straw poll

In order to help gauge consensus, please answer the following questions about how much WP:WEIGHT the Native American heritage material should be given in this article.

1. Approximately how many paragraphs should be devoted to material about the Native American heritage? (Article has been bouncing between 1 and 5.) [20]
2. Should there be a subsection for the Native American heritage controversy? (previous discussion closed as no consensus)
3. What material should definitely be included/excluded? (eg. personal recollections, listing as minority at law schools, criticism from political opponents, Trump mocking, DNA test, criticisms and responses related to DNA test, etc.)
4. Where should the material be located? (eg. all in personal life section, subsection in personal life, subsection in Career/Senate, split chronologically between personal life and Career/Senate, paragraph in Personal and subsection in Career/Senate, etc.)

~Awilley (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Quick response...

1. The WP:WEIGHT should be determined by the depth of coverage in independent reputable secondary sources. There are a lot of sources, but the depth of reputable coverage is not so deep. I think ~3 paragraphs is OK. Each paragraph should have non-overlapping sources, and I think this criteria should limit the number of paragraphs.

2. Subsection? Possibly "yes" on the basis that it is a current topic of great interest, and subsections aid navigation by readers. It belongs under "... and family". Another suggestion is to split "Early Life and Education" from "Family", and include "Native American ancestry" under the level 2 heading "Family". EW's Native American ancenstry is more fitting than the single sentence under Elizabeth_Warren#Public_life.

3. Include: The name and relationship of the named Native American ancestor. The story of the source of the information. The agreement of her brothers on the story (I assume this is reliably sourced?) taking care to imply that even if the story is wrong, it was not EW who made it up. When and how EW disclosed a claim of Native American heritage/ancestry. Brief mention of current political dispute & report the recent DNA in brief. Avoid NEWS coverage of this years news coverage, secondary sources are ideally a couple of years removed from the time of the event.

4. Under "Family". Putting it under "Senate" or "President" anything makes it too tempting to cross NOTNEWS lines and to start referencing every second newspaper mention of who said what. Avoid coverage that is completely dependent on recent news.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess that this diff makes the difference between a too-long version and a short version. I agree that the long version reads too long. I think the short version could be a bit longer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally would agree with this (with regards to #2, "Native American ancestry" under level 2 subheading seems to be the best imo), although I would err on the side of caution and say ~2–3 paragraphs (depending on the content, obviously). -- Bangalamania (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Brief response:

1. One paragraph.
2. No subsection.
3. Include personal recollections. If we include anything about Trump/DNA/etc., then it will likely metastasize to include the year-plus that Trump has been using a racial slur (not unlike the birtherism stuff), and Trump reneging on a $1 million donation promise. Don’t open a can of worms unless you like fishing.
4. Locate in personal section. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is going to fill up fast so I will be brief.

1-As many as required per Weight, you are asking for trouble to give an exact length.

2-Yes subsection

3-No strong opinion

4-Early life PackMecEng (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'll repost what I said above, but note that point 1 could go in early life and the rest in a single paragraph under "Career"--not under 2012 campaign because it's more pervasive than that.

That section needs to be cut down to half or less its current size. The important points are:

1. Family lore that as a child she was told she had Native American ancestry.
2. The cookbook.
3. Her listing herself as a minority.
4. Scott Brown's campaign attack.
5. Pres. Trump's ongoing mockery.
6. The fact that she took a DNA test that confirmed the family lore.
7. Political and ethnic pushback after she released the DNA test results.

We don't need to go into so much detail on fractions, averages, and medians, or typical Euro-Americans, etc., although it could be put into a footnote. I suggest a brief paragraph covering points 1-3--before the 2012 campaign; another on point 4--the 2012 campaign controversy; a final one on points 5-7--the aftermath of the campaign controversy.

YoPienso (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• • I support Yopienso's summary, with two small additions. If there is going to be emphasis on Bustamonte's conclusion then it needs to mention that "vast majority" of Warren's DNA is European to avoid the tendency to make her out as N.A. (she doesn't even claim N.A. any longer) and a small summary of what the Cherokee Nation has said needs to be included (there are two parts to his conclusion: (1) vast majority of DNA is European and (2) she has small piece of DNA that is Native, but not necessarily North American native). She has called herself Cherokee (and Delaware) her whole life, but she has never provided one document supports that claim and the DNA test did not have anything to do with supporting her tribal affliation. Going forward through the 2020 campaign (assuming she runs) the whatever we come up with will need to re-evaluated based upon what exactly happens during the campaign because I don't think anyone will say that this N.A./Cherokee issue is dead as long as she takes 2020 seriously. But I agree that 5 paragraphs and all of the detail is too much. --CharlesShirley (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I will only say one thing: exclude any Trump mockery and/or trolling that she did not respond to. That's because Trump does and says various things every day, and we can't adhere to BLP and NPOV if we include all of that. We all know that every time Trump says something, dozens upon dozens of MSM outlets report on it. That doesn't mean we should update any article. However, if Warren decides to respond to Trump over the course of the 2020 campaigns, that is her prerogative, and we should appropriately describe it. wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

exclude any Trump mockery and/or trolling that she did not respond to. Well, I think any response she made was to all of Trump’s comments over the year or so. That’s the problem. If we document what she recently said or did, it must be in the context of the innumerable comments at Trump rallies. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the matter should be mentioned in the article where it came up: her early life, her first Senate campaign, the 2016 presidential campaign and the DNA test. Not only is that the recommended style, but is typical of biographies. Certainly it should be mentioned there and if we create a new section, then it would be duplication. TFD (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick reactions:

1. Hard to argue with PackMecEng, but 2 or 3 would seem to be enough
2. Yes - it is an important enough issue to deserve its own section
3. I agree with Yopienso to exclude trump mocking if she did not respond to it.
4. No strong opinion except that it is not simply a personal life issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

1: As others said, ultimately depth of coverage in RS should determine the weight/space given to it, but ~2-3 paragraphs would be sufficient IMO.
2: Putting it in its own section simplifies where to put it, since it involves many points in time but is also best covered in one place (otherwise significant repetition would be necessary).
3: It should include that her family told her they had native ancestry, that she listed herself as native in the AALS directory, and that Brown attacked her over it (perhaps specifically that he accused her of fabricating heritage to gain advantage in the job market and that her former coworkers and employers rejected that). It should probably include Trump's slur. After time passes, we should ideally be able to get a better sense of how much weight reliable sources give (and hence we should give) the DNA test, so we can avoid being NEWSy. I don't think the comment about her parents having to elope, or her cheekbones, or the cookbook, or Nagle's comments, have been given enough weight by RS to be due here.
4: Putting the subsection in family/personal/early life (which the first part of it relates to and where it's been at) would be OK. Some other articles handle controversies about something someone did in the past, but that only received notice later, at the date it received notice—but that would be complicated here because it came up during her Senate campaign and is coming up again. Someone elsewhere on this page suggested making it its own top-level section, which could be considered if it proves impossible to put it anywhere else.
-sche (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on this, let me say that I don't think it has to have its own subsection/header; it's fine to just cover it in the early life section (or some other central place) without its own header, if we can manage to do that and not duplicate bits of it all around the article. -sche (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Approximately how many paragraphs should be devoted to material about the Native American heritage? Insofar as the Senator thinks this is very central to her self-identification (having repeatedly stated she is Native American across decades and having gone to the extreme of publishing DNA results showing she is at least 1/1024 Amerindian), the issue should be well-covered.

2. Should there be a subsection for the Native American heritage controversy? Yes, under "early life, family."

3. What material should definitely be included/excluded? Any that does not have WP:RS

4. Where should the material be located? personal life section

XavierItzm (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with these suggestions.Ebw343 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

One paragraph, as it is obviously important to her.78.17.57.86 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that the efforts to put Elizabeth Ann Warren (née Herring,[2] born June 22, 1949) is a Native American politician as the lead is an obvious BLP violation and a politically-tinged attack. She clearly doesn't identify as Native American today (and a 1984 cookbook doesn't prove otherwise); simply having some Native ancestry is not sufficient to claim that. The DNA test material will likely go in the 2020 primary section once one exists; leaving it in personal life is sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"She clearly doesn't identify as Native American today". CBS begs to differ (2 weeks ago):

 Elizabeth Warren released results of a DNA test she says proves she has some Native American heritage.

Looks like she does. At least "some". XavierItzm (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• So at this point it has been a couple weeks since the last comment. It appears there is consensus to have at least a paragraph, it's own sub section, and located in the personal life/Early life, education, and family section. Does someone want to close this and divine the answer to #3? PackMecEng (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 and this remains important enough that The New York Times dedicates an in-depth article exclusively to Warren's 1/1024th Amerindian blood DNA test: Elizabeth Warren Stands by DNA Test. But Around Her, Worries Abound. This should have its own section already. XavierItzm (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Muboshgu This discussion has basically not changed in over a month. With very solid support of it's own subsection under early life. Please reconsider your revert here. PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't read this as "very solid support" at all. I haven't voiced my vote. "No". There. Less solid. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is just a straw poll, btw. Rescanning the talk page archives, where there was an RfC on this that closed "no consensus", it's clear that there's still no consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I also don't see any consensus here to add a separate subsection; if someone wants to clearly overturn the previous RfC, it would be well-advised to open up a formal new RfC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    • There are 6 yes votes and 1 no vote(2 if you include Muboshgu). For the Yes votes it was SmokeyJoe, PackMecEng, Sphilbrick, -sche, XavierItzm, and Ebw343. The No vote was Objective3000. If I missed someone I apologize and let me know so I can update the count. Awilley do you agree or disagree? PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng, I've only had time to skim the discussion, but I didn't see a problem with the count. YoPienso might be another maybe (putting only the bit about the family stories in the Life section and the rest lower down) ~Awilley (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• • • @Muboshgu: & @NorthBySouthBaranof: Which RFC are you refering to? Is it this one? Which is not an RFC and was started over a year ago and had a contested close. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @PackMecEng: I was actually referring to this, but every single discussion of it in the talk page archives suggests a contentious topic without any consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh! I missed that one, from 3 and a half years ago and all the options had it in it's own subsection. Also all previous discussions except the most recent one here, where it is fairly clear. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

1. One, maybe two.
2. No. BLP vio and UNDUE.
3. The two paras that are in there right now at most.
4. In early life section.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The section passes all reasonable standards for inclusion due to the wide coverage in many reliable sources. 8 yes votes (including me) and 3 no votes. There was consensus before and still is consensus now, please do not edit war over adding the section.--IntelligentName (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Middle name

Can anyone find a pre-2012 source for "Ann"? Otherwise this sure looks like citogenesis, CNN is not beyond using Wikipedia for such trivia. If all sources you can find for a fact postdate the addition of that fact to Wikipedia, that's highly suspicious. Mewulwe (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

FTR/FYI, "Ann" was added in this January 2013 edit. The cited WaPo source does not show a middle name. (Advise not to click the link in the first sentence of that source, as my antivirus detected a virus when I did so.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why the first thought is to citogenesis... I've just added a Boston Globe source predating the first Wikipedia addition I could find (which was December 26, 2012). It's true that it doesn't seem to be used very much, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Citogenesis is all too common, so I always want to rule that out. Mewulwe (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Kind of disappointed now, actually. Would've made for a real doozy of an addition to Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't give up so easily. We may need to add a time warp section to citogenesis incidents. Or, reverse-citogenesis. I'll review Doctor Who's travels. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Just remember that jumping to the left or stepping to the right more than once will run afoul of ARBAPDS restrictions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Excised from the article

So, The Washington Post continues looking at the 1/1024th of a drop of Amerindian blood controversy the last week of December 2018 and the following gets deleted by user:NorthBySouthBaranof:

her "fraught" racial identity has been a political "stumble."

The deletion of the WP:RS is here. Democracy dies in darkness, uh? XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with edit and summary by @NorthBySouthBaranof:: "Poorly-worded, presents unattributed opinions as facts, etc. Discuss proposed addition on the talk page." The current WEIGHT given to Warren's ethnicity reflects Talk page consensus. Adding a clumsy, unattributed misquote from a new WaPo opinion piece increased WEIGHT without adding much for our readers except POV. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Whereas one might be inclined to agree that the WP is largely opinion nowadays, do you really think this was an opinion piece? Laughable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is from before she announced the presidential run. Now we follow reliable sources again. WaPo is a reliable source and here's the BBC mentioning it prominently [21]. Just because it's early and XavierItzm misquoted the source, doesn't mean this shouldn't be discussed in the future. wumbolo ^^^ 18:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was achieved over months of discussion. To change the consensus, propose that the group should change it and get agreement, don't just assume that everything is up for grabs all over again. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it because you included clearly-opinionated statements without attribution and without discussion as to whether the section, which has been carefully crafted by consensus over literal years of debate and discussion, should be expanded. Additionally, the material is frankly misplaced.

Discussions of how the issue impacts Warren's politics wouldn't belong in her biography's "Early life, education and family" section. A source discussing how the issue might impact her future political career (specifically, her presidential candidacy) would belong, if anywhere, in a section about her presidential candidacy. Or, perhaps not in this article at all, but in a sure-to-come spinoff article giving greater depth to her presidential candidacy (similar to the section in 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The "careful consensus" reflects a WP:WEIGHT argument that no longer holds. The Senator's Amerindianness has now been covered by the press for about a decade, including, as in the Washington Post here, until the present day. With regard to the "without attribution" argument, polite observance of WP:PRESERVE might have led you to add attribution, instead of destroying good content. XavierItzm (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should have more mention.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

Elizabeth Warren lied on an application to Harvard stating she was American Indian. For 10 years she was on the list as Native American. She then lied about it during her campaign and was exposed. She had a DNA test that revealed she has less American Indian blood than 99% of the U.S. Population. President Donald Trump refers to her as Pocahontas as a slam to her lying about being Native American. This important fact, must be added to her bio. 118.129.134.30 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's all in the article just not in the alarmist language you use. Incidentally, the vast majority of Americans have no Native American ancestry at all, so your 99% claim is false (see above discussion threads for sources.) TFD (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the anonymous is correct that Harvard represented Warren to the Federal Government as Native on Federally mandated forms, according to The Boston Globe:

 Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school.

I can list additional WP:RS in case anyone is interested in that the sources have to say about this subject. XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, it is false to claim that Warren "lied on an application to Harvard stating she was American Indian." HouseOfChange (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "it's all in the article."

"Warren was criticized in 2012 for having listed herself as a minority in a directory for Harvard Law School in the 1980s. Opponents said Warren falsified her heritage to advance her career through minority quotas. Warren denied these allegations, and several colleagues and employers (including Harvard) have said her reported ethnic status played no role in her hiring.[26][27] An investigation by The Boston Globe in 2018 found "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools."[28]"

Editors should check to see if information is already in the article before complaining that it isn't.

TFD (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References