Talk:Elizabeth Warren

Proof of voting record

Where is the evidence that Senator Warren voted Republican?

The article repeatedly states that Senator Warren voted Republican up to about 1996. Where is the evidence of this? As Senator Warren repeatedly lied about her "Native American" ancestry, her word on the matter of her voting for Republicans is worthless. Is there any evidence that, for example, Senator Warren donated money to Republican candidates? If so - which ones?90.194.182.59 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference is Packer, George (2013). The Unwinding, an inner history of the New America. New York: Farrar, Straus, and giroux. p. 345. Someone with access to the book could check. However, it could be rephrased to just state that she claimed to vote republican. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion on Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry is not relevant here, it is baseless WP:OR, and wikipedia is not a tabloid. Her word is perfectly fine.― Padenton |☎  16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Warren has no Native ancestry. Read the archived talk, and other diffs on this article. There has been POV pushing on this article to try and hide or diminish the protests from Native people about her misrepresentations. It keeps getting more and more minimized, not out of accuracy, but out of simple POV pushing. It wasn't just that her family was unclear and gave her misinformation. After the tribes checked and all the ancestors Warren claimed were Native were shown to be white, she totally disregarded Native sovereignty - the right of the tribes to say who is and isn't a member. By letting this POV push take root here on WP, people are privileging a white view (that these things don't matter) over a Native one. It's severe bias and rather disturbing. And... the issue of her misrepresenting her heritage and her voting record are separate, but it does show a pattern. - CorbieV^☊ 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read a fair bit of each of them, they are quite long in each of the archives. And to be quite honest, I don't share your certainty. I see claims from people claiming to be knowledgeable on the issue, but rarely are credible sources provided. The NA controversy section seems fairly good to me as it is now, giving a thoroughly-sourced overview of the different PoVs in an objective tone. I'm not sure what could be added.

But I digress, forgive me. Even if we assume that it has been proven 100% that Warren has no Native ancestry, there is little evidence that suggests she knowingly lied about it for her own gain, and therefore, I'm not sure I agree that it shows a pattern. Based on IPuser's wording of the original request in this thread, I'm sure you'll agree, it's hard to consider his/her doubt regarding Warren's votes as an objective appraisal. I am also not sure what sources we could possibly find other than primary. Political donations are often private (especially in and before the 90s), and votes are of course always private. So, if we were to remove it, I'm not sure what justification we would have to leave up similar statements on other politicians articles. ― Padenton|✉   22:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither me nor Corbie is driven by an ulterior motive to harm Warren. In fact, we are both persons of the Left. We just want to detail the facts. Warren's supporters are, however, adamant that the facts of this controversy--namely, that she identified as a racial minority on a law school recruitment form based on false/undocumented claims to Native American ancestry--must be obscured and hidden from public view. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written Native American section

I want to lay out the major problems--in terms of structure and clarity--afflicting the Native American controversy paragraph. As I show below, this inept writing serves to obscure the controversy surrounding her claim to Native American ancestry, which was the most-covered issue in her 2012 Senate Campaign.

Topic sentence

Competently written paragraphs have clear topic sentences that state the main point of the paragraph. The "topic sentence" of the current, incompetently written paragraph on the Native American controversy is as follows: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995 listed Warren as a minority professor."

This topic sentence is unclear; a reader who reads it would not see what the controversy was about. Being listed as a minority is not controversial. The issue is that Warren 1) listed herself in a 2) minority-recruitment directory for law schools, on the basis of 3) undocumented claims to Native American ancestry. A competently written topic sentence would convey those three main points. Here is an example of such a topic sentence: "In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it noted that Warren had listed herself in a directory of minority law professors, used by law schools for recruitment purposes, despite the fact that she lacked any documented minority ancestry." That competently-written topic sentence states the controversy in a nutshell.

I am willing to entertain any number of alternative topic sentences, including those that are unduly favorable to Warren. (I've given up on truly achieving NPOV for this article.) But I am not willing to abide unclear writing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I agree, the topic sentence should be more specific as to which minority, at the least, and I don't think that is what there was contention over. There at least is no contention from me on that front. My issue with the possible topic sentence you offered here is that the source does not appear to state that she listed herself. It's behind a paywall, so I can't read the full article. Is there a different article you know of off-hand? Another issue I have is with "despite the fact that she lacked any documented minority ancestry". People aren't regularly required to provide proof of their ancestry, whatever it is. ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's true that people aren't usually expected to document their minority status. But that's because for most people, their being a minority is discernible from their physical appearance.

If you look completely white and state that you are (for example) black, that's fine. Race-mixing has led to a diversity of phenotypes across all races. But it's perfectly reasonable to expect such a person to be able to point to a parent or grandparent who is black to justify their claim to minority ancestry. In the case of Warren, everyone in her family--including great-grandparents--looks completely white, so the obvious means of 'proof' (a picture of mom or dad) is not available to her. This shortcoming has led critics, including many Native Americans, to ask for documentation of her ancestors. However, all of the relevant documentation--the rolls of the Cherokee and Census Data--points to her being white. Therein lies the controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you have seen this photo[1] of a younger dark-haired Warren who looks obviously mixed. There seems to be a pattern of you saying things that you know not to be true, like 'she looks completely white'. Darx9url (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Darx, it's not for you or anyone else to decide if she is Native or not. It is up to the Nations she claims (who do not claim her). "IV. Our Nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native Citizens

Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native? As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States. Of course, blood quantum (the degree of American Indian or Alaska Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses) is not the only means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person’s knowledge of his or her tribe’s culture, history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, are also important. In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native.

There are major differences, however, when the term “American Indian” is used in an ethnological sense versus its use in a political/legal sense. The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes. Eligibility requirements for federal services will differ from program to program. Likewise, the eligibility criteria for enrollment (or membership) in a tribe will differ from tribe to tribe." http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ Indigenous girl (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

'native ancestry'

The current paragraph states that Warren's "opponent Scott Brown speculated that she had fabricated a native ancestry to gain advantage in employment." At this point, the paragraph has not stated that she claimed to be Native American, so it is not clear what type of ancestry the term "native ancestry" refers to. I have tried to replace "native ancestry" with "Native American ancestry," but have been repeatedly reverted. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I have no objection whatsoever to this, and I don't think anyone else actually does either. I think the reverts (and mine was) were because of other changes. I've put this back. ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

'Brown attacked Warren's ancestry'

The current paragraph states that Scott Brown issued attack ads that "referred to Warren's ancestry." Whether made out of incompetence or malice, this statement constitutes a BLP violation. The statement indicates that Brown attacked Warren because of her ancestry or race. In reality, he attacked her for (allegedly) lying about her race to get ahead in the employment market. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I see what you're saying here. The current is "the Brown campaign referred to Warren's ancestry in several attack ads." Would "the Brown campaign referred to the controversy in its attack ads." be suitable? ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the attacks were based on the opinion she lied about her ancestry. - CorbieV^☊ 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing on lack of involvement in Native community at Harvard

I know from OR and research by Natives that Warren never attended Native events while at Harvard, which is a direct contradiction of her statements that she listed herself as Native in order to meet others like herself. In one of the Herald sources she says, '“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened,”'[2]. The Herald also noted that she didn't attend other Harvard Native events while campaigning in Massachusetts[3]. She also avoided all invitations from Cherokee Nation reps at the primary, and at the convention to meet with them (these were different groups than the four Cherokee women who tried to meet with her in Boston and were covered by mainstream media, sort of). Unfortunately, the only non-Native, mainstream news source that thought to call up the Harvard Native center was from... Breitbart. "by Joel B. Pollak 7 May 2012. Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program’s events while Warren was a professor at Harvard."[4] I'm not sure what to do about this. I think the Herald cite is probably sufficient, but rather than edit war I'm putting this out there. The thing is, due to the political leanings in Massachusetts - the desire of left-leaning news orgs to help elect a democrat, any democrat - time after time the only news outlets that would talk to Natives were right wing ones that Natives usually have nothing to do with. Politics and strange bedfellows. - CorbieV^☊ 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you do in this regard, let's avoid over-politicizing this issue in the bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. My POV here is neither democrat or republican, it's just the issue of who gets to declare themselves Native, and how that affects tribal sovereignty in the long run (The tribes' rights to decide who is and isn't a member of their Nations). Also, to a lesser extent, the issues around affirmative action and who does or doesn't benefit from it. I'm thinking of adding a very brief clause to the last sentence in that paragraph, after the current bit that reads "She stated that she listed herself as a minority in the AALS directories in order to meet others with a similar background." but am struggling with what wording can be adequately sourced in this case. The current source there also includes the "Nothing like that ever happened" quote. Working on it now. - CorbieV^☊ 21:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't need Breitbart after all. The Christian Science Monitor and the Herald covered it. - CorbieV^☊ 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question Serious question: how can anyone know whether Warren did or did not attend events at Harvard, given that they don't take attendance at events like those? Also, is this Christian Science Monitor article [5], a RS on whether Warren did or didn't attend Native events at Harvard, given that the reporter apparently did not interview anyone at Harvard about it? Darx9url (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I say no, seeing as how its only certainty on the matter is an unattributed "Apparently"― Padenton|✉   15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course the Christian Science Monitor is WP:RS. It's as reputable as the Globe and Herald. Journalists for WP:RS publications do not need to only post direct quotes from people they interview. Investigative reporting relies on background and deep background investigation, along with fact checking by editors; reporters have gone to prison rather than reveal their sources. Though they don't name HUNAP and the particular individuals in the Cherokee and Massachusetts Native communities who were interviewed in this piece, other sources back that people were contacting the Harvard University Native American Program, and interviewing people in the communities Warren claimed membership in. Why do you say no one takes attendance? Of course they do. It's Harvard. And at purely social events, photos are taken and friendships made, if someone is really involved in the community. Indian Country is a tiny place. If you meet someone who's Native, you ask who their people are. Then with one or two phone calls you know whether they are telling the truth. While you can't tell someone's entire distant heritage from looking at them, I guarantee that someone who looks and acts like Warren attending Native events would be remembered. If she had made friends or attended anything, Natives would know. Inclusion of her lack of involvement in Native community is relevant given her stated motives for listing herself as an ethnic minority. - CorbieV^☊ 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous version of the Native American heritage controversy section

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Warren had listed herself as a minority in Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995, a database used by law schools to recruit minority professors, despite having no documented minority ancestors. Incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown speculated that Warren had fabricated her minority status to gain advantage in employment. Warren, who is not enrolled in any Native American tribe, defended her self-identification as a racial minority by asserting that she was Native American. She stated that she listed herself as a minority in the AALS directories in order to meet others with a similar background. However, Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus, did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign.

Warren's brothers issued a joint statement stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage." However, some members of Warren's extended family stated that they had no knowledge of Native American heritage in the family. The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no proof of Cherokee ancestors for Warren, while the Oklahoma Historical Society (a non-Native organization) said that finding a definitive answer about distant Native heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration. Indian reporters said they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign. And some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren's claim to Native American identity, as well as the effect her claims could have on issues of tribal sovereignty and the Cherokee's legal right to determine their own citizenship.

Former colleagues and supervisors at universities where she had worked stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring. Warren’s 2014 autobiography devoted a section to the allegations, writing that "Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory." She described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

References

I've posted above a version that I consider to be a fair depiction of the controversy. Another editor has recently come along and, among other changes, entirely removed Warren's broad viewpoint on the subject (which happens to carry substantial weight) and subsequently created a serious neutrality problem that needs to be addressed. Discussion needed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think having both the opening sentence in the second paragraph, as well as the next-to-last sentence in the section, is a bit redundant. I'd prefer to remove one of those, but I can live with it as is. The two bits in question are:

1. "Warren's brothers issued a joint statement stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage."

and

2. writing that "Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory."

- CorbieV^☊ 20:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is what the section looked like before Steeltrap decided that it needed expansion:

In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995 in which she self-identified as a Native American, and that Harvard Law School had publicized in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.[47] According to Warren and her three siblings, Native American ancestry was a part of their family folklore.[48] However the New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find documentary proof of Native American lineage.[49] Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren's hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.[48][50]

If one looks at comparable bios in WP, this is just about right. I am really sick and tired of the relentless crusade to blow this incident into a major issue in Warren's bio, and I suggest that we return to a reasonable coverage of the issues such as we were using at one time. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The old version is biased and poorly written. In the old version, is not even clear what the controversy is about, since the old version omits the crucial facts that 1) Warren has no documented heritage and 2) the AALS is used to recruit minority professors. The new version better reflects the importance of the issue, which continues to garner a large amount of press. Dozens of articles in the last week have made heavy mention of the controversy. The Boston Herald speculates that not wanting to invite attention to the controversy is Warren's motive for not running for president. Steeletrap (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is something comparable that we should be aware of. Compare the amount of article space devoted to the Rick Perry vaccine incident, which caused a huge uproar:

In February 2007, Perry issued an executive order mandating that Texas girls receive the HPV vaccine, which protects against some strains of the human papilloma virus, a contributing factor to some forms of cervical cancer.[75] Following the move, news outlets reported various apparent financial connections between Perry and the vaccine's manufacturer, Merck.[75][76] Merck's political action committee has contributed $28,500 since 2001 to Perry's campaigns.[77] The order was criticized by some parents and social conservatives, and a lawsuit was filed later that month.[78] In May 2007, the Texas Legislature passed a bill undoing the order; Perry did not veto the bill, saying the veto would have been overruled, but blamed lawmakers who supported the bill for the deaths of future cancer victims.[79] Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Perry vaccine issue is not comparable. One is a passing incident, the other goes to a long-term pattern of behaviour. While ethnic fraud or accusations thereof may seem like a minor incident to non-Natives, it's not minor in Indian Country. Again, countering systemic bias. - CorbieV^☊ 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you have never heard of the vaccination controversy? That is truly surprising. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User: CorbieV, what do you mean by a "long-term pattern of behaviour"??? Warren was told that she has Native American roots; whether or not that is true is not up to us to decide. This isn't about "natives" verses "non-natives", it's about accurately portraying what has been presented in reliable sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea whether "Warren was told she has Native American roots." Her parents could have never talked about being Native American; or, alternatively, they could have discussed their 'native heritage' in a tongue-in-cheek and blatantly speculative fashion. All we know for sure is that the woman checked 'minority' on a forum used to recruit minority professors, allegedly on the basis of being Native American, despite the facts that she has no documented Native ancestors and all of her family (including great-grandparents) look completely white. Steeletrap (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is part of her explanation as to why she believed she had Native American roots, and I think her explanation warrants inclusion, along with her being told "at least a thousand times" by her aunt that her grandfather had "high cheek bones" like "all of the Indians do". Marteau (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur. The current version with the restored content is good. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

These massive deletions that are going on right now are against consensus. Claiming that Indian Country Today is not a reliable source is egregious, as is cutting the central concern for Native people around how this effects tribal sovereignty. - CorbieV^☊ 00:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed per WP:UNDUE. Nothing to do with sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: To be honest, the only one I see on that side of the discussion is you. I had no issue with Steeletraps edits that I discussed with her in the section above, but these changes you've made goes a bit too far. You don't seem neutral in this to me, it does not matter whether you identify as a democrat, you can still be non-neutral when adding negative material to a politician who's a member of the democratic party, and that seems to be the case here. Perhaps you might want to take a step back from the issue? ― Padenton|✉   00:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Last time I stepped back the section wound up whitewashed. So inadequate coverage is being called longstanding and consensus just because we were overruled by the majority and we got tired of arguing. There are very few people looking out for Native issues on Wikipedia, so of course these views are the minority. But WP isn't just for white people. - CorbieV^☊ 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying Wikipedia is just for white people. In fact, I doubt anyone in the history of this talk page has said that. I understand your desire to cure systemic bias, but singling out BLPs and injecting undue language isn't the way to help systemic bias. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're being racist. ― Padenton|✉   00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Turning the section into a tea party attack platform is foolish and pointless. The controversy was ginned up, briefly, in a campaign ad and the failing Republican paper in Boston. It had no traction, Warren's seat will be hers as long as she wants it, there has been no subsequent interest, and this wiki tempest simply embarrasses the project. One brief paragraph and three refs would be ample. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Tea party?" I am a person of the Left, as all of my years-long editing history shows. Corbie is primarily concerned with Native American issues, esp. tribal sovereignty. We are just trying to stop people from suppressing the essential facts about an ongoing controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, there is a push to "draft" Warren to run for the Presidency. Several mainstream sources have just in the past week cited this issue as a political liability to her, and several have cited it as a reason she will not, or should not, run. Saying this issue "has no traction" and had "no subsequent interest" is, if not outright laughable, demonstrably untrue. Marteau (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it's very clear that whether CorbieVreccan and Steeletrap are being fair to Warren or not, neither are supporters of the "Tea Party". If you want to disagree with them, feel free, but their arguments clearly fit liberals better. ― Padenton|✉   03:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Source needed

Please provide the exact source quotes that back this statement:

"However, some members of Warren's extended family stated that Warren's grandmother was not Native American."

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy, BLP sanctions, and the Native American heritage section

Per our WP:BLP policy, that any disputed controversial change should gain consensus before being introduced, I have reverted the section to what it was before the recent mayhem that occurred this last few days (when a user showed up again pushing a particular viewpoint). I am calling for a RfC to determine consensus. Please do not change this section before the RfC has run it's course. This article is under BLP sanctions, so introduction of potentially libelous disputed changes can result in user blocks. Please respect the process and not start edit warring. LK (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you state with specificity what you consider to be "potentially libelous"? If you refuse to be specific, I can't take your remark seriously. Steeletrap (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section

There is dispute over what, and how much coverage, about an election controversy there should be in this BLP article (rather than the article on the election itself.). See the ongoing discussion above (and in the archives) that has been carrying on for some months.

• A Stable version from last week
• B Version 1 during recent dispute
• C Version 2 during recent dispute

Please give your opinion and comments on: Which version if any should be on this page? How long should the section be? LK (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the above. (edit 19:11) This RfC is flawed and should be withdrawn and perhaps re-submitted with "yes" or "no" questions and not a flawed multiple choice question.(end edit) Expecting editors to select one of your three proposed static versions of an entire sub-section on this multi-faceted issue is inappropriate. Has this issue received additional coverage and attention here? Sure has. Has it gotten out of hand? I don't think it has, and things are working as per process and as intended. Furthermore, your rolling back the section to an arbitrary point of your choosing and expecting editors to not to change it (potentially for a month) as per your edit comment until the results of your RfC is also inappropriate and unwarranted. Marteau (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version A - This makes the most sense given that it's a contentious section and we're dealing with a BLP. Any proposed changes to the stable version should be discussed here in order to see where the consensus lies. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Version A It's also the right length. I'm not saying that stuff from the other versions can't be included, but any speculation or synthesis should be thrown out, and the whole thing shouldn't be so long. Darx9url (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version A - for length and focus. Move to 2012 campaign, where it belongs. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A, B, or C - I'm fine with any currently provided choices. @Marteau:If you have such a problem with it, I doubt anyone would have an issue if you added another version. @MarkBernstein: It's still probably appropriate to have a section on it here, though the interested editors here should go there and make sure someone hasn't attempted to screw up the NPOV there as well. ― Padenton|✉   14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version B or C - Version A is poorly written--lacking, for example, a clear topic sentence--and obscures the three essential facts of the controversy. The three essential facts are that Warren 1) listed herself as a minority 2) in a directory used to recruit minority professors 3) despite having no documented minority ancestry. Version A falsely implies that she 'was listed' (perhaps against her will) as a minority rather than listed herself, and does not describe the nature of the directory. This ongoing controversy--which, in just the last week, garnered coverage in dozens of mainstream sources--deserves 2 or 3 paragraphs rather than just 1. In addition, for the reasons I stated in the Poorly Written Native American Section section I created above, A is so poorly written that even those who want to limit and censor discussion of the controversy should support rewriting it.Steeletrap (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on process - I have no issue with starting an RfC, this has been mostly the same handful of editors that were here in previous discussions, I think we could use some fresh eyes on this issue. I do think LK's revert was unneeded. I'd be happy to hear arguments against the section's length WRT to WP:UNDUE, but though I have seen serious pov issues added to the section throughout the last few days, I do not see any in the version right now (very slightly modified from the one before the revert, ver C). ― Padenton|✉   16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: (edit conflict) So I don't forget and need to add the ref back in again, I have edited the link for Version C. I changed it to the latest revision, the only difference between the two is that one of the refs got lost during all the moving stuff around. You can verify the difference between the Version C now and Version C before here: [6] ― Padenton|✉   16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version B or C, per Steeletrap, plus the content in the cited clause about her not attending Native events or discussing it, as in this version (let's call it Version D[7]): "Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus,[70][71] did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign.[70][71][72][73][73]. - CorbieV^☊ 17:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended discussion

@CorbieVreccan: Hi Corbie, could you maybe provide a better source for those? I see citation 72 has this quote from Warren: “I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren. and citation 73 says she missed a Harvard Native American event in 2012, but I don't see anything else showing she didn't attend Native events. Right now, that line implies that she never attended them, I see her admitting to stopping and I see one event she wasn't at (after she had stopped). As for "Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus", this is a direct quote from citation 70. I might've missed it because I'm in a rush, but I don't see anything more than speculation here, which is inappropriate in a BLP. ― Padenton|✉   17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC) @Padenton: Hey Padenton, while there have been some improvements since then (such as Steeletrap's clarifications that the directory only listed "minority" status, and spelling out the relationship to svoereignty issues[8], this is how the sourcing was before it got all rearranged:[9]. She stated that she listed herself as a minority in the AALS directories in order to meet others with a similar background.<ref name=ChabotHerald>{{cite web|last=Chabot |first=Hillary |url=http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends |title=Warren: I used minority listing to share heritage |publisher=BostonHerald.com |date=2012-05-02|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20120503200317/http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220502warren_i_used_minority_listing_to_make_friends|archivedate=2012-05-03 |accessdate=2015-04-06}}</ref> Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus,<ref name="csm"/><ref name=ICTM/> did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign.<ref name="csm"/><ref name=ICTM/><ref name=ChabotHerald/><ref name=PowWowHerald>{{cite web|last=Fee |first=Gayle |url=http://www.bostonherald.com/inside_track/inside_track/2012/05/elizabeth_warren_claims_native_american_roots_skips_harvard_powwow |title=Elizabeth Warren claims Native American roots, skips Harvard Powwow |publisher=BostonHerald.com |date=2012-05-08|accessdate=2015-04-06}}</ref><ref name=PowWowHerald/> So, we've got Christian Science Monitor and the Herald, in addition to ICT (though csm is quoting an ICT reporter in one part of it). - CorbieV☊ 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC) @CorbieVreccan: Yes, but that version still doesn't say more than an unattributed statement in the CSMonitor article of "Warren apparently never sought out Native Americans on campus". According to who? When was this? How do they know? ― Padenton|✉   23:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC) @Padenton: I don't know what additional background the CSM did in addition to those they quoted. As I noted further up,[10], Breitbart (I know) seems to be the only non-blog report that bothered to contact the Harvard Native group: "by Joel B. Pollak 7 May 2012. Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program’s events while Warren was a professor at Harvard." I know that Breitbart is usually not reliable, but if the CSM isn't, what is? These quotes are all from the Christian Science Monitor: Jonsson, Patrick (June 2, 2012). "Cherokees hammer Elizabeth Warren on ancestry claim ahead of Mass. party convention". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 9, 2015. This week, Indian reporters say they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign as they sought clarification on why Ms. Warren was listed as a minority Native faculty by Harvard in the 1990s, even though she has no evidence to back that claim and apparently never sought out other Native Americans on campus. While familial associations and claims of Native ancestry are common, actual tribal membership entails making legitimate family links to government “rolls” that date back to the 19th century and taking part in tribal life. By all accounts, Warren didn’t participate in Native American activities in Cambridge, although she did contribute several recipes to a cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow.” Many Indians have asked why, if she wanted to meet people like her, didn’t she continue to list herself in these directories … attend Native functions at Harvard [or] … reach out to hundreds of Native faculty around the country,” writes Indian Country reporter Rob Capriccioso. “Warren has now also failed to connect with American Indians through the Native media – which is sounding alarm bells for Native journalists.” Warren’s campaign declined requests from Native reporters to interview the candidate this week even as Warren talked to the Globe and appeared on MSNBC. - CorbieV☊ 00:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Version D but B or C would be tolerable per Steeletrap and CorbieVreccan.Indigenous girl (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Version A per MarkBernstein and Somedifferentstuff comments above. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Version A as other versions are WP:UNDUE when compared with rest of article. Such info belongs on an article about the campaign it arose during. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue remains an factor in the current political environment, with many mainstream news and commentary sites citing it as it pertains to the upcoming presidential election and to speculations regarding her political future. Its affect on her political life is by no means limited to a previous election but extends to current events and is a currently relevent issue in an upcoming election. Removing coverage here and limiting it arbitrarily to a sub article on the history of a previous election history would be a tacit and unwarranted denial of its modern day relevance. Marteau (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me add WP:RECENTISM then too. Again, far too much weight on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• None of the above See Option E below. Gandydancer (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased RFC question

The clear effect--and probably the purpose--of this straw vote is to split the votes of the anti-censorship contingent, who all oppose the censorship that would be imposed by alternative A but who (on largely stylistic grounds) have small differences of opinion as to what the section should look like. Since section A--the pro-censorship section--is so radically different than sections B-D, and since the proponents of the three alternative sections largely agree on what the section should look like, the question should instead be: Do you favor or oppose section A. Steeletrap (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC) An RfC is not needed to determine which of sections B-D should be adopted; proponents of each of these sections have worked with each other in a collegial and productive fashion. The RfC is only needed to settle the intractable and deeply polarized dipute between proponents and opponents of the 'stable' (i.e. pro-censorship) Section A.

RfC: Do you favor keeping Section A?

• I oppose Section A for the reasons stated above: It is incompetently written (it lacks a topic sentence and has no discernible structure or organization), and fails to clearly present the three main points of the controversy: namely, that Warren 1) listed herself as a racial minority in 2) a database used by law schools to recruit minorities despite 3) having no documented ancestry. Steeletrap (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose section A for Steeltraps reason. These RfC options were developed out-of-process with no input from any other editors. And I agree with Steeltrap that the questions would tend to split the vote in ways which are not neutral. Concensus should be whether given text should or should not be included, not whether one of three options should be included. This RfC subverts, for whatever reason, the usual concensus achieving procedures for no good reason other than one editor's whim and is completely inappropriate. Marteau (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose section A as insufficient coverage of the issue. The section, both here and in the campaign article, needs to cover the three main points outlined by Steeletrap, as well as at least touch on the minority (but sourced), Native concern about tribal sovereignty. Also agree with process concerns voiced by Marteau. - CorbieV^☊ 22:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose user:Steeletrap disrupting this RfC --- I also find it inappropriate for you to post an edit summary such as this [11] --- Lastly, not long after receiving an edit warring warning [12] you go ahead and revert [13] user:LK while there is an ongoing RfC; not a wise move since you recently came off of a block [14] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not "disruption" but is, instead becoming specific. The multiple-choice question for this RfC is flawed and should never have been submitted. We should be deciding whether or not a certain given text should be included on a case-by-case basis, NOT which of three choices, each flawed in their own certain ways, one editor figures are reasonable options. This RfC should deal in binary "yes" or "nos" not a multiple choice exercise. Marteau (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You've made your point. And whatever your opinion is of how this RfC was started, it is irrelevant to the content discussion. As I said above, no one will care if you add your own versions to the list above. ― Padenton|✉   23:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The RfC asks us to choose "which version" (in the singular). It does not ask for us to select more than one, some have, but some have adhered to the question of the RfC and selected only one. This RfC is inadequate, sloppy, inappropriate and should be withdrawn and started over. Marteau (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Marteau, you're missing the point. The reason editors are choosing Version A is not necessarily because they think it's great, it's because that was the stable version of the article before various editors came along and started changing things. In order to determine consensus for those changes, we need to start from the stable version and work our way up, deciding what should be changed and what shouldn't, via discussion; there is no way around that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Section A is hardly "stable" when it has only been put in place by edit warring, and half of editors on this page think it amounts to censorship. Steeletrap (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I must say I don't agree with this section. We shouldn't be narrowing it down based on yes or no answers. This would work better as a discussion with everyone choosing 1 or 2 of their favorite revisions and putting it in the list for discussion. ― Padenton|✉   23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - These two subsections are ridiculous. Calling one version "censorship" and disrupting an RfC like this is completely inappropriate. Deserves a serious trouting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Disrupting an RfC like this is indeed inappropriate, and in view of the record deserves (and will doubtless require) more than a trout. I observe that encyclopedia articles need not carry even one paragraph covering every single failed argument that an opponent raised in a futile campaign, now half-forgotten. The Checkers Speech merits only part of a paragraph in Nixon’s biography, and that scandal nearly ended his career; the Jeremiah Wright controversy isn't even mention in Obama's biography; the “McCain has a black child” canard -- probably the most analogous to this issue -- seems not to be mentioned at all in his article. Since we're discussing all options, I propose Option E: reduce this to no more than two sentences, run into the campaign section. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So you think criticizing someone for claiming she is a minority, in a form for minority recruitment, despite the fact that everyone in her family looks completely white and she has no documented minority ancestors, is akin to mocking McCain's child for being Bangladeshi? Mind=blown. Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? The idea that someone can be 95% European and 5% Native American while looking "completely white" tells me you have no idea how genetics work. Get a clue already. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Genetics actually have nothing to do with it. It has to do with enrollment status http://cherokeeregistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=415&Itemid=626 You can't simply say you're from such and such Nation. That's not how it works. Senator Warren does not have status in any (Native American)Nation. She does not posses a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood. Both of those statements are fact. As others have stated this is a sovereignty issue. It is also a legal issue.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did she say she was from such and such nation? I want to see a WP:RS now. ― Padenton|✉   13:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option E: reduce this to no more than two sentences, run into the campaign section (per Mark Bernstein, above) This is not the place to duke it out about Warren's heritage issues. The only place that this has become a major concern is right here in Wikipedia. We're supposed to reflect the majority outlook, not make it up on our own. Gandydancer (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That this issue has recieved substantial coverage recently in the mainstream media as it pertains to the upcoming presidential election and discussions about her potential participation in it is an objective, demonstrable, undeniable fact. It is an issue of interest, and we make nothing "up on our own" by addressing that interest and by covering the issue appropriatly here, in her article. Giving it a scant two scant two sentences as you and Mark Bernstein advocate would be completely inappropriate; there is no way this issue can be properly handled here, as it should, in two sentences. Marteau (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're editing wikipedia because you want to affect a presidential election, you're in the wrong place. Issues of 'interest' are not notable, this is not a newspaper nor a tabloid. ― Padenton|✉   13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton:The editor to whom I replied, and others here, have advocated that this issue should be limited to two sentences and "run into" 2012 Campaign article. I bring up the fact that this is pertinent to the current presidential election, here and previous in this talk page, in order to make the point that this is a current issue, a factor in the current campaign, and extends beyond the 2012 campaign to the present day. Implying that there is something partisan about that is uncalled for and out of hand. Marteau (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Marteau: To be clear, I never said partisan. As I said above, most of the people here arguing for the longer (and more critical) version are liberals. The "right-wing" sources covering it recently appear limited to tabloids and pundits. But the problem is that it remains a minor issue, I find few if any reliable sources even briefly mentioning it in the last year. [15]. In fact, it's arguable that its only mentions are due to Jeb Bush accidentally checking off hispanic on a voter form once that's been in the news recently. Also, standard coverage from pundits and tabloids, which are not WP:RS ― Padenton|✉   15:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

She's claimed Cherokee. Over and over and over again. She doesn't have that right. "IV. Our Nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native Citizens

Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native?

As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States. Of course, blood quantum (the degree of American Indian or Alaska Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses) is not the only means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person’s knowledge of his or her tribe’s culture, history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, are also important. In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native.

There are major differences, however, when the term “American Indian” is used in an ethnological sense versus its use in a political/legal sense. The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes. Eligibility requirements for federal services will differ from program to program. Likewise, the eligibility criteria for enrollment (or membership) in a tribe will differ from tribe to tribe." http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ Indigenous girl (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of ongoing relevance of Native American issue

https://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=elizabeth+warren+native&ncl=dGT7MhV8m9bl_pMmftoJZSAhVzggM&cf=all&scoring=d

As the above link shows, the issue has been discussed extensively, in a couple dozen various mainstream media sources, in the last three days. The comparison was brought up repeatedly in the context of a comparison with Jeb Bush's apparent claim to be Hispanic on a voter registration form. Both liberal and conservative sources have noted the similarities and differences between the two situations--while neither has any documented minority ancestry, Warren, unlike Bush, could have gotten a tangible benefit out of her false claim to Native heritage. Steeletrap (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a momentary tempest of scant relevance to Warren, save for the happenstance that another politician may have done something vaguely similar. In contrast to Warren, it is inconceivable that the Bush family -- famously Brahmin in origin -- discusses their Hispanic heritage around the dinner table. Most of the sources here are highly partisan, like National Review Online. Your comment above, by the way, also approaches a BLP violation. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Silly season started earlier this year, <sigh>. We should not follow these back and forth and comparisons; they are irrelevant to this bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• The issue is a non-issue save for some of Warren's critics on the far right-wing and they keep trying to create a tempest in a teapot. No one else gives a flying f---. Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've been paying attention to this talk page for a while. People on the far left are criticizing it a lot more than people on the right. ― Padenton|✉   03:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about this on the left? Any sources? For a BLP of politician I don't think most other wikipedia articles have large sections of several paragraphs on a specific criticism from the other political side. Does Jeb Bush's page have a large section on how he said he was Hispanic? Popish Plot (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My sources are every single talk discussion we've had on this page. Go look at who it is arguing for the longer section. To blame this section on the right is absurd. ― Padenton|✉   14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean it's leftwing editors that want the criticism for this to be longer? Hard for me to see if someone is lw or rw here. But that wouldn't matter anyway, it would have to do with the reliable sources not the editors viewpoints which can't be proven. Popish Plot (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. People assume certain political viewpoints of sources, but they're just as proven as they are in the case of editors. ― Padenton|✉   15:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1. How can you tell what a wikipedia editor's political viewpoint is? I know some may have an infobox on their userpage that says something like "this user is a conservative" or "this user is a liberal".

2. Why does it matter? Wikipedia articles should go by reliable sources and if an editor happens to have a liberal or conservative point of view, shouldn't they try to leave that out and edit based on reliable sources?

3. It doesn't seem to make logical sense that mostly far left editors want to add criticism to Elizabeth Warren's wikipedia article more so than any conservative editors. Not that I think it matters anyway but if it did I'd ask for some backup because it doesn't pass the smell test. Popish Plot (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Here you are:

1. Simple: They said so. Also, take a look at the arguments for the section's expansion, which is based on the alleged offense done to a minority group. That's typically a far-left argument, not a far-right one.
2. You're right, it doesn't matter at all. I don't care what another editors political views are, and they don't belong in an article just as mine don't. However, if someone's going to blame everything on the far right wing, I'm going to say something about it, and I did.
3. It's helpful to think of politics as a spectrum, which we do, but it's not. People have different views on different topics. So it's more of a grid. Most people are actually fairly moderate, not one or the other, and while a few radio personalities might take every cheap shot they can, on wikipedia, it needs to be in a neutral tone and reliably sourced, which generally gets rid of all the far-right comments that are so famous on Facebook and Tumblr. As wikipedia has a liberal systemic bias, the removal of poorly-sourced and undue far-right comments happens more frequently than poorly-sourced and undue far-left comments. Also, just because someone supports the democratic party, doesn't mean they support every candidate in the democratic party, or on every issue. ― Padenton|✉   19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well since it doesn't matter why bring it up. What does the article say right now. How can it be improved? Popish Plot (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Montanabw's comment.― Padenton|✉   20:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree montanabw's comment, which uses the f word is unneeded. However I think it is true only the right wing is criticizing Warren on this. That's what the reliable sources show anyway. And that makes logical sense, is the left wing really going to be criticizing the most leftwing senator more than the right wing? However, just because this is a criticism coming from the right, I am not saying that means don't mention it in this wiki article. I am saying though that it is not so notable that it needs such a large section of multiple paragraphs here. Popish Plot (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(Undent) Once again, some very weird stuff happened during Elizabeth Warren's campaign, and while I think the CSM, Herald and ICT sources are sufficient and relevant to include her lack of involvement in any Native community, along with her shunning of Natives and disregard of Native concerns, the way the coverage fell out has badly damaged the ability to source this to every single editor's satisfaction. However, I think there have been some very aggressive attempts to disallow sources that were completely uncontroversial prior to the attempts to censor this. Due to their desperation to get a Democrat back into Kennedy's seat, the left-leaning media outlets, and most Democrats, did triage and chose their priorities; they chose to largely ignore and even hush up the alleged ethnic fraud; they chose not to care about issues of Native sovereignty, because they just didn't see it as important as getting a Democrat elected. So they did not follow up on things and often refused to issue corrections when new info came out. The sourceable mentions of her shunning of Native journalists is only the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of other stuff that can't be sourced to WP standards. It was positively surreal to see only right wing news outlets talking to Natives about this. Totally unprecedented. Popish, please stop accusing others of plots and of lying. I think you would be shocked if you knew how totally wrong you are about the motives here. - CorbieV^☊ 21:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is lying. There is a dispute, let's try to solve it, get consensus. What are the cold hard facts here? What are the reliable sources? They seem to mostly be from Boston Globe and Boston Herald. I'm wondering if this is a Boston area controversy? Let's be honest here. Warren is pretty big in the news. Seems there's a new story every day about her making some statement. She's kind of a lightning rod. But should wikipedia keep a daily tally of news stories in real time adding them as references? We also want to keep the article short and concise. How often is the cherokee native american issue discussed though? And you have some sources but they don't meet wikipedia standards? What can be done about that then? No use worrying about that. Popish Plot (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a partisan issue this is a legal issue. While many people may tout ancestry there are actual requirements that must be met to tribally identify. Senator Warren an attorney, law professor and politician cannot by-pass legalities on a whim simply because a relative told stories. Enrollment requirements - http://cherokeeregistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=415&Itemid=626 If an individual does not meet enrollment requirements but can actually prove ancestry they can apply for a CDIB (Certificate Degree of Indian Blood) card. Whether a person is issued a card or not is up to the individual tribe, not the person who is claiming ancestry. This requires documentation not family stories and/or supposition. It requires fact and evidence of fact because it is a legal matter. That some individuals may feel that it is a non-issue simply because it directly affects a marginalized community is moot. Native Americans and Native American news sources are not less-than their dominant culture counter parts. To elude to that is showing personal bias which has no place on Wikipedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a legal issue until there's a credible lawsuit targeting her. She's not asking to enroll, as far as I can tell, she gave up years ago. Please remember the point of this section is the controversy, not whether she did something right or wrong. That's not our place to judge, this is an encyclopedia. We describe what happened from all significant perspectives in a neutral tone. ― Padenton|✉   06:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a legal issue. The legal question is: Is she Native American, according to the legal definition of the term? The answer is no. Steeletrap (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a legal issue. That's part of what I was getting at with the sourced Tribal sovereignty in the United States clause. - CorbieV^☊ 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've sourced federal criteria and tribal criteria regarding the issue. I'm rather stunned that you would say it's not a legal issue Padenton, it very clearly is. It doesn't matter if she was claiming status, applying for status or simply making a statement. She does not meet federal or tribal criteria to claim to be Cherokee. No one is judging her, I'm simply providing fact. She claimed and continues to claim to be Cherokee (and at time Delaware) but she has no rights to those claims. Unless you are the BIA or have the ability to rewrite the constitutions of the three Cherokee bands then I'm sorry she violated tribal and federal law. There-in is the controversy - she claimed something she has no right to claim both legally and ethically. It's really quite simple. No one is judging, it is what it is.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl and others: I would remind everyone that our policy on writing about living people generally prohibits making disparaging remarks about living people unless directly sourced to third parties. That applies to talk page discussions as well as to articles. In particular, a claim like "she violated tribal and federal law" should not be made here unless directly associated with references to reliable sources that say as much. If the Cherokee Nation (or some other reasonable authority) accused her of breaking the law, then we can report that accusation with attribution, but we shouldn't be making such accusations on our own. The discussion of negative events should focus on what reliable sources are saying about the issue and provide appropriate citations. When editing articles, it is generally not appropriate for Wikipedians to be drawing their own conclusions about right and wrong (or legal and illegal) but rather to be summarizing what the sources have been saying about the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected this page for three days after observing an entirely unreasonable amount of edit warring in the last 24 hours. I'm hoping that three days will be enough time for some form of consensus to emerge above. Dragons flight (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting, for the record, that the page is protected on The Wrong Version. :) - CorbieV^☊ 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the version that's stood the longest, by far. It's also the most neutral, and this is a BLP. We are not here to make a political impact, there is no rush to reinstate a prejudicial version. If the consensus decides it is appropriate, we will go to it in time. ― Padenton|✉   06:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, you might want to look at the link for The Wrong Version ;) BTW, I could edit it right now but I'm respecting the process. The truncated version is only the "most neutral" from your POV. To others, your preferred version is the "prejudicial" one. It only wound up briefly "stable" after the exact sort of slo-mo edit war and tendentious editing that is going on now. There was no consensus; people just got worn down. To others of us the censored version leaves out the central issue of the controversy, ignores Native sovereignty, is biased towards Warren's versions of events, as well as biased towards a white perspective. If it feels disproportionately long compared to other sections, maybe those other sections should be expanded rather than this one truncated. Warren is certainly notable and deserves a thorough article. - CorbieV^☊ 16:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you could edit, but it would be a clear abuse of administrator as anyone can easily tell that you are an involved-editor in this dispute. ― Padenton|✉   03:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* Padenton, please note that I used emoticons above, to make it abundantly clear I was being humorous. The pedia is serious, this article is serious, but that doesn't mean all editors are humourless. ;) - CorbieV^☊ 18:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article is an example of white supremacy on Wikipedia. I'm certainly not saying that the pro-Warren editors are white supremacists and racists; but the effect of their edits is to shut out (reliable) non-white perspectives from this issue. Steeletrap (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me on this section is racist but I'm saying that they're racist". That's a new one. I like it. Beautiful, elegant. ― Padenton|✉   03:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. The pro-censorship contingent here is not motivate by racism. However, the (indadvertent) effect of their censorship is to promote a whitewashed view of the controversy, and to stamp out out the Native view. Steeletrap (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of effort to draft her onto the 2016 ballot?

I'd like to add a mention of efforts to draft her into the 2016 race. Maybe something like this towards the end of the first section, before the statement saying she denies interest in running:

"MoveOn.org and Democracy for America are supporting efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race. and have created a website, Run Warren Run website for that purpose."

You can omit the website names and link if they make the text too promotional. There are likely other organizations involved, but the NYT article only mentioned those two.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I'd be fine with a small, well-sourced mention of this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes; absolutely must mention this. MSNBC. Opinion in The Atlantic. YoPienso (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a revised version incorporating the references you suggested:

"MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and Ready for Warren are supporting efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America have created a website, Run Warren Run website for that purpose. "Ready For Warren," a group run by Erica Sagrans and advised by Billy Wimsatt has created a website, Facebook page and Twitter account. In an article in The Atlantic, David Frum argued that Warren owes it to the public to run so that she might be in a better position to take their causes to to the nation and that it would be remiss for such a dedicated populist not to do so." A ticket with Warren as vice-president may be a Progressive fall back plan. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article should really have a more efficient reference style. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

One sentence would be appropriate. That line from The Atlantic adds nothing, IMO. And the website, belongs perhaps in a reference, certainly not in the body of the article. Marteau (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the opinion piece in The Atlantic I linked to, it shows that influential media urged Warren to run. I listen to NPR on my daily commute, and heard speculations/encouragements about a possible Warren candidacy on a daily basis. Most editors here are aware Warren has been encouraged to run; it would be wrong to exclude that from the article.

It's an editorial endorsement. There is nothing remarkable about the text or anything about it that any other enthusiastic supporter might say. Also it seems to me who the adviser was, and who runs the group, does not pass the "ten year test" WP:10YT. Really, I'm not seeing a need for mention of a Draft Warren movement to take more than one sentence and three maybe four references. Marteau (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that a sentence, which = "some reference," is sufficient. That seems to be the consensus here. Yay! YoPienso (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Added another ref, tried to make more succinct.

"MoveOn.org and Democracy for America supported efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race, creating a website. "Ready For Warren," created a website, Facebook page, and Twitter account to support drafting Warren. In The Atlantic, David Frum argued that Warren owes it to the public to run in order to be in a better position to take their causes to the nation and that it would be remiss for a dedicated populist not to do so. A ticket with Warren as vice-president was seen as a possible Progressive fall back plan." Smm201`0 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links:"Run Warren Run" website, "Ready for Warren" website Smm201`0 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific suggestion

Trim to this: In the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election, Warren's name has been put forward by liberal Democrats as a possible presidential candidate. However, Warren has stated that she is not running for President in 2016 and has urged Hillary Clinton to run.[92]
Yes, that's two sentences, twice as much as I just agreed to, but after candidates are nominated it can be changed. The fact that she was widely seen as a possible presidential candidate will always be relevant to this BLP. YoPienso (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really accurately describe the process though. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What process? Please explain your comment or write what you think is appropriate. YoPienso (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And again...

"MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and "Ready For Warren" supported efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 US Presidential race through social media campaigns. A ticket with Warren as vice-president was seen as a possible Progressive fall back plan." Smm201`0 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences that include mention of the use of "drafting." Smm201`0 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I think your suggestion is too specific, since not only those three organizations have urged her to run, and the campaign hasn't been only on social media. Not sure we should mention the possibility of veep nomination since it's not actually the "fallback plan" as presented in the British newspaper. I hope others will join here to craft wording that is acceptable to all. YoPienso (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, I hope others will weigh in. "Liberal democrats" can mean a lot of things. The sources spoke about those specific groups and their media campaigns. I like to stick close to the sources. Some may want her to run, but not all are part of the drafting effort. I was trying to think of a succinct way to summarize what the Guardian article said, and ended up going with something close to the title, which was, "Progressives ponder 2016 fallback plan: Elizabeth Warren for vice-president." Smm201`0 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention it, it gets discussed a lot, Hillary Clinton is considered a "consservadem" due to being pro war, supports wall st. Popish Plot (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention that talk pages are for the improvement of the article, and are not forums. WP:NOTFORUM Marteau (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah just discuss the topic like we're doing. Popish Plot (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Native American heritage controversy

I don't see a consensus has been reached on this question. The amount of coverage given to it in the media during the campaign, in Warren's book, and at present require us to cover it with about one paragraph in the campaign section as it is now. But the paragraph needs to be polished into a more summarized, detached style, eliminating the "he said," "she said," "they said" gossipy style.
Bottom line: We have the right quantity of text now, but need to upgrade its quality. YoPienso (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi YoPienso, I agree with you that the section as it currently stands is the right length. This is helpful for the RfC above because you're another editor who supports what is called Version A (to be clear, you only support the amount of material in that section). This will be useful information when it comes time to close the RfC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; the RfC is such a mess I didn't know how to comment there. I'm not saying I support any of the three versions. I'm saying the controversy must be included in the article in as professional and concise a manner as we can muster. YoPienso (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It is too conversational. I think the best approach with this type of thing is to say who made the accusation, what it was, why it mattered and what truth if any there was to it. TFD (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't much care about the length of the section, per se; I agree it needs to be as concisely-written as any other topic on WP. The problem is, we have two main factions here who appear to disagree on what the main, necessary points are. So far all efforts to cover the main points, and then also include the text that is inevitably inserted to counter it, have wound up being rather wordy. If we can get some agreement to include the relevant points, I think there are a number of us here who are skilled enough to word it concisely. Or, as concisely as is possible when there is an issue that is largely unfamiliar to a non-Natives audience. I'm going to attempt some compression. I'm starting from the version that was posted up-page as #Previous version of the Native American heritage controversy section - CorbieV^☊ 20:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. The refs might need a bit more sorting. I made sure every statement is sourced, but there may be extra ones in that long list of them after the first sentence, in particular. - CorbieV^☊ 20:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Native American heritage controversy (round... three?)

In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that Warren had listed herself as a minority in Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories from 1986 to 1995, a database used by law schools to recruit minority professors, despite having no documented minority ancestors. Warren, who is not enrolled in any Native American tribe, defended her self-identification as a racial minority by asserting that she is Cherokee, and later, Delaware, and that she listed herself as such in order to meet others with a similar background. However, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Warren apparently did not attend Native events, and never spoke of her alleged heritage publicly until the controversy arose in the 2012 campaign. Members of Warren's family issued conflicting statements on whether or not they believed their family has distant Native heritage. Native American reporters said they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign, and some members of the Cherokee Nation protested Warren's claim to Cherokee identity, as well as the effect public acceptance of her claims could have on legal issues of tribal sovereignty and the Cherokee's legal rights to determine their own citizenship. Former colleagues and supervisors at universities where she had worked stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring. Warren’s 2014 autobiography devoted a section to the allegations, writing that "Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory." She described the allegations as untrue and hurtful.

References

Support Not the section I want, but far better than the alternative Section A, which is biased and incompetently written. Steeletrap (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course you would support it. Nearly every sentence in there is biased to make Warren look bad. Darx9url (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not information makes someone "look bad" or not is not a metric we use to determine includability or excludability. Verifiably and weight are, and if you wish to discuss that, I'm all for it and that would be appropriate, but not that it makes someone "look bad". Marteau (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. These are sourced reports from a variety of WP:V and WP:RS sources, and then Warren's response to the reports is included. Whether the facts are "good" or "bad" is solely a matter of personal interpretation. Wikipedia is not censored based on fear of how the facts make someone look. - CorbieV^☊ 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment/Question Does this style of concensus building really work? Where editors are asked to up or down entire sections about otherwise allowed topics? I ask that honestly because I have never seen it succeed (but then again my participation here has been somewhat limited so what do I know). What I have seen work is, once a topic in general has concensus for inclusion (and this one does) that the details are hashed out by discussing a sentence or a handful of sentences as need be, not entire sections of non-trivial length. Marteau (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we've tried that some. Feel free to have at it. :) - CorbieV^☊ 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum. :) Popish Plot (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: ludicrous and partisan; if this were published, it would embarrass Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[redacted] :[16] - CorbieV^☊ 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense -- deplorable, despicable, and probably sanctionable. I said nothing of the sort. If anyone had any doubts that you are not simply trolling, this should put them to rest. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark, your attitude toward Corbie and Native American perspectives generally is disrespectful. Please reconsider your approach to these issues, and how it might be coloring your perception of Warren's claim to be a racial minority on employment-recruitment forms. Steeletrap (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This comment was a bit over the line, so I've removed it. If editors disagree about the appropriateness and/or reliability of a source, please engage in civil discussion about it here or WP:RSN. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't see this portion of the article being considered biased in one form or another. It has devolved into something that is rather shocking. Reputable news sources are being labelled as biased simply because it is an indigenous owned news outlet. If editors are allowed to be obviously biased when it comes to race (thinking that they, not the indigenous people are the end all decider) then Wikipedia is seriously flawed.Indigenous girl (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They are biased. As is any news source that writes about an issue for purposes other than an objective look at the news. If it was not biased, many other sources would be reporting the same. That's not to say it's unreliable as a whole, or that the information in the article is unreliable, but we need multiple sources, we can't just synthesize the claims a few individual sources make alone, especially when a source serves a specific population resulting in a possible conflict of interest, and especially when the claims are negative of a BLP. Also, to be clear, we don't exclude people from editing on a topic because of assumptions we have made about their race or ethnicity. ― Padenton|✉   19:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Corbie was unfairly censored yet it's okay for an admin to personally attack me. Articles that support what Senator Warren did are biased. Articles that oppose what she did are biased. 72.79.214.55 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, yet again: This has little difference from the above ridiculous paragraphs you have suggested that were also shut down, and contains the same exact problems that were mentioned there. I am getting tired of the repeated inappropriate creation of new talk discussions on the topic when the old discussion was perfectly suitable to continue the discussion. ― Padenton|✉   17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:I think it doesn't matter if it is negative or positive if it has a reliable source. But what else comes in to play here? No need for wikipedia to deny a fact but there are policies about having a neutral point of view, if we give controversy and criticism too much weight on this BLP we'd being going against wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight So what is the prominence of the position that Elizabeth Warren had a native american controversy? I notice the washington post article, while a reliable source, supports Warren and gives her opponent in 2012, Scott Brown, 2 pinnochios meaning he lied. The Time magazine source says Scott Brown was wrong to bring this up. So we do have reliable sources but they are downplaying this scandal, in effect, reliable sources saying it is not notable. Does that mean give this a lot of weight? Meaning devote several paragraphs to it and give it it's own section in this wikipedia article? I don't believe so. I'd say a sentence or two at most. I think this is also related to a larger debate within wikipedia. Is wikipedia liberally biased? Maybe, maybe so, I have no idea really, but if it is, I see there are places to debate that other than here, I know politics by itself is just considered a controversial topic. Popish Plot (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm with Mark here; I think this process is mostly making you guys look foolish. Virtually every proposed version seems well over the line of undue weight and there is scant evidence of ongoing biographical relevance; this is most properly treated as a political talking point from the 2012 Senate race. The editorial motivations here appear clearly partisan, judging by many of the talkpage posts and by transparent edits like this one (fixed link) removing well-sourced material (from a reputable fact-checker, no less!) That said, I'm under no illusions about Wikipedia's ability to cover political talking points in an encyclopedic fashion, so you guys should do what you like. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am a person of the Left, as all my history illustrates. To associate my edits on this page with attempts to demonize Trayvon Martin is disingenuous. The other editors who are siding with me on this are Native Americans concerned with issues of tribal sovereignty. It's disappointing to see editors such as yourself--and you're someone I generally respect--advocating censorship of this issue for political reasons. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your claim to be a 'person of the left' is not a relevant argument for support of a revision. None of our personal political views matter here. But being on the left does not mean that you can't be negatively partisan of someone that is also "on the left". That being said, I am not sure I understand the point MastCell is making with that link...copy/paste mistake? Could you correct or elaborate please? ― Padenton|✉   18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's possible someone on the left supports Hillary Clinton moreso than Elizabeth Warren so therefore want to give undue weight to a minor criticism Warren received. But I think it doesn't matter. What if someone is far right, says so on their userpage, has a history of editting wikipedia to make far right politicians look good. None of that would matter. If they came to this page with reliable sources and showed the criticism should have due weight, we would have to sit down and take notice and admit he's right. But I just don't see the reason here to give the native american controversy so much weight. It just needs a sentence or two. And that has nothing to do with trying to push a liberal or conservative point of view. Hey. Are there more reliable sources we are missing here that would show weight? If so please show them. Popish Plot (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Shoot, my bad with the link; it was a copy-paste error and I've corrected it. Steeletrap, I was probably overly harsh in my assessment, or at least my wording, so I apologize for that. At the same time, I don't think of this as an issue of "censorship" (and when people start talking about censorship, it's usually a sign that discussion has broken down). This incident is notable and deserves mention, but it's a matter of appropriate weight. It's really only relevant to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, and should be covered there. I suppose a brief mention here would be reasonable as well, but to create a separate section which dwarfs much of the other, more relevant biographical content seems inappropriate to me. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) I still have yet to see how this is an issue of tribal sovereignty. My sympathy for Native Americans who endured atrocities too numerous to list here (and various other groups who have endured similar throughout history) does not affect the editing of an article on Wikipedia, especially a BLP, and individual events should not be blown out of the proportion of their impact. That would be tabloid journalism. I also note that I see none of those victims here. What happened here? Elizabeth Warren (who is now a prominent politician) listed herself as a minority, and for a time identified as a minority, though since then (and since before it became public knowledge), she has not. No one in any WP:RS has made a credible claim that she benefited from the listing in any way. She identified herself as having Cherokee heritage, that is clear. But she never claimed membership to any tribe, nor claimed any official status. A small handful of Cherokee or other Native Americans do not get to choose who has family history or not. That's not what 'tribal sovereignty' is. This is an ethnicity, not a high school clique "hey we're in it and you can't join us nya nya nya". This is people trying to learn more about where they come from and how their ancestors lived, and you have no right to tell her she can't. Whether she's correct or incorrect isn't our call to make, and if she is incorrect, it has no effect on anyone but herself. [redacted]. And since you keep whining that anyone disagreeing with you is 'white-washing' or 'pushing a white supremacist version of the article', let me assure you: as a Jew, I would absolutely still call someone out if they were representing the Jewish people in the same way.

WP:BLP is clear that we must write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." ― Padenton|✉   19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't engage in that kind of namecalling. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk)

You are correct: I crossed the line there. I apologize. ― Padenton|✉   23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow.Just wow. Senator Warren made a claim that she has yet been able to prove. If you somebody can provide me with something to substantiate her claim I would appreciate it. Clearly there is little understanding of sovereignty and that's okay. Disappointing but okay. It's more than clear that 'unbiased' is in the eye of the beholder and that the relevancy of the issue is the collective opinion of the dominant culture. I find it highly unnecessary however to be told that I'm dishonoring my culture. Far from it. My ancestors and contemporary Elders value honesty and integrity.72.79.214.55 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

When someone marks down their race in some form, are they asked to prove it? Is a DNA test done? No. Maybe that's wrong but nothing we can do about it. It comes down to the reliable sources. You say she made a claim and she hasn't proven it. Ok. Is that the basic fact here? Let's say that, should just take one sentence. Based on wikipedia guidelines on undue weight it doesn't warrant more than that. Let's also compare this to other prominent politicians. Most don't show any criticisms politicians have gotten! Now I disagree with that and have some opinions as to why that is so but those opinions aren't relevant here nor do I have reliable sources to back em up, so no need for me to mention them. Popish Plot (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They are not asked to "prove it" because it is assumed that either 1) they either look like a racial minority or 2) one of their parents or grandparents clearly looks like a racial minority. Warren's entire family, going back generations, looks lily-white. She had no reasonable basis for claiming to be a racial minority, even if she believed she was technically 1/32nd Native American. If she took a DNA test and it said she was 1/32nd black, I don't expect that she would check that box on the next job application she filled out. She just got away with checking Native American because Natives don't have much of a voice in our society--a state of affairs which Wikipedia is perpetuating through this discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? You'd need to show a reliable source showing that is what happens, that someone just does an eye test. And how do you know what her entire family looks like, going back generations? I think Liz Warren clearly has native american features. For both of us though it'd be an opinion, no reliable source to back it up. This does remind me of the birthers thing with Obama. Where is the proof of where he was born? I don't know and you can't even do a dna test for that kind of thing. Popish Plot (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've posted links previously to the federal definition of Native American and what the three Cherokee bands require for somebody to be considered Cherokee. It has nothing at all to do with what a person looks like. It has everything to do with that individuals ability to either enroll or show actual decendancy. It is far more complicated than simply self-declared ethnicity. I'm really confused as to why most editors on this page refuse to see that. I never said a word about white washing or white supremacy. I actually have no problem with this particular sectioned being shortened. What I do take issue with is people who are not from Cherokee community or Native American community in general stating that it is a non-issue. It sets a precedent that could in fact have a negative impact on federal law and sovereignty (sovereignty meaning the specific Nation deciding who is of that Nation). Paydenton, your analogy of being Jewish doesn't apply. Being Jewish doesn't require citizenship. (Also, apologies for my previous comments that only showed my IP. I was on my Kindle, not sure why that happened) Indigenous girl (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment wasn't entirely directed at you, but also towards CorbieVreccan and Steeletrap. I believe it was Steeletrap that made the whitewashing and white supremacy claims. I'm not sure I see how this precedent could have a negative impact on federal law and sovereignty, can you elaborate? I agree that all nations have the authority to choose who is of that nation. But that is more a question of citizenship, not heritage. For example, someone whose ancestors are German, but have been in the US for generations, they can still identify as German, but their application for German citizenship would still require them to go through the full naturalization process that any non-German would need to go through. ― Padenton|✉   23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now many colleges and universities require that an individual either fill out an additional 'heritage form' (Dartmouth is an example) or present documentation supporting ones claims. If that were to be eliminated it would adversely affect the actual indigenous population when it comes to federal funding. Schools that historically have a strong Native population would be financially impacted. States already violate constitutional law(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) by recognizing new tribes so it's not a far stretch to see federal guidelines as to who is or is not Native American violated.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the group of cherokees say that only 3 tribes can be recognized cherokee, if they are federally recognized. http://www.cherokeesdemandtruth.com/p/about-us.html Who is the one to make the rule for wikipedia? I saw on a list of "lamest edit wars" they have many disagreements about what particular famous people's ethnicity is. I'm surprised they call that lame because it seems like it could be offensive. Many see this as a not a big deal because Warren looks kind of native american, at least it's plausible she's 1/32 native american anyway. If you are worried about sovereignty, that seems like a bigger issue than this page, and I don't think it would set a precedent. Well who knows with the supreme court, they might try to use wikipedia as precedent to take native american rights but if that happens we'll have worse problems than this page. In any event I think we're actually on the same page here, in that we agree this is a notable scandal for Warren but it doesn't need to take up too big a chunk of this page.Popish Plot (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish, you are making the same irrelevant speculations over and over again, which is a waste of your time and ours. We are not here to speculate on people's citizenship and nationality based on something irrelevant like physical appearance. Wikipedia does not decide who is a citizen of France, or Puerto Rico, or Italy. We do not look at someone's features and declare them, say, Jewish. It's actually rather offensive to keep doing this, whether it's noses or cheekbones. We cite sources to show what reliable sources have said about someone's citizenship, and if needed for people to understand what that means, we cite what the standards are of those nations (though this is generally done in the wikilinked articles on those Nations). That you keep repeating your personal speculations demonstrates that you either don't understand that Native American Nations are sovereign, and get to decide who is and isn't a citizen - just like any Nation - or you are just trying to waste time here. No Native nation claims Warren. She's not even a member of a fake tribe (yes, they exist) or heritage club. Before you go off on me calling fake tribes fake - again, it's not my call, or yours, it's the Nations' call, and a matter of tribal law that's been established over hundreds of years or longer. More to the point, this is not the place to discus whether or not you believe Warren has distant heritage. The issue here is how much space and detail, and which details, to devote to this controversy as it has affected her, her reputation and political career. We have cited the sources about the controversy and why it is relevant. Obviously some inclusion of primary sources on this page have been needed, solely to explain what most editors on WP either don't understand or want left out of the article for some other reason. Let's stop the offensive ethnic speculations already, that was settled years ago and at this point it's just derailment. This page is for improving the article. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion here is because in America, issues of citizenship and ethnicity are often muddled. Many, say, Irish-Americans will just say, "I'm Irish." To Americans, this may just mean "I have Irish heritage; in the 1800's some of my ancestors came to the US from Ireland." To others it means, "I am an Irish citizen, born and raised in Ireland and have an Irish passport." Editors need to be clear on how these meanings vary, and not try to further muddle them. If you don't know the difference, please get up to speed. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to bring us back on topic. I think your bolded sentence outlines the key issue: how much weight to attach. I guess from my point of view, it's not clear that this controversy has had much effect on her reputation or political career. After all, the issue didn't really "stick" as a political attack; she went on to defeat Scott Brown decisively in the 2012 Senate election, and her standing as a popular spokesperson for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party doesn't seem to have suffered. If anything, she is much more prominent than the average first-term Senator, so it's hard to make the claim that her political career is suffering, or has suffered, in any measurable way as a result of this controversy. Likewise, there is virtually no serious ongoing coverage of the issue; the existing coverage is almost all in the context of the 2012 Senate race, which is why I think that a huge standalone section in her biography is grossly undue weight. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell:, Do you have any thoughts on how to resolve the ongoing issue of this being a strongly-held but minority viewpoint - both in the world at large and on WP? The !votes on WP, and the mainstream coverage, will by nature focus on what the majority thinks is most important. And maybe all WP can do is go along with that. Aside from the very small WP:Countering systemic bias, and WP Indigenous, there really isn't a way to effectively address these issues on the 'pedia, as far as I know. As I mentioned above, the "stable" version happened from majority rule and attrition/fatigue. Which is why so many minorities give up on the 'pedia. This is both a general issue with WP, but is being played out on this article. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are not going to put how this affects sovereignty in this article, maybe we could decide where to put that. I still think a brief mention as to *why* the protests were happening makes sense. As it is, I think non-Natives read this and assume, "oh, you can't explore your distant genealogy, you can't talk about your family stories?" when that wasn't the reason for the protests at all. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Corbie I don't mean to make speculations I was just giving a possible explanation as to why reliable sources aren't considering this further and the list of lame edit wars shows many other wikipedians don't care about ethnicity and make fun of those who do. I agree it's offensive that people don't care but what can we do here? I agree you have shown sources showing it was relevant but the question is undue weight. This seems like it was important for that 2012 election with Scott Brown but hasn't been mentioned since. Some want Warren to run for president but she says she doesn't want to. I wonder why. Is it because she knows this scandal would come back and keep her from winning? That is pure speculation and can't be proven so no sense worrying about it. What do you want this wiki article to say, if not the current version? You say editors need to be clear about meanings. How about this. If Elizabeth Warren wanted to prove her 1/32nd cherokee heritage, how would she go about doing so? Is it impossible to do so? If so I'd say the article should mention that to be fair. Popish Plot (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered, many times over Popish Plot. Read the talk page, read the links, read the sources. Your refusal to do so is insulting to the dedicated editors who have posted about this already. Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article topic. Your continued posting of this has entered the realm of disruptive editing. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get away from the topic of native american soverignity, because this isn't the battleground for that, and to the topic of elizabeth warren's native american controversy. You had said you didn't care about the length of the controversy section. Do you agree it could be shortened from the current version? What if it was two sentences? What do you think they should be. Why do you think this has so much weight? You appear to be getting mad. Perhaps a cooling off period is in order? Popish Plot (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)